PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

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

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfudnTMUytaXC8TfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>
> "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.

I don't see how, but if it makes you feel better, you can assume any reason
at all.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> news: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.

You keep telling yourself that, freak.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Shawn Wilson <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "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.

Maybe if we get him to plonk all of us, he'll go away.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 07:28:20 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"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.

Those are still someone else's rules. Do the orcs obey them? Probably not.

>> >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).

A common tactic for the relative time period was to allow anyone to
surrender before hostilities commenced, but once they did, if you lost, you
were boned. Adult males killed, women and children sold into slavery.

Lawful has nothing to do with the desire or non-desire to take revenge, any
more than it relates to any other human emotion. Yes, lawful good people
(even *gasp* paladins!) are allowed to hate someone with no ill effects to
their alignment.

>> 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.

Those are, again, someone else's laws. Another view would be that a
paladin's divine providence not only empowers him to those duties, but
obligates him to them.

Further, that is splitting a really narrow hair. I think anyone can agree
that the party has the right to defend themselves against the ambush, but
doesn't pursuing the orcs back to their lair and re-commencing the
hostilities smack of a little law-into-their-own-hands as well?

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:7l1j51l0nkrh8djh2e2pu9v6pvsciqpr3o@4ax.com...
> >No, in the world the characters live in, there are "rules of war", rules
> >that are common knowledge to all characters.
>
> Those are still someone else's rules. Do the orcs obey them? Probably not.

Should the characters expect that surrenders would be honorably accepted by
the orcs? Not a chance in hell. Would the orcs be aware of these rules?
You bet your ass. They would use them to their advantage, of course, use
them to get their lives spared(maybe), or use them to trick people into
lowering their gaurd for a sneak attack.

> Lawful has nothing to do with the desire or non-desire to take revenge,
any
> more than it relates to any other human emotion. Yes, lawful good people
> (even *gasp* paladins!) are allowed to hate someone with no ill effects to
> their alignment.

Yes, but lawful good paladins have a code that they must live by in order to
maintain their status. It's not that the character was lawful good that
caused the problem, it was that the character was a PALADIN.

> >Yes. He doesn't have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner.
In
> >our campaign.
>
> Those are, again, someone else's laws. Another view would be that a
> paladin's divine providence not only empowers him to those duties, but
> obligates him to them.

The paladin's code is considered unwavering, from the paladin's perspective.
It doesn't matter what OTHER people think of his code, it matters what HE
thinks of his code.

> Further, that is splitting a really narrow hair. I think anyone can agree
> that the party has the right to defend themselves against the ambush, but
> doesn't pursuing the orcs back to their lair and re-commencing the
> hostilities smack of a little law-into-their-own-hands as well?

That's not really "law into own hands" so much as it is a preemptive strike
on people you know to be engaged in "criminal activity", raiding and
pillaging, etc.

--
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 07:16:03 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:0hvh515dj3tio13j90mofpl80dkiecja65@4ax.com...
>> >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.
>
>No, I'm fully aware of the self-fulfilling nature of the failure. The
>phrase "nobody's perfect" truly applies. When humans try to attain
>perfection in ANY way, they are ultimately doomed to failure, due to the
>necessary imperfections inherent to humanity.

Paladins are not expected to be even close to perfect, however. Better than
other people and perfection are hardly synonyms. In a universe where even
true emodiments of their religious precepts (Celestials and Infernals) can
violate those precepts, expecting paladins to surpass that is just silly.

>> > 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?
>
>Honestly, from this point forward, given my experience with PC paladins set
>at 100% failure over several attempts, I fully intend to.
>
>There are other classes that have alignment restrictions, like rangers and
>druids, but NONE of the restrictions are so difficult to implement, from a
>role playing perspective in a fantasy adventuring game as the paladin's
>restrictions.

That's completely arbitrary. Neutrality is *FAR* easier to violate than
Lawful Good.


>> > 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?
>
>I suppose that is a valid comparison, from a certain perspective. I take it
>that you don't believe that paladins should strive to better themselves?

