PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

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

dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) you up next, work it out
now.

>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.

Here's a link to the top level of the forums (you can log in there):
<http://www.enworld.org/forumdisplay.php?f=1>

The current Gary Gygax Q&A forum (they're up to number IX) is in the
"General RPG Discussion" section at
<http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=125997&page=1&pp=40>.

HTH

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> wrote in message
news:i19g51hsialg242vmg2d1ei03dinp0eg90@4ax.com...
> > 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.

It's not about guilt or innocence(of which, I agree, there is no question),
it's about authority. The party does not have the recognized authority to
exercise it's own justice.

> >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.

If one is so pathetically useless that they can't break free from rope binds
before they starve or dehydrate when they aren't being monitored, frankly,
it's not the fault of the person tying them up. The expectation of tying
someone up (who is conscious and able to struggle) and leaving them there is
that they will break free in fairly short order(within hours at most). All
it takes is a little time and patience.

--
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?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5gcpt.nq5.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> 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.

Well, I'll take the small victory of being right about one thing, and wrong
about another. The responders were wrong about both.

--
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> writes:

> "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.
>
Actually, I did. And David was nice enough to confirm it for me.

<snip>

>> 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.
>
Nope. Just years of Diablo.

> And your definition twisting aside, min-maxing is considered a subset of
> power gaming, a specific implementation of it, if you will.
>
That is what I said, dimbulb. I said 'not quite the same as
powergaming'. That is not the same as saying 'not at all the same as
powergaming'.

>> 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.

Having a chat is ipso facto impossible if both parties use different
interpretations of the same words. This is why accepted (or majority)
interpretations of words exist in the first place: to provide a common
frame of reference.

Deviating from the accepted meaning is not a faux pas, just as long as
you take care to note your deviation.

>
>> 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.

From what I've read people tend to find that you don't use words in
the dictionary definition. I happen to agree with them. The debate on
predators vs. scavengers was enlightening (in a way).

<snip>
>> 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.

That's because your posts mostly end up marked read sight unseen. You
are scored down in my newsreader, but some folks that answer your
posts are scored up, therefore I still get to see some of your posts.

By all standards, you are an unclear communicator, and you try to
blame other people for *your* failings. This is not the kind of person
I prefer to converse with. Hence the downscoring.

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:877jjb4jlo.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
> >> 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.
>
> Having a chat is ipso facto impossible if both parties use different
> interpretations of the same words.

Yet it's clear that we interpret words differently, and magically we're
having a chat. It's quite impossible that we're doing this, don't you know.

> > There is no such thing as "the accepted meaning". I have pulled
DICTIONARY
> > definitions that the anal retentive dictionary freaks can't agree
> > on.
>
> From what I've read people tend to find that you don't use words in
> the dictionary definition. I happen to agree with them. The debate on
> predators vs. scavengers was enlightening (in a way).

Of course, the point, deftly missed by you, is that I've had arguments with
definition nazis after pulling the definition of a word from the dictionary,
which they seem to hold as the bible. When the definition nazis among us
can't agree with the DICTIONARY on the definition of words, don't you think
that having arguments about definitions is ultimately pointless?

I recognize that people interpret words differently, and am willing to
accept/work within that reality. It would seem that many folks don't have
the ability to accept that as part of reality, and would rather operate
under the delusion that it is possible to have a conversation involving
precise definitions would first agreeing on the definition of every word
likely to be used, which makes conversation simply impossible.

> By all standards, you are an unclear communicator, and you try to
> blame other people for *your* failings. This is not the kind of person
> I prefer to converse with. Hence the downscoring.

Actually, I'm clear enough for most folks. The people I'm *not* clear to
are people who have an inability to communicate without precise definition.
Such people are fairly incapable of communicating NOT because of their
inability to articulate, but rather the exact and extreme opposite: they
demand precision to a level that people are not willing to provide in the
course of a normal conversation. The failing is CLEARLY theirs, only from
the extreme degree to which precision is demanded.

