PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

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

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd5kf73.qvm.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> 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.

I agree with that assessment. Of course, it would be just peachy if my
argument applied to the exceptions rather than the rule.

The exceptions noted above were only to show the relative rarity of such
persons. As far as the "general rule" goes, I was referring to the masses,
of which the PC's are most likely NOT a part. They would fall into the
"potential likely exceptions" category, rather than the "general
population", simply by virtue of the exceptional abilities and
opportunities.

--
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 11:03:35 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

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

Actually, from what's been posted, the barbarian is merely a decent
build. There's nothing particularly special about it. It's that the
fighter was (almost willfully) built in a sub-optimal way that's the
problem.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:07:02 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> This is the kind of analysis I would expect from every character, and the
> reason for extensive weapon lists. That being said, the only conclusion
> every barbarian would draw would be to wield a great sword?

No, the greataxe does nearly as much damage (d12 vs 2d6), and
criticals less often, but for x3 damage instead of x2 damage. Which
you prefer is a flavour and style thing more than an issue of
effectiveness. If you want lots and lots of damage on a critcal a
scythe is another 2-handed option. For a very wide critical threat
range the 'falchion' could be selected.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:28:54 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
carved upon a tablet of ether:


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

Int6 is about the bottom decile, so ~90% of humans are brighter. OTOH
that half-orc could well have a decent Wis, so he might not know what
weapon is best, but he'll realise that it's wise to ask someone who
does, and follow their advice.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

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

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:28:54 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> Any clue what INT6 compares to in real life? What am I saying, of COURSE
>> you know what INT6 compares to in real life, given that you live that dream
>> on a daily basis.
>
> Int6 is about the bottom decile, so ~90% of humans are brighter. OTOH
> that half-orc could well have a decent Wis, so he might not know what
> weapon is best, but he'll realise that it's wise to ask someone who
> does, and follow their advice.

For that matter, it's not even necessarily *his* decision.

"Krolak, you are the half-bred son on a weak human, but you are going
to be a worthy member of this tribe. Or your weak blood will betray
you and you will die. Take up this greatsword and using it to
destroy our enemies, as your ancestors before you."

That is, it may be a cultural thing that they tend to use big weapons.
*Someone* early on noticed that big weapons are more effective and
they've stuck with it.


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

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:21:06 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

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

Leaving them bound and gagged in such a way they could be guaranteed
to not get away would mean binding them to the point that they could
well stave or die of thrist before getting free. That's the same as
killing them. Or do you think it's okay for paladins to expose babies?


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

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

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:hu4i519hva9h62an7j9ng0dq2rissfvavm@4ax.com...
> Leaving them bound and gagged in such a way they could be guaranteed
> to not get away would mean binding them to the point that they could
> well stave or die of thrist before getting free. That's the same as
> killing them. Or do you think it's okay for paladins to expose babies?

As noted before, the idea was not to kill them, simply to prevent them from
following us(at the time). A few knots later, a few hours of working the
knots, and they would have been free.

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MFw6e.4198$yq6.34@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Why would
> someone who believes order is important CHANGE HIS MIND just because he is
> living in a nation with tribal rulership? Has it not occurred to you that
> the other alignment axis might have a little something to say about
whether
> or not someone likes a place?

No, it hasn't. Peer pressure is a bitch, far more important than you
probably imagine. A lawful person living in a chaotic society would be
almost required to abandon his lawful ways in deference to the chaos that
surrounds him in order to fit into that society. The reverse is true for a
chaotic person living in a lawful society. As such, it doesn't much matter
what they would PREFER to do, because what they prefer to do is irrelevant,
they are likely to act in a manner that is reflective of the society that
surrounds them(or risk being ostracized).

People's morals rarely change dramatically, once set(there is some fine
tuning and adjustment, of course). Their "good vs evil" compass is usually
tuned pretty tight early on in life. It's unlikely that one could get an
otherwise good person to lie, cheat, steal, rape and murder, without some
rather extenuating circumstances. So that axis isn't really affected by the
law of the land. What is evil in a person's eyes remains evil regardless of
the law vs chaos axis.

