PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eNF5e.3083$yq6.2247@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "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_.

No, I made the paladin follow his honor code. The reasonable application of
this honor code would be to prevent the slaughter of helpless prisoners.
The outcome would likely be a fight between party members and certain
members not getting their way, hopefully the paladin's way wins the day.

--
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?)

"U.P.:up" <majelix@gehennom.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd5eele.kdh.majelix@orcus.gehennom.net...
> 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.

Smiting the wicked in the midst of their wickedness, no problem. Smiting
the wicked after they've laid down their arms and surrendered to you, that's
pretty much out.

--
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?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:crte51daev3l8j3sjc4k7ro40ljshglael@4ax.com...
> >It's not just about evil, it's also about what is legal(the law vs chaos
> >alignment axis). Torture is "against the law" where we were, and we were
in
> >the paladin's home country.
>
> The Law/Chaos axis has nothing to do with what is and is not legal.

?????
The two axis deal with adherence to laws, and adherence to morals. I'm no
"alignment lawyer" of course, but the broad strokes are fairly easy to
paint.

As such, if an act were against the law, a lawful person would
(theoretically) not do it, or at least strive not to do it.

> Slapping an orc (or anyone else except maybe a child) around is not what I
> would even consider torture anyway.
>
> Stripping a paladin of his powers over this incident is wrong.

Actually the torture is less of a problem, because the orc was still alive
at the end of it. The real problem was gravity of the killing of a helpless
prisoner, combined with the proximity in time of the two events(literally
one after the other). I didn't have time to proverbially slap his wrist for
allowing the torture before he was on to letting prisoners be 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?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:08:28 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:cngd51teraaml360e9uldfobprorbg8hf6@4ax.com...
>> No, I haven't. Why? Because it's a cruelly high standard that nobody could
>> meet. You may as well be rid of the class entirely. Celestials operate
>> without a hint of evil...Paladins are just as fallible as any mortal, and
>> moral questions don't always have black&white answers. Expecting a paladin
>> to come up with a perfect solution when there isn't one is your problem,
>> not the paladin's.
>
>No, I expect the paladin to do his mortal best, and when he fails, to accept
>the decree of the powers that be who inevitably strip him of his special
>powers until some atonement is made.

The fact that you say "when" he fails and not "if" he fails bespeaks to
your belief in Lawful Stupid. If it were not humanly possible to be a
paladin, then the class wouldn't even exist in the first place.

>Living up to the paladin code of conduct is very specifically stated as
>something that is very difficult to do, that not many can live up to the
>requirements. It should come as no surprise that paladins fall from grace
>for even the most minor of infractions.

If they are falling from grace for the most minor of infractions, that is
solely on the head of the DM. No deity would even bother with such a
ridiculous system, which would have their chosen holy warriors spending
half their time atoning rather than doing their job because they forgot to
say "Thank you" when the bar wench dropped off the platter of ales.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:55:25 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:x8adneXA3qD3XsvfRVn-1A@comcast.com...

>> of many weapons knows the relative effectiveness of his tools. Secondly,
>> there is no "the most effective weapon" in 3E/3.5E; different weapons are
>> more effective in different situations. Damage amount, type of damage,
>
>Yes, and for the situation of "a barbarian in a toe-to-toe slugfest", is
>there a better weapon, overall, than the great sword, from a game mechanics
>perspective? No?

Yes. The Greataxe is another fine weapon. It's improved critical damage
offsetting the relative rarity of getting the criticals in the first place.
I've seen barbarian builds that did fearsome things with a longspear or
halberd (reach is evil if you know how to use it). Then there are the ones
who use double weapons...

One character I saw was a slightly modded barbarian where the rage ability
was turned into a focused concentration, the character used a mighty
composite longbow that he couldn't even draw without raging, but did
sickening damage when "raged" and making full use of his missile weapon
attacks/feats.

> Didn't think

We know.

 

[Guest]

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

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

>"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's not, but that you don't agree with sensible rules is hardly a
revelation.

> 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.

Uh..no. You could perhaps pull that off ONCE, but since atonement comes
directly from a deity, the second such attempt would more than likely
result in lightning bolts from the heavens. That's if you could even pull
it off once...if you aren't truely remorseful, the god in question is going
to be able to tell.

> 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.

