PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

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

In article <3c2dnbYCbYW_NMrfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>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.

I dunno -- maybe one of them might have an off day. Or perhaps there's a
Goslin-bashing tag team. Though I haven't seen any signs of taking turns.
--
"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> wrote in message
news:c4-dnZmhF6is4srfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> "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

Specialization?

> 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)?

They can have as many magic items as they wish?

--
^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?)

Malachias Invictus 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.

How is the forced extraction of information in order to save the
day an Evil act? Not *all* hurting is Evil, simply that which is done
for convenience, sport, or in the service of a greater Evil.
There's nothing in a Paladins code makes them merciful, quite the
opposite really.

If the only likely way to save innocents from Evil is to put the
pain on someone, then IMO a Paladin should be the /first/ to step up.
They're supposed to punish Evil acts against the innocent, and
functional torture in aid of a Good cause is obviously a valid
punishment. *Make* the bad guys help you.

Still, real world torture is ineffective, and thus Evil; and in
Jeff Goslin's case here it was a breach of promise.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:44:11 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>
wrote:

>Malachias Invictus 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.
>
> How is the forced extraction of information in order to save the
>day an Evil act?

Well, one consideration, is that the information you gain from
prisoners is rarely of sufficient value to "save the day". It usually
just gives you an edge. What's more, even on the rare occasions when
the information is absolutely required to save the day, you rarely
know that until you know the information, so you'll have to be
torturing "on spec". And of course there are other means of
extracting information available, especially in a fantasy environment.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> Honestly, I don't want to cause another "what would paladin do?"
> discussion...

There's only one of those, and it isn't finished yet. You've just
stirred it up a bit. 8]

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin 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.

At that point the character has become Evilly aligned, and
/Atonement/ can't fix that. Even becoming Nuetral is too far for a
Paladin to come back from in a hurry.

If it's just the odd slip, then they won't always have their
powers, but it's easy enough for them to return to the fold when they're
ready. A Paladin who only has his powers at the start of adventures
isn't exactly a powermonger, though it may be quite fun to play.

Blackguard is for those who can't, or won't try to get better.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

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

<big snips: thankyou for the detail, Jeff>

Perhaps I'm reaching, but it seems you're saying that your main
issue was that the Paladin *accepted* the surrender, given what
followed; in doing so he was (by the local customs) making a promise to
protect those who'd given up the fight. Then he's into breach of promise
problems.

That too depends on issues of how one should accept surrenders, IMC
it tends to be "none offered, none given."

I guess the Paladin /should/ have yelled "no quarter" or somesuch
when offered surrender, and killed all but one. The last could be
subdued, disarmed, beaten, questioned, and released with a message of
warning for others.
He certainly shouldn't have allowed any offer of surrender by his
party to be followed by an execution, at least not without whatever
passes for a trial.

Clever Paladins get themselves rights to hold on-field trials,
though that still requires a bit of care. 8]

Still, it's not a blatently Evil act in itself (Neutral to me,
practical punishment, but dishonest, and leans toward Chaotic). IMO the
Paladin breaches his code because the acceptance of surrender was
dishonest, not Evil.


>> It was highly impractical for him to play your style of paladin without
>>causing some serious meta-game issues inside that party. Catch 22 ain't fun.
>
> I told him ALL of this, and he STILL wanted to play a paladin.
> Horse, water... yet no drink...

There is always that. 8]

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

"tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:42577379@clear.net.nz...
> Perhaps I'm reaching, but it seems you're saying that your main
> issue was that the Paladin *accepted* the surrender, given what
> followed; in doing so he was (by the local customs) making a promise to
> protect those who'd given up the fight. Then he's into breach of promise
> problems.

Well, the PARTY accepted the surrender(the orcs basically dropped their
weapons and went turtle "don't hurt me!"), more by default than anything.
Once that happened, by our previously agreed upon code of conduct, the
paladin could not harm (or allow to be harmed) the person who surrendered,
at least until the proper authorities had decided upon the correct course of
action.

> That too depends on issues of how one should accept surrenders, IMC
> it tends to be "none offered, none given."

Well, such a course must be made clear to the opposition in order for a
paladin to do such a thing without fear of repercussion, IMC.

> I guess the Paladin /should/ have yelled "no quarter" or somesuch
> when offered surrender, and killed all but one. The last could be
> subdued, disarmed, beaten, questioned, and released with a message of
> warning for others.
> He certainly shouldn't have allowed any offer of surrender by his
> party to be followed by an execution, at least not without whatever
> passes for a trial.