> >They would NOT try to change the society they live in(in general),
>
> More bullshit. Americans do not live in a Lawful or Chaotic society,
yet
> Lawful and Chaotic persons in America regularly try to influence its
> direction rather than changing their alignments or leaving the country.

They *TRY* to influence society, but it just doesn't work, pretty much ever.
Last big social change in america? Civil rights movement? That was fought
tooth and nail, kicking and screaming, and was eventually dragged by the
hair into our living rooms, and was the result of the actions of a very few
people, when you get right down to it.

People can TRY to bash their heads against the proverbial brick wall all day
long, that doesn't mean they actually ACCOMPLISH anything.

> > they would simply either adapt or leave.
>
> Hint. Adapting <> changing alignment. Adapting means finding a way to
> live in a Lawful way while in that Chaotic society. Which is not hard to
> do, because one can always create order in oneself, and in one's home,
find
> other Lawfuls with which to keep company, form social and political and
> religious groups ...

No, one does not live in an insular world. One cannot create a lawful
cocoon within a chaotic society and expect it to hold up. People have to
interact with others outside of that little cocoon. You may have a cocoon
that protects YOU from interacting with anyone else, but that's mainly
because you're an antisocial freak, and appear to have found a way to never
actually interact with living human beings face to face, but in NORMAL
society, people have to interact, and that interaction requires them to
change their ways to conform to certain expectations.

--
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 wrote:
> "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.

Because they were an ill-considered non-permanent item.

The barbarian already takes the spotlight whenever combat happens, its a
class feature. The problem arises because the barbarian doens't ever
have to make a real choice about whether to Rage or not. There is
always the backup of the berries.

The fact that the barbarian can Rage, essentially at will, is a
combination of my fault, DM2s fault, and the berries.

I can't control the fact that DM2 runs very few combats, preferring
investigation scenarios with one or two big combats.

I can control the number and style of the encounters I throw in,
increasing fequency, and avoiding telegraphing whther a particular fight
is a Mook FIght or not, as well as mixing in occasional 'second wave'
attacks.

Even so, though, if the number of combats in a day is going to be low,
the barbarian can rage for all he's worth, knowing the berries will
allow him to do it again, and be even more of a combat spotlight hog
than a normal low/mid leel barbarian.

The 'spotlight' hoginess is the problem. It makes, in my opinion and
observation, the other players feel like their chartacters are, at best,
supporting cast.

Including, of course, my PC, when I'm not DMing.

Thus, it would be very nice if the berries went away. Selfish? A bit,
but it would increase the playing fun of 3 out of four players, without,
I hope, decreasing significantly, the fun of barb's player has, since
he'll still be the center of attention in combat... just not as much so.

HTH
DWS

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin<autockr@comcast.net> gave the game away:
> 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.

The average everyday joe, the society member that makes the bulk of
society, is simply never going to ever be a PC.

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

 

[Guest]

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

"U.P.:up" <majelix@gehennom.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd5l2tl.udj.majelix@orcus.gehennom.net...
> Jeff Goslin<autockr@comcast.net> gave the game away:
> > 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.
>
> The average everyday joe, the society member that makes the bulk of
> society, is simply never going to ever be a PC.

Agreed, but since the point was that one was likely to find a lawful
person(not PC but person) in a lawful society, that's hardly relevant.

--
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 03:37:40 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"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:

>> >> >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".

The reason is highly relevant, Jeff. You can't solve problems without
knowing the underlying cause of them.

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

It's a metagame problem that requires a metagame solution. If the players
feel that the berries are making one character shine too much, when that is
not actually the case...EXPLAIN IT TO THEM.

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:37:40 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
> scribed into the ether:
>
>
>>"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:
>
>
>>>>>>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".
>
> The reason is highly relevant, Jeff. You can't solve problems without
> knowing the underlying cause of them.
>
>>So, once again, assuming the berries have to go NOW, not later, what is your
>>non-hamfisted solution to the problem?
>
> It's a metagame problem that requires a metagame solution. If the players
> feel that the berries are making one character shine too much, when that is
> not actually the case...EXPLAIN IT TO THEM.

Preferably, metagame problems should have metagame solutions. That
said, Jeff has ALREADY acknowledged that... when the first person
suggested it (Tialan?).