That nobody is beyond redemption is a major theme to a lot of good-oriented
philosophies. There are limits though, you can't just flip your paladinhood
on and off like a lightswitch with the atone spell whenever your code
becomes inconvenient.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:19:46 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:42568b19@clear.net.nz...

>> > and tried to defeat evil whenever realistically possible.
>>
>> That's one of them meaningless terms, but I think I get the
>> picture; stop the bad guys doing bad things.
>
>That's the picture, more or less. No, I don't expect paladins to do STUPID
>things, but I expect them to "do their best".

Stop lying, Jeff. You hold paladins to an impossibly high standard, going
*FAR* beyond what would be considered "do your best", which *is* a
realistic standard for Paladins to attain.

Paladins are held to a higher standard than ordinary LG characters are, but
that doesn't mean they must be utterly flawless or suffer the wrath.

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news😱2ue5111rktafpfbicaobvcd4i2c6kf2m3@4ax.com...
> >That's the picture, more or less. No, I don't expect paladins to do
STUPID
> >things, but I expect them to "do their best".
>
> Stop lying, Jeff. You hold paladins to an impossibly high standard, going
> *FAR* beyond what would be considered "do your best", which *is* a
> realistic standard for Paladins to attain.

The thing is, what is "their best" is often FAR from what they actually do.
A person, a typical person, will do "what he needs to do to get by". This
is NOT good enough for a paladin, in our campaign. They need to strive at
all times to do their *BEST*, not what is enough to subsist. This makes the
character, in my opinion, all but unplayable in ANYTHING but an all LG
aligned party, which we don't and never would have.

Your opinion of how paladins are to be played obviously differs from mine,
and that's fine, let's just say that I'm glad we aren't in the same
campaign.

> Paladins are held to a higher standard than ordinary LG characters are,
but
> that doesn't mean they must be utterly flawless or suffer the wrath.

Actually, it basically does. The path of a paladin, in our campaign, is one
of very strict guidelines, and yes, straying from those guidelines incurs
pretty harsh repercussions.

--
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?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:dfgd5112vj4lr8e3fq4aoihm092b3vlv1v@4ax.com...

>>>>Do you think people with Epic level pickpocketing skill never use it?
>>>
>>> They do, but not on level 5 nobodies.
>>
>>Why not? Just because it's easy doesn't mean they'll refuse to do it.
>
> The same reason gold medal winning weightlifters don't bench press 20
> pounds...it isn't worth the bother.



What, they have other people pick up things for them?




Picking every pocket they run across
> would leave them with staggering piles of valueless garbage. Why PP a
> million copper from a city of peasants when you can nab an artifact from a
> demigod?


Because you enjoy it? Because you practice constantly on whatever's around,
and demigods are scarce?




>>> Epic level pickpockets pick epic
>>> level pockets.
>>
>>Your 20th level fighter wouldn't EVER attack a lone kobold?
>
> Non-sequitor....and in multiple ways.


If a 20th level fighter will attack a lone kobold, then an epic level
pickpocket will pick a nobody's pocket.


>

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wpednZGUc6eW4crfRVn-qg@comcast.com...
> 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)??

What does this have to do with his roleplaying? Hmm?

<shakes head sadly>

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c4-dnZmhF6is4srfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> 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

*All* the skills of a fighter? Fasc-in-ating...

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qoO5e.3270$yq6.853@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ZJ-dnZnY4LkWA8rfRVn-1w@comcast.com...
> > > The Law/Chaos axis has nothing to do with what is and is not legal.
> >
> > ?????
> > The two axis deal with adherence to laws, and adherence to morals. I'm
no
> > "alignment lawyer" of course, but the broad strokes are fairly easy to
> paint.
>
> <points>
> <laughs>
> Oh, my *gods*. Have you even *read* the 2nd edition rulebooks, or
their
> expansion on alignment philosophies such as are found in planescape?

I hope you had fun stroking yourself.

In broad strokes, the law vs chaos axis can be summarized by an individual's
general conformity to society's expectations, in other words, the laws.
Likewise, in broad strokes, the good vs evil is about individual morality,
generally, are you looking for ways to do good, or ways to do evil.

As predicted, you pulled out the "alignment nazi handbook" and proceeded to
dictate to me how wrong I was. Fine by me. I'm not an alignment nazi,
apparantly you are. Put bluntly, every person I've ever played with agrees
on the broad strokes I've laid out now twice. If I were to try to explain
the alignment system to a child, I would do it as above.