I think everyone should. I don't, however, think that everyone should be
punished for not making it. There has to be a comfort level where you do
not have to constantly keep working harder.

>FYI, NPC Paladins in my campaign are often local nobles, ex adventurers
>turned land owners, considered just, wise and benevolent leaders by the
>commoners.

A holy warrior who collects rent...

Further, putting it into that perspective, if these types of people don't
have the authority to judge and sentence to execution prisoners...who does?

>> >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.
>
>Your assessment of the evilness of our group is based on a faulty
>interpretation of justifications. The CG justification for the torture was
>that the information was necessary for the common good.

Interrogation of prisoners for information is hardly a violation of even
the most lofty of LG standards. Being punched a few times does not
constitute torture, especially for those times, when real torture was a
significantly gory affair.

> The CG reason for
>the executions was simply justification(they attacked us, with premeditation
>in the form of an ambush, intending to kill us, they deserve to die)

Also a perfectly valid LG reason. Or a LE reason. or TN reason. You really
have to come up with a better reason to be taking paladinhood away.

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:232j519v1j6uk6bse0scaiaupli04itce0@4ax.com...
> >No, I'm fully aware of the self-fulfilling nature of the failure. The
> >phrase "nobody's perfect" truly applies. When humans try to attain
> >perfection in ANY way, they are ultimately doomed to failure, due to the
> >necessary imperfections inherent to humanity.
>
> Paladins are not expected to be even close to perfect, however. Better
than
> other people and perfection are hardly synonyms. In a universe where even
> true emodiments of their religious precepts (Celestials and Infernals) can
> violate those precepts, expecting paladins to surpass that is just silly.

There is a degree of latitude once you're past the bare minimum, but the
character would now know where that minimum would lie, and as such, the only
truly effective way of retaining paladinhood would be to always strive to
the highest humanly possible standard.

> >Honestly, from this point forward, given my experience with PC paladins
set
> >at 100% failure over several attempts, I fully intend to.
> >
> >There are other classes that have alignment restrictions, like rangers
and
> >druids, but NONE of the restrictions are so difficult to implement, from
a
> >role playing perspective in a fantasy adventuring game as the paladin's
> >restrictions.
>
> That's completely arbitrary. Neutrality is *FAR* easier to violate than
> Lawful Good.

It's also far easier to recover from. Other than a true neutral druidic
style viewpoint, neutrality can often be viewed from the perspective of
self-centeredness. While many things may be good and evil in and of
themselves, a neutral person will often do what's in his best interest. So,
while a neutral person may seem to sway towards one end of the spectrum or
the other, he's likely to go the other way next time. A lot of things when
playing neutrality have situational dependency, whereas the paladin code is
not generally situationally dependent.

> >I suppose that is a valid comparison, from a certain perspective. I take
it
> >that you don't believe that paladins should strive to better themselves?
>
> I think everyone should. I don't, however, think that everyone should be
> punished for not making it. There has to be a comfort level where you do
> not have to constantly keep working harder.

Such is the life of a paladin.

> Further, putting it into that perspective, if these types of people don't
> have the authority to judge and sentence to execution prisoners...who
does?

The land owning ones do have the authority, it is vested to them by ranking
nobles and royalty, along with their lands. They have a responsibility to
the people they govern, and part of that responsibility is to see that
justice is done. The paladin in question was a 2nd level adventuring type,
not a land owning authority vested type.

> Interrogation of prisoners for information is hardly a violation of even
> the most lofty of LG standards. Being punched a few times does not
> constitute torture, especially for those times, when real torture was a
> significantly gory affair.

I guess that depends on what a paladin's view of such gory torture might be,
huh?

--
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 19:16:08 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
scribed into the ether:

>Shawn Wilson <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> "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.
>
>Maybe if we get him to plonk all of us, he'll go away.

Memory is fuzzy, but I believe he resorted to this same tactic last time as
well. But now that he's surfaced again, he is replying. Maybe he cleared
his killfile cache or something.