If I understand what he's asking correctly, he is trying to find out if
anyone can think of an in-game method of removing the berries that won't
be declared ham-fisted.

Personally, I really like the idea suggested that they hatch into little
Rage Demons at some point. It removes the berries, and gives the party
some in-game session time to have some fun dealing with a problem that
is, to some extent, of their making, rather than going on missions that
are useful and necessary, but which have no personal connection.

DWS

 

[Guest]

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

"David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:115lhhj6mna5mac@corp.supernews.com...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
> > "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.
>
> Because they were an ill-considered non-permanent item.
>
> The barbarian already takes the spotlight whenever combat happens, its a
> class feature. The problem arises because the barbarian doens't ever
> have to make a real choice about whether to Rage or not. There is
> always the backup of the berries.
>
> The fact that the barbarian can Rage, essentially at will, is a
> combination of my fault, DM2s fault, and the berries.
>
> I can't control the fact that DM2 runs very few combats, preferring
> investigation scenarios with one or two big combats.
>
> I can control the number and style of the encounters I throw in,
> increasing fequency, and avoiding telegraphing whther a particular fight
> is a Mook FIght or not, as well as mixing in occasional 'second wave'
> attacks.
>
> Even so, though, if the number of combats in a day is going to be low,
> the barbarian can rage for all he's worth, knowing the berries will
> allow him to do it again, and be even more of a combat spotlight hog
> than a normal low/mid leel barbarian.
>
> The 'spotlight' hoginess is the problem. It makes, in my opinion and
> observation, the other players feel like their chartacters are, at best,
> supporting cast.
>
> Including, of course, my PC, when I'm not DMing.
>
> Thus, it would be very nice if the berries went away. Selfish? A bit,
> but it would increase the playing fun of 3 out of four players, without,
> I hope, decreasing significantly, the fun of barb's player has, since
> he'll still be the center of attention in combat... just not as much so.
>
> HTH
> DWS
>

From the horse's mouth(so to speak)...

So, now, assuming they have to go NOW rather than later, what's your
non-hamfisted solution to get rid of them. Every other suggestion has been
deemed hamfisted, so what's your brilliant idea?

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

 

[Guest]

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

"David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:115lhpqi5lklc93@corp.supernews.com...
> Matt Frisch wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:37:40 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
> > scribed into the ether:
> >
> >
> >>"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:
> >
> >
> >>>>>>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".
> >
> > The reason is highly relevant, Jeff. You can't solve problems without
> > knowing the underlying cause of them.
> >
> >>So, once again, assuming the berries have to go NOW, not later, what is
your
> >>non-hamfisted solution to the problem?
> >
> > It's a metagame problem that requires a metagame solution. If the
players
> > feel that the berries are making one character shine too much, when that
is
> > not actually the case...EXPLAIN IT TO THEM.
>
> Preferably, metagame problems should have metagame solutions. That
> said, Jeff has ALREADY acknowledged that... when the first person
> suggested it (Tialan?).
>
> If I understand what he's asking correctly, he is trying to find out if
> anyone can think of an in-game method of removing the berries that won't
> be declared ham-fisted.
>
> Personally, I really like the idea suggested that they hatch into little
> Rage Demons at some point. It removes the berries, and gives the party
> some in-game session time to have some fun dealing with a problem that
> is, to some extent, of their making, rather than going on missions that
> are useful and necessary, but which have no personal connection.

A fairly hamfisted idea, to be sure, but personally, I like it. Honestly, I
don't much care if an idea is hamfisted or not, but it seems others do care
and have declared that all ideas that have been come up with so far are
hamfisted, so I'm curious to know what idea is NOT hamfisted, so we can get
an idea of what would be approved of.

--
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?)

Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Jeff Goslin said

> 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?

Wow how about telling them to role play their characters. Push the
freaking problem character off a cliff or something. Stop being such a
bunch of tragic losers.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

 

[Guest]

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

"Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9635CFF1A964Crsingers@IP-Hidden...
> Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Jeff Goslin said
>
> > 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?
>
> Wow how about telling them to role play their characters. Push the
> freaking problem character off a cliff or something. Stop being such a
> bunch of tragic losers.