Yes, I have a usenet writing style that is loose and chatty, and such a
writing style would obviously frustrate someone who demanded a high level of
precision in writing. But I have to be honest, I don't consider this to be
a medium that demands that level of precision. As far as I'm concerned,
this is merely a "written conversation", and in such a medium, I write like
I would talk. I'm guessing that the vast majority of the definition nazis
do not write on usenet like they talk in real life, because if they did,
they would not be talking to many people for very long.

Then again, this is almost the quintessential distillation of dorkitude(D&D
and usenet geeks combine to create ubergeek, dontchaknowit), so it's
entirely possible that the people who are such definition nazis honestly
don't have a real clue how to communicate with other living breathing
people, and have managed to live their lives like that. It's sad if that's
the case.

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tsGdnd5gUs4H-8XfRVn-rg@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
>
> Specialization?

Eh... There is that, but honestly, I would trade specialization for all the
skills of a paladin in a heartbeat, if I didn't actually have to PLAY a
paladin. 😉

> > 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?

I never found that to be a restriction, but then again, we play a low magic
incidence, high magic value game. A character in general is never likely to
bump into the magic items restrictions that paladins face, at least in our
campaign, so I don't even consider that a restriction.

--
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?)

"Wildwood" <wildwood72@pipeline.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:jtig51poevefu58vj5ke0k0aak7318rtvl@4ax.com...
> 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.

Now *that* is something I could see an Epic prankster rogue doing.

--
^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" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i8KdnZ3VnovpO8jfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Q_qdnboexMnjxcjfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:z5GdnYis4bsUxNHfRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
>>
>> > What we're trying to correct here is a DM-induced imbalance, combined
> with
>> > more than a bit of rather transparant min/max style power gaming on the
>> > part
>> > of the player.
>>
>> First of all, how exactly is this min/maxing? Secondly, how exactly is
> this
>> power gaming?
>
> First of all, because of the dramatic overpowering of the barbarian
> character as compared to the others. Player knowledge, skill at the
> system,
> or just plain blind luck, it is obviously a case of min/maxing, regardless
> of the intent of the player.

Min/maxing requires intent.

> You've declared everything to be hamfisted.

No, I really haven't.

> Assuming the berries have to be gone NOW rather than later, how would you
> handle it?

That requires further information: why do they have to be gone right now?

--
^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" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G7WdnSyX64X7a8XfRVn-qw@comcast.com...

> Matt, you just won. Congrats.


Here Mal, you can 'win' too...

Plonk.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:22:40 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:i19g51hsialg242vmg2d1ei03dinp0eg90@4ax.com...
>> > 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.
>
>It's not about guilt or innocence(of which, I agree, there is no question),
>it's about authority. The party does not have the recognized authority to
>exercise it's own justice.

So they have the authority to raid an orc compound and kill everything, but
only if the orcs don't surrender? Bizarre is too mild a term.

>> >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.
>
>If one is so pathetically useless that they can't break free from rope binds
>before they starve or dehydrate when they aren't being monitored, frankly,
>it's not the fault of the person tying them up.

It's really not that difficult to securely tie someone.

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:cthh511tp1tpktq68bvatlaruqhtikkhbc@4ax.com...
> >It's not about guilt or innocence(of which, I agree, there is no
question),
> >it's about authority. The party does not have the recognized authority
to
> >exercise it's own justice.
>
> So they have the authority to raid an orc compound and kill everything,
but
> only if the orcs don't surrender? Bizarre is too mild a term.

There are "rules of war", that lawful(ordered) people expect to abide by,
and other people can expect them to abide by. One of them is that
non-combatants, even if they are ex-combatants, are treated humanely.

Besides, the incident in question was an ambush by an orc raiding party, NOT
an attack by the party on an orc lair.

> >If one is so pathetically useless that they can't break free from rope
binds
> >before they starve or dehydrate when they aren't being monitored,
frankly,
> >it's not the fault of the person tying them up.
>
> It's really not that difficult to securely tie someone.

If they are being observed after being tied up, and prevented from working
to free themselves, I agree, but all it takes is time and patience to work
the knots so that they wiggle free, if there's nobody around to stop them.
Hell, even if that doesn't work, simple stretching will often give you
enough leeway to free yourself after a while.

--
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 23:09:20 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> scribed into the ether:

>
>"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:

>>>> > 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.

The party was in the orc compound for a reason...