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:4i2j511u51ohjeb7p53ul77lh3o28b55ul@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:16:08 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
> <bradd+news@szonye.com>
> scribed into the ether:
>
>>Shawn Wilson <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "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.
>>
>>Maybe if we get him to plonk all of us, he'll go away.
>
> Memory is fuzzy, but I believe he resorted to this same tactic last time
> as
> well. But now that he's surfaced again, he is replying. Maybe he cleared
> his killfile cache or something.

He isn't killfiling anyone. His pathology prevents 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?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Bp-dnYbZZuqDLcTfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nfudnTMUytaXC8TfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>>
>> "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.
>
> I don't see how, but if it makes you feel better, you can assume any
> reason
> at all.

I would not require their immediate removal, because I am a competent enough
GM to roll with it. Provide a reason if you want an 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?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd5jdh5.b5b.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> > I'm not talking about the reason lawful societies are lawful, I'm
> > talking about where you are likely to find a lawful person. If a
> > lawful person were living in a chaotic society, they would most likely
> > either leave or become more chaotic. They would NOT try to change the
> > society they live in(in general), they would simply either adapt or
> > leave.
>
> Or lay clever plans manipulating the current rulers and major power
> blocs against each other, cause a few conflicts between them (resulting
> in the banishment or outright destruction of the more troublesome ones),
> move in with his otherwise-unknown army and take over, thereafter ruling
> with an iron fist.
>
> i.e. *change the society*
>
> There are other ways to do it, of course -- even LG ones -- but this
> should be a clear enough counterexample of what could be done by a
> lawful character (maybe LN, more likely LE, but still lawful).

*smile* Yes, you're right. But then again, how often does Dr. No and his
evil megalomaniacal plan manage to defeat Bond and MI6? 😉

What you're talking about is the exceptional person. In order to reach that
level of influence, you MUST be someone of importance, you must already be
positioned to exert influence in order to accomplish this, meaning that you
are already the exception, rather than the rule.

The average everyday joe, the society member that makes the bulk of society,
is simply not going to ever be in a position to exert that level of
influence, and will likely either conform to society or leave it.

> 'lawful will become more lawful, chaotic will become more chaotic'
>
> Not entirely unreasonable, but it's still possible to turn it around.
> It just takes enough influence and/or power, and the proper application
> thereof.

Yes, but societies tend to reflect the views of the majority, not the
minority, at least societies that tend to last long, Nazi ideals and
apartheid ideals being prime examples of what happens when the minority
tries to exert it's power over the majority. Sure, it'll last a while, but
sooner or later, it's gonna fall apart.

--
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:W5qdnXUNyvPnbcTfRVn-qw@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.
> >
> > I don't see how, but if it makes you feel better, you can assume any
> > reason
> > at all.
>
> I would not require their immediate removal, because I am a competent
enough
> GM to roll with it. Provide a reason if you want an answer.

The berries need to be gone now because they are screwing with PC balance
levels. So, how do you get rid of them.

--
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:
> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnd5jdh5.b5b.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>> > I'm not talking about the reason lawful societies are lawful, I'm
>> > talking about where you are likely to find a lawful person. If a
>> > lawful person were living in a chaotic society, they would most likely
>> > either leave or become more chaotic. They would NOT try to change the
>> > society they live in(in general), they would simply either adapt or
>> > leave.
>>
>> Or lay clever plans manipulating the current rulers and major power
>> blocs against each other, cause a few conflicts between them (resulting
>> in the banishment or outright destruction of the more troublesome ones),
>> move in with his otherwise-unknown army and take over, thereafter ruling
>> with an iron fist.
>>
>> i.e. *change the society*
>>
>> There are other ways to do it, of course -- even LG ones -- but this
>> should be a clear enough counterexample of what could be done by a
>> lawful character (maybe LN, more likely LE, but still lawful).
>
> *smile* Yes, you're right. But then again, how often does Dr. No and his
> evil megalomaniacal plan manage to defeat Bond and MI6? 😉

See, they're *stupid*.