Exactly. At first, he wanted to physically walk them to the nearest
outpost(like 40 miles away!! not happening!), and so began the argument.
The end result was that the orcs were bound and gagged and left to their own
devices.

> Clever Paladins get themselves rights to hold on-field trials,
> though that still requires a bit of care. 8]

I would honestly have no problem with that, for a mid level paladin, but not
one just starting out(as was the case here).

> Still, it's not a blatently Evil act in itself (Neutral to me,
> practical punishment, but dishonest, and leans toward Chaotic). IMO the
> Paladin breaches his code because the acceptance of surrender was
> dishonest, not Evil.

Whatever the means, the ends are the same: code broken. You know how
sometimes you don't specifically KNOW that something is illegal, but you say
"that's so damn dastardly, it's just GOT to be illegal..." The paladin code
we have works sort of like that, if we have to think about it in terms of
technicalities, it's GOT to be against the code. This is mainly because
it's not something that is thought of in terms of technicalities, it's not
like our current legal system.

> >> It was highly impractical for him to play your style of paladin without
> >>causing some serious meta-game issues inside that party. Catch 22 ain't
fun.
> >
> > I told him ALL of this, and he STILL wanted to play a paladin.
> > Horse, water... yet no drink...
>
> There is always that. 8]

Indeed.

--
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 Sat, 9 Apr 2005 05:20:01 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"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.

Morals, not laws. It is unfortunate that they chose the words Law and Chaos
to describe these viewpoints, but what's done is done, and so we are left
to read the definitions of these terms, which you have clearly not done.

Law does not (necesarily) mean following laws. It means believing in order
and structure. Laws are just a human way of codifying a general belief into
something more tangible. If a law is something that a lawful character is
opposed to (usually via their good/evil axis), then they will certainly not
obey it just because it is a law. You won't find a paladin indulging in
legal torture (*real* torture, not what you described) any more than you'll
find a lawful evil cleric obeying a secular law which requires clerics to
heal the sick.

> I'm no
>"alignment lawyer" of course, but the broad strokes are fairly easy to
>paint.

Which begs the question of why you are painting them so incorrectly.

>> 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).

Would the orc have been alive had it not surrendered?
Did the paladin promise that the orc would live?

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:53:28 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"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?
>
>
>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.

NO IT CAN'T. You can only make *that* broad stroke on the assumption that
societies are themselves lawful. Errant horseshit if there ever was some.

Is conforming to drow society a lawful act, Jeff? How about tanaari
society?

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:21:06 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"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?

> 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.

So, it is acceptable to turn an orc over to the authorities for execution,
but it is EVIL to turn this same prisoner over to his party-mates for
execution? I mean, it's an orc...there's no question of guilt or innocence
here.

Do you have an explanation for the double standard besides "I wanted the
paladin to fail"?

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

Thus exposing the orc to the strong possibility of starving to death.
Merciful indeed.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 07:27:42 -0700, "Shawn Wilson" <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com>
scribed into the ether:

>
>"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?

Your strawmen are getting worse, Shawn. Bench press != Picking something
up, you simpering moron.

> 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?

So Shawn, but your logic, an adult stealing candy from an infant is good
practice for breaking into bank vaults? That's the comparison of an epic
level pickpocket going after level 5s.

>>>> 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.

If you are just going to insist on being a moron, there's really nothing we
can do for you.

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:2a9g51hnkv5mdet6j1sbd4afpvqudul6pi@4ax.com...

>>> 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?
>
> Your strawmen are getting worse, Shawn. Bench press != Picking something
> up, you simpering moron.



Matt, it is increasingly obvious that it is a waste of time dealing with
you. You neiter listen nor write anything worth reading.




>>>>> 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.
>
> If you are just going to insist on being a moron, there's really nothing
> we
> can do for you.


My words exactly. Plonk.

 

[Guest]

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

"Tialan" <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZVT5e.108$QJ4.1983594@news.sisna.com...
> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> > All I demand is that your language is understandable 100% of the
> > time.
>
> That's a pretty tall order.

Sock puppet bitch.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:53:28 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
wrote:


>
>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.

It can more accurately be summarised by an individual's desire to
impose order on himself and his environment.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> "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?

Maybe.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Billy Yank wrote:
>> 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.

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> No, that's the player of the fighter.

They were both new players. Learn to read, dumbass.

> 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).