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:60ih515s166liee904frp9sn6ferhkmohe@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 23:09:20 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> scribed into the ether:
>
>>
>>"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:
>
>>>>> > 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.
>
> The party was in the orc compound for a reason...

If the Orcs had actually committed crimes sufficient in the paladin's code
for an execution, then so be it.

--
^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?)

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 12:28:01 -0700, "Shawn Wilson" <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com>
scribed into the ether:

>
>"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.

Translation: Damn I'm getting my ass kicked, I better get out of here
before I actually have to admit it.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:44:43 GMT, Wildwood
<wildwood72@pipeline.com.invalid> scribed into the ether:

>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.

A valid reason to use the pickpocket ability, but it also wouldn't result
in the rage berries disappearing. The premise still holds.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:53:55 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:2m7g519j3csrgj9q85g256hia57fceh9vc@4ax.com...
>> >It is the realization that mortals are fallible, and this fallibility
>leads
>> >to the downfall of mortals who try to place themselves in positions of
>> >righteousness. Like paladins do. Basically, they put themselves
>directly
>> >in the path of their own downfall, and hope they can hang on. Most
>don't.
>>
>> Even Deities make mistakes. Greek mythology is filled with such instances.
>> If the gods themselves cannot live up to such standards, how exactly can
>> their mortal representatives be placed on such a lofty pedastal?
>
>Yes, even deities make mistakes, and humans make far more. It's not that
>you're placing mortals on the pedastal, it's that the mortals are stepping
>on to the pedastal of their own accord, and, predictably enough, they get
>knocked down to size.

The pedastal is one of YOUR creation, that of infallibility. Are paladins
expected to maintain a higher standard? Yes...is that higher standard
perfection? NO.

>> I'm not at all familiar with the specifics of the class description as
>> written in 2E, but in 3E, paladinhood is described as a calling, and not a
>> simple choice of profession.
>
>Precisely. They try to follow the path of righteousness and enlightenment,
>and most fail in their chosen quest, at some point along the way.

A calling...from a higher power. Not that they feel the need to do good,
but that an external power has specifically chosen that character to be its
agent. Why would such a power even bother going through all the effort of
identifying, locating, and imbuing people who could not actually do the
job?

>> Killing a creature who would be dead anyway had it not surrendered is not
>> really heavily into the category of evil, particularly given D&D
>cosmology,
>> where things like orcs are BORN evil, and have large pantheons of dieties
>> whose sole job it is to keep them that way. What was the party to do?
>
>The creature's FUTURE given a certain set of (now invalid) criteria is
>irrelevant. Had the fight continued, yes, it would have died, but the fight
>did NOT continue, the surrender took place, so now you have to consider that
>a creature has just asked the most merciful of all adventuring types for
>it's mercy. In our campaign, paladins are merciful. The only issue in THIS
>instance was that the merciful adventurer was surrounding by ruthless
>compadres, which complicated things.

Paladins do not willingly associate with evil people. If what these people
did was so bad, then the problem is that the alignment listed on their
character sheets is wrong, not that you need to find bizarre loopholes in
the definition of "chaotic" to say that what they did was ok...while at the
same time spanking the paladin.

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:6bih515mj3aott4d5sue4v8h62jss2ub17@4ax.com...
> >Yes, even deities make mistakes, and humans make far more. It's not that
> >you're placing mortals on the pedastal, it's that the mortals are
stepping
> >on to the pedastal of their own accord, and, predictably enough, they get
> >knocked down to size.
>
> The pedastal is one of YOUR creation, that of infallibility. Are paladins
> expected to maintain a higher standard? Yes...is that higher standard
> perfection? NO.

The higher standard is as close to perfection as is humanly possible, and
yes, that pedastal is of my own making. In our campaign, the paladin's life
is the quest for that higher standard, not simply recognizing that he has
reached some arbitrarily higher standard than most and does what he needs to
in order to remain there. It is about betterment in a general sense, about
setting the standard higher and higher, not about simply meeting some set of
standards that are fixed.

> >Precisely. They try to follow the path of righteousness and
enlightenment,
> >and most fail in their chosen quest, at some point along the way.
>
> A calling...from a higher power. Not that they feel the need to do good,
> but that an external power has specifically chosen that character to be
its
> agent. Why would such a power even bother going through all the effort of
> identifying, locating, and imbuing people who could not actually do the
> job?