Unfortunately, you're a prick, so it doesn't matter what I say, I'm wrong,
and that's fine by me. Enjoy your moment in the sun. I capitulate to you
and your brilliance. I am wrong. You are right. Hear that? You are
right. Totally 100% absolutely and otherwise totally correct in every way.
I'm sure a good lot of gloating is in order for having gotten me to admit my
utter incompetance and your steadfast brilliance, so fire away, I wouldn't
want to miss it.

Seriously, have a ball, I'm fully ready to be referred to as a totally
incompetant doorknob, incapable of even drawing a breath without someone
reminding me to do it. Come on, let me have it, yes, I'm simpering and
drooling as we speak, that's just entirely how retarded I am. What's that?
Why yes, I am ugly, and, to put the cherry on top, my mother DOES dress me
funny. Yes, I ride the short bus to school, Yes, I *do* wear a helmet, and
yes, I am wearing it right now, so when I try to decipher the brilliance of
your scathing retort, I won't hurt myself, writhing on the floor in the
foamy, frothy ecstacy that is my epileptic siezure of having to use my brain
beyond it's capacity.

Ready when you are...

--
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:
> "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.

Shame that.

I played a 'failed' paladin name Vince once. He was no longer a
paladin, just a fighter, but Vince still tried his best to live a
Paladin's Life. He just felt that his past trangressions were too
severe to even seek atonement.

If the campaign hadn't ended due to external factors (common problem,
eh?) around level 6, the DM said I'd been doing such a good job, that
the other players had come to him asking him to put together some
scenario by which Vince's God would re-annoint him a Paladin.

Maybe you wouldn't have agreed I did well enough playing a Paladin. I
know a lot of people in this newsgroup would characterize my (Vince's)
version of Paladinic action as Lawful Stupid. Them's the breaks.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> writes:

> "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.

That still does not qualify for 'Good' per the alignment rules. Doing
this in a good cause may qualify it for Neutral though.

I say my point stands. The acts of your players do not qualify as
Chaotic *Good*. Whether the acts deviate far enough from 'Good' to
force an alignment change to be marked on the character sheets is
another matter. I would have expressed *serious* doubts to my players
if they indicated such a course of action.

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?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> writes:

> "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)??

You are strawmanning.

David Serhienko said that the Fighter player was *not* such a
powergamer as compared to the Barbarian. That still does not say how
much of a powergamer the Barbarian player is. And more importantly, it
is not *EXPLICITLY* stated, as you say. It is *IMPLICITLY*
stated. Quite a difference.

Really Jeff, don't you see that this is why scorn is heaped upon you?

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:87psx446ua.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > "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)??
>
> You are strawmanning.
>
> David Serhienko said that the Fighter player was *not* such a
> powergamer as compared to the Barbarian. That still does not say how
> much of a powergamer the Barbarian player is. And more importantly, it
> is not *EXPLICITLY* stated, as you say. It is *IMPLICITLY*
> stated. Quite a difference.
>
> Really Jeff, don't you see that this is why scorn is heaped upon you?

From Message-ID: <115bkd4eohqc883@corp.supernews.com>
you can find the whole post with that ID, if you like.
===quote===
2 - the barb's player is a Diablo-trained min-maxer

===quote===

I'd say that's pretty clearly an EXPLICIT statement that the barbarian
player is a diablo trained min maxer. I may have paraphrased his statement
because I didn't have the precise wording at my fingertips, but he very
clearly explicitly stated that. Maybe I'm just sitting here reading things
into that statement, I don't know, it's crazy.


And no, I have to say honestly that the level of scorn directed towards me
is unwarranted most of the time. There are times when I just want to have a
conversation, but the anal-retentive proof nazis demand that everything be
precise and accurate 100% of the time, and I don't much care to play that
game, and about 99% of *ALL* of the "scorn" that is directed towards me is
from about 3 posters, precisely those anal retentive proof nazis I was
referring to previously.

On a side note, we can expect that at least one of those anal-nazis will
respond to tell me how much of an idiot I am for making this post. Let's
just say I'll be surprised if one of them doesn't.

--
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?)

Suddenly, Jeff Goslin, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the darkness
and exclaimed:

> 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)??

The Diablo part is right, but the OP explicitly said this player had never
played D&D before. The OP even suggested the Barb to him because it's easy
to play for a beginner.