Funny, the DM you're "paraphrasing" has denied this.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Billy Yank wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
>>No, that's the player of the fighter.
>
>
> They were both new players. Learn to read, dumbass.
>
>
>>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).
>
>
> Funny, the DM you're "paraphrasing" has denied this.

But, to be fair, only after I noticed his saying that in this subthread.
I have been ignoring these spinoffs for the most part, and didn't
notice that Jeff had made those statements until last night, when I
thought I should correct them.

I have not gone back to see what I wrote that might have made him think
that the barb's player had a lot of D&D experience (and probably won't).
I'll leave that to people interested in where this current argument is
going.

Have fun =)
DWS

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> you up next, work it out
now.

>On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:21:06 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
>scribed into the ether:
>
>
>>In this instance, the paladin had only one realistic choice: tie them up
>>and leave them there.
>
>Thus exposing the orc to the strong possibility of starving to death.
>Merciful indeed.

The paladin in question was obviously trained at Guantanamo Bay
instead of Abu Ghraib.

Also, anyone wanting to see how paladins were originally intended to
be run should check out the latest Gygax Q&A forum at ENWorld. EGG
points out how twisted the current "paladin" is from what was
originally intended (and I am not talking about powers, which
obviously change with the game, but about paladin codes and ethics).

Bill
--
By working faithfully eight hours a day, you may eventually
get to be boss and work twelve hours a day. - Robert Frost

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> you up next, work it out
now.

>On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 02:11:37 -0700, "Shawn Wilson" <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com>
>scribed into the ether:
>
>>
>>>>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. 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?
>

Actually, if I was running an epic rogue, I would use pick pocketing
all the time... but to leave scraps of paper inside purses without
the owner knowing it saying "Kilroy was here" and spread my infamy.

That would be much more satisfying than stealing junk from people who
actually need it - that's the job of politicians, not professional
thieves.

Bill
--
By working faithfully eight hours a day, you may eventually
get to be boss and work twelve hours a day. - Robert Frost

 

[Guest]

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

In article <vnig51ho1sp4uc4dn1tsn9s07cfuoj8ifo@4ax.com>,
Wildwood <wildwood72@pipeline.com.invalid> wrote:
>Also, anyone wanting to see how paladins were originally intended to
>be run should check out the latest Gygax Q&A forum at ENWorld. EGG
>points out how twisted the current "paladin" is from what was
>originally intended (and I am not talking about powers, which
>obviously change with the game, but about paladin codes and ethics).

How do I find this? I just joined ENworld and haven't figured out how to
naviate yet.
--
"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?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:i19g51hsialg242vmg2d1ei03dinp0eg90@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:21:06 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
> scribed into the ether:
>
>>"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?
>
>> 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.
>
> So, it is acceptable to turn an orc over to the authorities for execution,
> but it is EVIL to turn this same prisoner over to his party-mates for
> execution? I mean, it's an orc...there's no question of guilt or innocence
> here.

I do not go for that. Treating orcs as "fantasy awesome people" to be treated as
you will is not cool, in my opinion. If they actually performed bad acts,
then by all means, execute them if you wish. However, the fact that they
are orcs should not make them targets of opportunity.

--
^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?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > > 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.

That they were going to rough them up, get some info and then kill them.
So what's the problem?

> > > 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 in your game a Paladin would have to obey such a law?
Lawful Stupid.

> > 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.

Ah, so letting the Orcs go to loot maim and pillage some more is acceptable
Paladin behavior in your game?
Lawful Stupid.


John

 

[Guest]

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

"David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:115funggr00em5a@corp.supernews.com...
> > 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.

I guess I must have been mistaken about the D&D part. I could have sworn
that very early on it was made clear that the barbarian player was a long
time video game RPGer and D&D player(basically the only experienced player
at your table). However, I may have simply misread that.

--
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 Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
> news:115funggr00em5a@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>>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.
>
>
> I guess I must have been mistaken about the D&D part. I could have sworn
> that very early on it was made clear that the barbarian player was a long
> time video game RPGer and D&D player(basically the only experienced player
> at your table). However, I may have simply misread that.

That's my guess. I'd be unwilling to bet that I didn't write a sentence
that was easily parsable that way. When this thread first took off (and
was still mostly about my PC balance problems), I was reading and
answering ten to twenty messages a day.

Happens. Just thought I'd make sure that, while any argument still had
tangential relation to the topic of my personal gaming group, the facts,
as I know them, should be shared, when I can.

DWS