> What you're talking about is the exceptional person. In order to
> reach that level of influence, you MUST be someone of importance, you
> must already be positioned to exert influence in order to accomplish
> this, meaning that you are already the exception, rather than the
> rule.

So? You spoke in absolute terms.

> The average everyday joe, the society member that makes the bulk of
> society, is simply not going to ever be in a position to exert that
> level of influence, and will likely either conform to society or leave
> it.

*This* may be true, but it's not what you said.


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

 

[Guest]

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

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd5jmr8.b5b.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> >> > I'm not talking about the reason lawful societies are lawful, I'm
**> >> > talking about where you are likely to find a lawful person. If a
**> >> > lawful person were living in a chaotic society, they would most
likely
> >> > either leave or become more chaotic. They would NOT try to change
the
**> >> > society they live in(in general), they would simply either adapt or
> >> > leave.
>
> > What you're talking about is the exceptional person. In order to
> > reach that level of influence, you MUST be someone of importance, you
> > must already be positioned to exert influence in order to accomplish
> > this, meaning that you are already the exception, rather than the
> > rule.
>
> So? You spoke in absolute terms.

Note the asterisked lines above. What do the terms "in general", "likely",
and "most likely" mean to you? They are expressions of *gasp* generality,
not absolutes, I honestly don't know how much more clear I can make it.

> > The average everyday joe, the society member that makes the bulk of
> > society, is simply not going to ever be in a position to exert that
> > level of influence, and will likely either conform to society or leave
> > it.
>
> *This* may be true, but it's not what you said.

Actually, it was. Nice try though.

--
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 19:14:10 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:7l1j51l0nkrh8djh2e2pu9v6pvsciqpr3o@4ax.com...
>> >No, in the world the characters live in, there are "rules of war", rules
>> >that are common knowledge to all characters.
>>
>> Those are still someone else's rules. Do the orcs obey them? Probably not.
>
>Should the characters expect that surrenders would be honorably accepted by
>the orcs? Not a chance in hell.

Once again for the cheap seats: LAWFUL PEOPLE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW
OTHER PEOPLE'S LAWS.

It doesn't matter if they know about the existance of this rule, if they
don't agree with it, then they are under no obligation to follow it.

Orcs being CE are not the best example...how about Hobgoblins? Despite
being rigidly lawful, they would spit on goody-goody "let the prisoners
live" laws if it suited their purpose to have those prisoners die. Other
people's laws, no matter how prevalent those laws are in the rest of the
world, simply have no effect on them.

> Would the orcs be aware of these rules?
>You bet your ass. They would use them to their advantage, of course, use
>them to get their lives spared(maybe), or use them to trick people into
>lowering their gaurd for a sneak attack.
>
>> Lawful has nothing to do with the desire or non-desire to take revenge,
>any
>> more than it relates to any other human emotion. Yes, lawful good people
>> (even *gasp* paladins!) are allowed to hate someone with no ill effects to
>> their alignment.
>
>Yes, but lawful good paladins have a code that they must live by in order to
>maintain their status. It's not that the character was lawful good that
>caused the problem, it was that the character was a PALADIN.

Paladins can seek revenge without compromising their alignment, their
class, their oath, or their god in even the slightest degree.

>> >Yes. He doesn't have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner.
>In
>> >our campaign.
>>
>> Those are, again, someone else's laws. Another view would be that a
>> paladin's divine providence not only empowers him to those duties, but
>> obligates him to them.
>
>The paladin's code is considered unwavering, from the paladin's perspective.
>It doesn't matter what OTHER people think of his code, it matters what HE
>thinks of his code.

His code says "no judging"?

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:n3oj511uaunbqlmriadiaiofrjuvh3h9m5@4ax.com...
> >The paladin's code is considered unwavering, from the paladin's
perspective.
> >It doesn't matter what OTHER people think of his code, it matters what HE
> >thinks of his code.
>
> His code says "no judging"?