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it's us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/

 

[Guest]

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

"Billy Yank" <billyUSCOREyank@verizonDOT.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9633584E083A1billyyanknetzeronet@199.45.49.11...
> The Diablo part is right, but the OP explicitly said this player had never
> played D&D before. The OP even suggested the Barb to him because it's
easy
> to play for a beginner.

No, that's the player of the fighter. The fighter player didn't understand
the game at all(a newbie), and the resulting build was less than optimal.
The player of the barbarian made such an optimal character that he is
outshining everyone else, he knows what he's doing, and it's been stated
very clearly that he does, both in Diablo, and D&D(earlier in the thread,
look it up if you feel inclined).

--
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
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > "Jeff Goslin" wrote
> > > "David Johnston" wrote
>
> > > > 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,

Unless he trusted his fellow party members.

> whatever proper might happen to be according to
> the law of the land and the (good) morality of the paladin.

What does the "law of the land have to do with this at all?

> 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.

What if the law of the land said "All Paladins must turn them selves over to
the EVIL TEMPLE for immediate sacrifice"?


> In this instance, the paladin had only one realistic choice: tie them up
> and leave them there.

Lawful Stupid.

> He couldn't let them go(they would warn their
> superiors too quickly),

So far so good..

>he couldn't kill them(they were surrendering to
> him),

So?

>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.

So killing them himself is wrong, but leaving them helpless to be killed by
wandering beasts or to slowly starve is ok?


John

 

[Guest]

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

"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:LyQ5e.57875$cg1.556@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > A properly played paladin should have stuck around to ensure the
"proper"
> > treatment of his prisoners,
>
> Unless he trusted his fellow party members.

He *heard* what they were about to do, he *SAW* them preparing. He did an
about face and left. It wasn't about trust, he knew it was going to happen,
bottom line.

> > 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.
>
> What if the law of the land said "All Paladins must turn them selves over
to
> the EVIL TEMPLE for immediate sacrifice"?

The paladins better not venture there. 😉 There are some opportunities to
screw with paladins, but their sense of right and wrong is fairly well
attuned, and that's what wins the day.

> So killing them himself is wrong, but leaving them helpless to be killed
by
> wandering beasts or to slowly starve is ok?

I don't know of an able bodied person who is NOT able to get out of simple
binds given enough time and nobody to stop you. They would likely be out of
the ropes within an hour, wait a few minutes to make sure they are gone,
then start working the ropes. It wouldn't take too long.

--
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:
> "John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:LyQ5e.57875$cg1.556@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>>A properly played paladin should have stuck around to ensure the
>
> "proper"
>
>>>treatment of his prisoners,
>>
>>Unless he trusted his fellow party members.
>
>
> He *heard* what they were about to do, he *SAW* them preparing. He did an
> about face and left. It wasn't about trust, he knew it was going to happen,
> bottom line.

If this situation were presented to Vince, my failed Paladin PC, his
thinking would have gone like this:

This group of people, my friends, are about to do something which is not
only illegal, but immoral. Taking part would certainly be a direct
violation of my Code.

Not stopping them would be a possible violation of my Code. If I let
them do it, and pretend it never happened, I am just as complicit in the
act as if I had taken part. Can't let THAT happen. If I let them do
it, I'd better have a good reason.

Let's say they torture this prisoner, and get information which will be
for the greater good? Well, can't assume that, gotta assume that they
won't. Unles my God tells me otherwise, the ends can't justify the
means. Ok, so I can't handle it this way.

What if I leave? I can't really come back, unless I personally see to
it that THEY are punished for their acts. WIll I be able to do it? If
not, then all I've done is gotten myself killed, which means I can't aid
the Right and True Way, and with their mystic abilities, they'll heal up
as if I never laid down any smack at all.

If I can accomplish a punishment, then I'll do so. After that, I have
to ask myself, are they, even in their torturing ways, a force for Good
overall? If so, the thing to do is to admonish them for their acts,
leave the party, and take the attonement for their vile act upon myself,
to ensure that at least ONE person responsible takes true attonement.

If not, then they have become criminals, and I must resign the party as
a member, and attempt to bring justice to them, to the degree that the
Lord of Justice informs me they are, individually and severally, in need
of such.

Failing a hint from god, I'll have to guess.

This is, again, gonna be unfun. I hate bounty hunting.

*sigh*

"Hey, guys. Don't do it. If you do, I'm gonna have to hurt you more
than you hurt that Orc. Yes, I know that sounds dumb to you.
Seriously, guys, you know how much I hate having to arrest and jail
friends."