Which is to say that humans in your campaign are not free-willed creatures?
😉

Humans fail because of their freedom to do what they want more than anything
else. People KNOW what's right, it's just that it's sometimes difficult to
do what you know to be right. The paladin faces this dilemma every day, and
is charged with choosing to do what is right. If he fails, he has failed
his code, not the fault of the deity, the fault of the paladin in question.
Sure, there's some interpretational leeway, but not much.

> Paladins do not willingly associate with evil people. If what these people
> did was so bad, then the problem is that the alignment listed on their
> character sheets is wrong, not that you need to find bizarre loopholes in
> the definition of "chaotic" to say that what they did was ok...while at
the
> same time spanking the paladin.

It's not a problem for the alignments of the people who did it. It was a
problem for the LG paladin, who's player did not role play the situation
well enough for me to stand by and idly let him do it and still be 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?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ep-dnYdVg7ChasXfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> > Assuming the berries have to be gone NOW rather than later, how would
you
> > handle it?
>
> That requires further information: why do they have to be gone right now?

Doesn't matter. Suffice it to say that there are metagame reasons (whatever
they may be) for why they have to go NOW, rather than later. If everything
that happens for reasons that can not be known to the party is considered
"hamfisted", then there is no reasonable way to get rid of them, because
everything that is as sudden as would be necessary would appear hamfisted on
the outside. Even the idea of the hatchings is fairly hamfisted when you
get right down to it, it's just that you happen to approve of those ideas.

--
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 Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:27:08 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:6bih515mj3aott4d5sue4v8h62jss2ub17@4ax.com...
>> >Yes, even deities make mistakes, and humans make far more. It's not that
>> >you're placing mortals on the pedastal, it's that the mortals are
>stepping
>> >on to the pedastal of their own accord, and, predictably enough, they get
>> >knocked down to size.
>>
>> The pedastal is one of YOUR creation, that of infallibility. Are paladins
>> expected to maintain a higher standard? Yes...is that higher standard
>> perfection? NO.
>
>The higher standard is as close to perfection as is humanly possible,

Even if it was, which it isn't, you don't even allow for the possibility
that anyone can live up to it. A self-fulfilling prophecy that I bet you
aren't even aware of.

> and yes, that pedastal is of my own making.

Why not just make things easier on yourself and ban the class outright?
Since you've decreed Paladins must adhere to Lawful Stupid and not Lawful
Good...and that nobody can ever be good enough, why go through the trouble?

> In our campaign, the paladin's life
>is the quest for that higher standard, not simply recognizing that he has
>reached some arbitrarily higher standard than most and does what he needs to
>in order to remain there. It is about betterment in a general sense, about
>setting the standard higher and higher, not about simply meeting some set of
>standards that are fixed.

So you've turned Paladins into Buddhists...with swords?

>> >Precisely. They try to follow the path of righteousness and
>enlightenment,
>> >and most fail in their chosen quest, at some point along the way.
>>
>> A calling...from a higher power. Not that they feel the need to do good,
>> but that an external power has specifically chosen that character to be
>its
>> agent. Why would such a power even bother going through all the effort of
>> identifying, locating, and imbuing people who could not actually do the
>> job?
>
>Which is to say that humans in your campaign are not free-willed creatures?

People have predispositions. No, not from birth, but you don't start at 1st
level when the doctor smacks your ass to make you cry for the first time
either.

Read "The Deed of Paksenarrion" by Elizabeth Moon. Free Will, Divine
influence living happily together. One hell of a paladin.

>> Paladins do not willingly associate with evil people. If what these people
>> did was so bad, then the problem is that the alignment listed on their
>> character sheets is wrong, not that you need to find bizarre loopholes in
>> the definition of "chaotic" to say that what they did was ok...while at
>the
>> same time spanking the paladin.
>
>It's not a problem for the alignments of the people who did it. It was a
>problem for the LG paladin, who's player did not role play the situation
>well enough for me to stand by and idly let him do it and still be a
>paladin.