His code says no judging without authority. 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:
>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>I don't see how, but if it makes you feel better, you can assume any
>>>reason at all.
>>
>>I would not require their immediate removal, because I am a competent
>>enough GM to roll with it. Provide a reason if you want an answer.
>
>The berries need to be gone now because they are screwing with PC balance
>levels.

I think people expected an actual in-game reason, not a meta-game reason.


>So, how do you get rid of them. [?]

Without an in-game reason, I would just talk to the players...


Donald

 

[Guest]

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

"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:d3d1fg$15up$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> >"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>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.
> >>>
> >>>I don't see how, but if it makes you feel better, you can assume any
> >>>reason at all.
> >>
> >>I would not require their immediate removal, because I am a competent
> >>enough GM to roll with it. Provide a reason if you want an answer.
> >
> >The berries need to be gone now because they are screwing with PC balance
> >levels.
>
> I think people expected an actual in-game reason, not a meta-game reason.

There is no in game reason, the entire reason for the need to get rid of
them stems from the metagame.

--
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:
> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnd5jmr8.b5b.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>>
>> > What you're talking about is the exceptional person. In order to
>>
>> So? You spoke in absolute terms.
>
> Note the asterisked lines above. What do the terms "in general", "likely",
> and "most likely" mean to you? They are expressions of *gasp* generality,
> not absolutes, I honestly don't know how much more clear I can make it.

Hrm, yeah, I missed that.

The tone of your writing sounded absolute, but you did include the
weasel words.


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

 

[Guest]

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

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd5k4r5.qvm.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> > news:slrnd5jmr8.b5b.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> >>
> >> > What you're talking about is the exceptional person. In order to
> >>
> >> So? You spoke in absolute terms.
> >
> > Note the asterisked lines above. What do the terms "in general",
"likely",
> > and "most likely" mean to you? They are expressions of *gasp*
generality,
> > not absolutes, I honestly don't know how much more clear I can make it.
>
> Hrm, yeah, I missed that.
>
> The tone of your writing sounded absolute, but you did include the
> weasel words.

Well, the tone was intended to sound "absolute", because it is the RAREST of
exceptions that truly transforms a society to an individual's image, rather
than the other way around. Almost without exception, conformity is forced
upon individuals by the group, not the other way around. There are rare and
exceptional examples of the opposite proving to be true, but they are so
incalculably rare that it's almost not even worthy of being considered as a
realistic outcome. You honestly have to turn to the icons of history to
find those rare examples, it's not like you can look down your street and
find a few.

I'm comfortable putting money down against extreme odds on the failure of
any individual who tries to fundamentally change the society he lives in,
because you can literally count on the fingers of one hand the number of
people who have managed to do it with any lasting success, especially from
any non-power/grassroots position . Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Martin
Luther, Darwin. You've also got plenty of people who did it from power, but
even THEY are exceptions rather than the rule. Constantine, Henry VIII,
Washington, Galileo, Copernicus. These names rank among the most
historically significant that humanity has to offer.

--
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 Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:03:11 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
>news:d3d1fg$15up$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
>> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>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.
>> >>>
>> >>>I don't see how, but if it makes you feel better, you can assume any
>> >>>reason at all.
>> >>
>> >>I would not require their immediate removal, because I am a competent
>> >>enough GM to roll with it. Provide a reason if you want an answer.
>> >
>> >The berries need to be gone now because they are screwing with PC balance
>> >levels.
>>
>> I think people expected an actual in-game reason, not a meta-game reason.
>
>There is no in game reason, the entire reason for the need to get rid of
>them stems from the metagame.

If they are not causing an in-game problem, why would it be necesary to
remove them?