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> writes:

> "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> news:87psx446ua.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
>> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>> > "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)??
>>
>> You are strawmanning.
>>
>> David Serhienko said that the Fighter player was *not* such a
>> powergamer as compared to the Barbarian. That still does not say how
>> much of a powergamer the Barbarian player is. And more importantly, it
>> is not *EXPLICITLY* stated, as you say. It is *IMPLICITLY*
>> stated. Quite a difference.
>>
>> Really Jeff, don't you see that this is why scorn is heaped upon you?
>
> From Message-ID: <115bkd4eohqc883@corp.supernews.com>
> you can find the whole post with that ID, if you like.
> ===quote===
> 2 - the barb's player is a Diablo-trained min-maxer
>
> ===quote===
>
> I'd say that's pretty clearly an EXPLICIT statement that the barbarian
> player is a diablo trained min maxer. I may have paraphrased his statement
> because I didn't have the precise wording at my fingertips,
>
But once challenged, you suddenly do have the wording at your
fingertips. That makes you *lazy*.

I retract my statement partially. It is *explicitly* stated that the
Bar player is a min-maxer. It is still not *explicitly* stated that
the Bar player is a powergamer (min-maxing is not quite the same as
powergaming), neither is it explicitly stated that he spent years at
Diablo playing. It is *implicitly* stated though.
>
> And no, I have to say honestly that the level of scorn directed towards me
> is unwarranted most of the time. There are times when I just want to have a
> conversation, but the anal-retentive proof nazis demand that everything be
> precise and accurate 100% of the time,

All I demand is that your language is understandable 100% of the
time. Your highly idiosyncratic interpretations of commonly-used terms
makes communication almost impossible.

Word *do* have meanings you know. It is not anal-retentive to ask if
you would stick by the accepted meaning, or explicitly explain your
personal interpretation *up front*.

> and I don't much care to play that game, and about 99% of *ALL* of
> the "scorn" that is directed towards me is from about 3 posters,
> precisely those anal retentive proof nazis I was referring to
> previously.
>
If I were to count them and find more than three, you'd call me
anal-retentive.

> On a side note, we can expect that at least one of those anal-nazis will
> respond to tell me how much of an idiot I am for making this post. Let's
> just say I'll be surprised if one of them doesn't.

Yeah right. You're begging the question.

You deserve *every* bit of abuse you get here.

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:87fyy03zuc.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
> > From Message-ID: <115bkd4eohqc883@corp.supernews.com>
> > you can find the whole post with that ID, if you like.
> > ===quote===
> > 2 - the barb's player is a Diablo-trained min-maxer
> >
> > ===quote===
> >
> > I'd say that's pretty clearly an EXPLICIT statement that the barbarian
> > player is a diablo trained min maxer. I may have paraphrased his
statement
> > because I didn't have the precise wording at my fingertips,
> >
> But once challenged, you suddenly do have the wording at your
> fingertips. That makes you *lazy*.

Fully admitted. I am lazy. But I'm not the only lazy sod, you didn't even
have the decency to confirm your statement before making it.

I didn't respond to the guy's post originally because I had nothing to add
to what he said, I just assumed, perhaps stupidly, that you would actually
READ what he wrote.

> I retract my statement partially. It is *explicitly* stated that the
> Bar player is a min-maxer. It is still not *explicitly* stated that
> the Bar player is a powergamer (min-maxing is not quite the same as
> powergaming), neither is it explicitly stated that he spent years at
> Diablo playing. It is *implicitly* stated though.

And due to my laziness, I'm not going to go through the thread and find it
for you, but it is explicitly stated in other posts of his, years of Diablo
playing, years of D&D.

And your definition twisting aside, min-maxing is considered a subset of
power gaming, a specific implementation of it, if you will.

> All I demand is that your language is understandable 100% of the
> time. Your highly idiosyncratic interpretations of commonly-used terms
> makes communication almost impossible.

You better get used to it, it's called "conversation". Words are subject to
interpretation, we're not lawyers, here, chief, we're just having a chat.

> Word *do* have meanings you know. It is not anal-retentive to ask if
> you would stick by the accepted meaning, or explicitly explain your
> personal interpretation *up front*.