If the paladin gets stripped of his abilities, then that is the result of
an evil act, not a chaotic one. The players in your party are EVIL, and you
try and justify it through chaos...I guess because you have some need for
your party to not be the bad guys.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:42:36 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:cthh511tp1tpktq68bvatlaruqhtikkhbc@4ax.com...
>> >It's not about guilt or innocence(of which, I agree, there is no
>question),
>> >it's about authority. The party does not have the recognized authority
>to
>> >exercise it's own justice.
>>
>> So they have the authority to raid an orc compound and kill everything,
>but
>> only if the orcs don't surrender? Bizarre is too mild a term.
>
>There are "rules of war", that lawful(ordered) people expect to abide by,

You mean YOU expect them to abide by. Nothing about the Lawful alignment
obligates the owner to follow someone else's rules.

>and other people can expect them to abide by. One of them is that
>non-combatants, even if they are ex-combatants, are treated humanely.

The geneva convention doesn't have much place in a D&D universe.

>Besides, the incident in question was an ambush by an orc raiding party, NOT
>an attack by the party on an orc lair.

So the orcs are clearly guilty of a crime worthy of death, but the holy
warrior is not permitted to kill them...with the other possibilities being:

A) Turn over to the state. Result: Execution
B) Release. Result: Free to do more evil.

Two results of dead orcs, one result of a paladin allowing evil that he had
the ability to stop to go free. But executing them was evil somehow.

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:a10i51htfs1ak4l4doqcpqlr5llnl89g0g@4ax.com...
> >There are "rules of war", that lawful(ordered) people expect to abide by,
>
> You mean YOU expect them to abide by. Nothing about the Lawful alignment
> obligates the owner to follow someone else's rules.

No, in the world the characters live in, there are "rules of war", rules
that are common knowledge to all characters.

> >and other people can expect them to abide by. One of them is that
> >non-combatants, even if they are ex-combatants, are treated humanely.
>
> The geneva convention doesn't have much place in a D&D universe.

Agreed, but simple concepts would flow down through the generations,
including the humane treatment of prisoners, as good as can be expected
under a given set of circumstances(sometimes there would be circumstances,
such as previous harsh treatment, that would allow for a level of "revenge"
to take place, even by normal lawful soldiers).

> So the orcs are clearly guilty of a crime worthy of death, but the holy
> warrior is not permitted to kill them...with the other possibilities
being:
>
> A) Turn over to the state. Result: Execution
> B) Release. Result: Free to do more evil.
>
> Two results of dead orcs, one result of a paladin allowing evil that he
had
> the ability to stop to go free. But executing them was evil somehow.

Yes. He doesn't have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner. In
our campaign.

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:062dnasufeEfnsTfRVn-rA@comcast.com...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ep-dnYdVg7ChasXfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>> > Assuming the berries have to be gone NOW rather than later, how would
> you
>> > handle it?
>>
>> That requires further information: why do they have to be gone right now?
>
> Doesn't matter.

Yes, it does. The reason will affect my answer.

--
^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?)

"Shawn Wilson" <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7v96e.6520$EX4.399@fed1read01...
>
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:G7WdnSyX64X7a8XfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>
>> Matt, you just won. Congrats.
>
>
> Here Mal, you can 'win' too...
>
> Plonk.

Thanks, bitch, but I owned you long ago.

--
^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" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:FfWdnQ6pP8kwLMXfRVn-1w@comcast.com...

> Yes, even deities make mistakes, and humans make far more. It's not that
> you're placing mortals on the pedastal, it's that the mortals are stepping
> on to the pedastal of their own accord, and, predictably enough, they get
> knocked down to size.

So, you are saying it is hubristic to become a paladin?

--
^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?)

In article <6bih515mj3aott4d5sue4v8h62jss2ub17@4ax.com>,
Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>Paladins do not willingly associate with evil people. If what these people
>did was so bad, then the problem is that the alignment listed on their
>character sheets is wrong, not that you need to find bizarre loopholes in
>the definition of "chaotic" to say that what they did was ok...while at the
>same time spanking the paladin.

In the campaign where I learnd to play ADnD, the general attitude was that a
"chaotic neutral" alignment meant "evil but not willing to admit it".
--
"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...)