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news😛q9k51l2jjrghl5len0b5ih27iv4d1452b@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:03:11 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
> scribed into the ether:
>
> >"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> >news:d3d1fg$15up$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> >> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>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.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>I don't see how, but if it makes you feel better, you can assume any
> >> >>>reason at all.
> >> >>
> >> >>I would not require their immediate removal, because I am a competent
> >> >>enough GM to roll with it. Provide a reason if you want an answer.
> >> >
> >> >The berries need to be gone now because they are screwing with PC
balance
> >> >levels.
> >>
> >> I think people expected an actual in-game reason, not a meta-game
reason.
> >
> >There is no in game reason, the entire reason for the need to get rid of
> >them stems from the metagame.
>
> If they are not causing an in-game problem, why would it be necesary to
> remove them?

The players' perceptions are that one character is outstripping all the
others. That's a metagame problem. One part of the problem, these rage
berries. So, get rid of them. The question here is NOT about the reason, I
might add, it's that all the solutions to a problem have been deemed
"hamfisted".

So, once again, assuming the berries have to go NOW, not later, what is your
non-hamfisted solution to the problem?

--
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:cNqdnUkhxbxBmMffRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:W5qdnXUNyvPnbcTfRVn-qw@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.
>> >
>> > I don't see how, but if it makes you feel better, you can assume any
>> > reason
>> > at all.
>>
>> I would not require their immediate removal, because I am a competent
> enough
>> GM to roll with it. Provide a reason if you want an answer.
>
> The berries need to be gone now because they are screwing with PC balance
> levels. So, how do you get rid of them.

In what way are they screwing with PC balance levels? These are not
permanent items.

--
^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:0c6dnUHJ5r0TtMffRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> news😛q9k51l2jjrghl5len0b5ih27iv4d1452b@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:03:11 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
>> scribed into the ether:
>>
>> >"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:d3d1fg$15up$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
>> >> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>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.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>I don't see how, but if it makes you feel better, you can assume
>> >> >>>any
>> >> >>>reason at all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I would not require their immediate removal, because I am a
>> >> >>competent
>> >> >>enough GM to roll with it. Provide a reason if you want an answer.
>> >> >
>> >> >The berries need to be gone now because they are screwing with PC
> balance
>> >> >levels.
>> >>
>> >> I think people expected an actual in-game reason, not a meta-game
> reason.
>> >
>> >There is no in game reason, the entire reason for the need to get rid of
>> >them stems from the metagame.
>>
>> If they are not causing an in-game problem, why would it be necesary to
>> remove them?
>
> The players' perceptions are that one character is outstripping all the
> others. That's a metagame problem.

This metagame problem has a metagame solution: first, I would explain that
these are temporary. Secondly, I would mention to them that these items are
a benefit to the party. Finally, I would mention that they themselves
created this imbalance in-game by giving one character all the goodies, so I
expect them to deal with it in-game as well.

> One part of the problem, these rage berries. So, get rid of them.

I see no reason to exert GM influence to remove them. Provide a good
reason.

> The question here is NOT about the reason,

Yes, it is. Different reasons demand different solutions.

> I might add, it's that all the solutions to a problem have been deemed
> "hamfisted".

No. All the solutions you have suggested have been deemed such. Your
solutions are not "all" solutions.

> So, once again, assuming the berries have to go NOW, not later,

Why? The answer to this question is important.

> what is your non-hamfisted solution to the problem?

I still do not really see a problem. The berries will run out, if they are
being used. If they are not being used, they are not really having an
effect in-game.

--
^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:
>
> I'm comfortable putting money down against extreme odds on the failure
> of any individual who tries to fundamentally change the society he
> lives in, because you can literally count on the fingers of one hand
> the number of people who have managed to do it with any lasting
> success, especially from any non-power/grassroots position . Martin
> Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Martin Luther, Darwin. You've also got plenty
> of people who did it from power, but even THEY are exceptions rather
> than the rule. Constantine, Henry VIII, Washington, Galileo,
> Copernicus. These names rank among the most historically significant
> that humanity has to offer.

Bear in mind that the PCs are expected to be *heroes*. That is, they're
already exceptional, having them reach the same heights as those you've
mentioned above makes sense, for the genre.

Not *easily*, but the potential should certainly be there.


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