There is no such thing as "the accepted meaning". I have pulled DICTIONARY
definitions that the anal retentive dictionary freaks can't agree on. They
tell me that my definition is wrong, yet it's pulled from the dictionary. I
don't know what to tell you about that, except that words are subject to
interpretation. To say otherwise is to shutter yourself to reality.

> If I were to count them and find more than three, you'd call me
> anal-retentive.

Perhaps, but then again, I don't consider you to be full of piss n vinegar,
unlike the people I am complaining about. I don't mind anal retentive that
much, it's anal retentive with a heaping helping of piss that I mind.

> > On a side note, we can expect that at least one of those anal-nazis will
> > respond to tell me how much of an idiot I am for making this post.
Let's
> > just say I'll be surprised if one of them doesn't.
>
> Yeah right. You're begging the question.

Of course I am.

--
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?)

Mart van de Wege wrote:

> All I demand is that your language is understandable 100% of the
> time.

That's a pretty tall order.

Language is far more difficult and messed up than many people realize.
Especially English. It's full of subtleties and strange rules and
characterizations. That's one of the reasons non-native speakers have
trouble.

Even people who grew up with the language have different associations
with different words. It may be because people in their family misused
or overused it. It may be because the culture in one area developed a
use for it that this person's home culture didn't. That's part of the
difference between connotation and denotation.

On top of it, some people have communication disorders. Their brains
process language in unusual ways that make it difficult for them to
speak or write as other people expect.

In short- perfection in communication is impossible. This is
particularly true in a forum like Usenet. This perfection is something
that we should all try to achieve. But like the paladin striving for
righteousness, we shouldn't expect ourselves or anyone else to get
anywhere near that goal without stumbling.

-Tialan

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> news:87fyy03zuc.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
>
>>>From Message-ID: <115bkd4eohqc883@corp.supernews.com>
>>>you can find the whole post with that ID, if you like.
>>>===quote===
>>>2 - the barb's player is a Diablo-trained min-maxer
>>>
>>>===quote===
>>>
>>>I'd say that's pretty clearly an EXPLICIT statement that the barbarian
>>>player is a diablo trained min maxer. I may have paraphrased his
>
> statement
>
>>>because I didn't have the precise wording at my fingertips,
>>>
>>
>>But once challenged, you suddenly do have the wording at your
>>fingertips. That makes you *lazy*.
>
>
> Fully admitted. I am lazy. But I'm not the only lazy sod, you didn't even
> have the decency to confirm your statement before making it.
>
> I didn't respond to the guy's post originally because I had nothing to add
> to what he said, I just assumed, perhaps stupidly, that you would actually
> READ what he wrote.
>
>
>>I retract my statement partially. It is *explicitly* stated that the
>>Bar player is a min-maxer. It is still not *explicitly* stated that
>>the Bar player is a powergamer (min-maxing is not quite the same as
>>powergaming), neither is it explicitly stated that he spent years at
>>Diablo playing. It is *implicitly* stated though.
>
> And due to my laziness, I'm not going to go through the thread and find it
> for you, but it is explicitly stated in other posts of his, years of Diablo
> playing, years of D&D.

I don't really want to be involved in the discussions you folk have
decided to tangent off on, but, since I started all this, I feel
resposnsible a bit, so...

The Short Version:
Jeff is right and wrong in this last statement. The Barbarian's player
has LOTS of Diablo 1 and 2 min/maxing under his belt, but is a new D&D
player.

The Long Version:
Yes, the Barb's player has years of Diablo under his belt, and has
stated, in no uncertain terms, how proud he is at being able to optimize
his charater progression for major ass kicking.

I may have been unclear at some point, but I'm somewhat sure I never
explicitly or implicitly said the Barb's player also has years of D&D.

Rough D&D start dates for the group:
Me (player of the Wizard and part-time DM): Started roughly 1985
DM2 (player of the Bard, DM when I'm not): Started when 3e came out
Both Players: This is their first tabletop D&D campaign. The fighter's
player has also played in a couple one shot adventures, running pregens
that either I or DM2 created for him. The barbarian's player did that
once, for a Challenge of Champions scenario. Other than that, I think
the barb's player has the following exposure to D&D/d20: he has played
quite the new Jedi Knight (d20 based PC game), and, back in the day, I
know he played through Baldur's Gate. Plus, Diablo and Diablo 2.

SO, Jeff is both right and wrong. I make no comments on the rest of the
tangential thread's contents =-)

DWS