I have a feeling that a "tragic accident befalling said barbarian" isn't
exactly what the DM has in mind.

--
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:
> "Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9635CFF1A964Crsingers@IP-Hidden...
>
>>Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Jeff Goslin said
>>
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>Wow how about telling them to role play their characters. Push the
>>freaking problem character off a cliff or something. Stop being such a
>>bunch of tragic losers.
>
>
> I have a feeling that a "tragic accident befalling said barbarian" isn't
> exactly what the DM has in mind.

Would be funny for about ten minutes, though =-)

DWS

 

[Guest]

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

"David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:115l5g8qrim0ha2@corp.supernews.com...
> >>Wow how about telling them to role play their characters. Push the
> >>freaking problem character off a cliff or something. Stop being such a
> >>bunch of tragic losers.
> >
> > I have a feeling that a "tragic accident befalling said barbarian" isn't
> > exactly what the DM has in mind.
>
> Would be funny for about ten minutes, though =-)

"Spot check please, Mr Barbarian... woops, rolled a 1 huh?"
"Whut the...?"
"Well, you MIGHT have noticed yourself being led precariously close to the
cliff by some suspiciously eager party members, but never mind, don't worry,
NOTHING to worry about... So, they are pointing to something on the ground
at the bottom of the canyon, you can't make it out... a closer look might
be in order..."

--
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?)

Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Rupert Boleyn said

> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:21:06 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> In this instance, the paladin had only one realistic choice: tie
>> them up and leave them there. He couldn't let them go(they would
>> warn their superiors too quickly), he couldn't kill them(they were
>> surrendering to him), and he didn't have time to turn them over to
>> the powers that be(time was a factor in the mission they were on).
>> Leaving them bound and gagged would have given them enough time to
>> leave the area without being followed by the critters, and left no
>> blood on the hands of the paladin.
>
> Leaving them bound and gagged in such a way they could be guaranteed
> to not get away would mean binding them to the point that they could
> well stave or die of thrist before getting free. That's the same as
> killing them. Or do you think it's okay for paladins to expose babies?

Yes, just not eat them.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "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.

Cowardly display from Evil, nothing surprising there. 8]

> 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.

So you automatically accept surrender? That's stupid; surely you
can see how Evil could abuse that. Paladins must protect the innocent,
not the cowardly.
As I said, IMC, if the aggressors don't offer a chance to
surrender, then they don't get the chance when the fight goes against
them; unless perhaps the defenders have use of a captive. It's not a
matter of Good and Evil, but of simple survival.

>> 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.

Right, they drop weapons, you yell "fight or die, coward", and keep
killing. The baddies will fight back, or at least have a runner's chance.
Paladins like to subdue, sure, but out in the middle of nowhere the
only real justice for the violently wicked is death, unless you can
meaningfully enforce a banishment. A Paladin who was appropriately
overpowering might instead offer a lesson in humility; subdue, disarm,
kill leader, warn the others, release. Perhaps you could turn the Orcs
to the side of Good, but that's unlikely to last.


>> 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).

Heh. Go out, locate the ones responsable for this mess, and
dispence justice. That's pretty much what Paladins do: if someone tries
to kill them along the way, don't expect them to play nice.
You've got to remember, in medieval times the law only protects
those who live by it; outlaws, brigands, invasions, man-eating monsters,
all get no automatic protection; though they can earn it by proving
themselves worthy.


<Paladin's 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.

Nonsense. It's /all/ down to technicalities: that's why they can
smite the *Evil*, and they only have to go out of their way to protect
the *innocent*. Protecting Evil from the fair retribution of the
innocent is the exact oppostite of the Paladins code.

--
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:425a4d4d@clear.net.nz...
> > Well, the PARTY accepted the surrender(the orcs basically dropped their
> > weapons and went turtle "don't hurt me!"), more by default than
anything.
>
> Cowardly display from Evil, nothing surprising there. 8]

Well, the party rather handily slaughtered his buddies, there wasn't much
left to do except throw himself on the mercy of the people who would
otherwise kill him.

> > 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.
>
> So you automatically accept surrender? That's stupid; surely you
> can see how Evil could abuse that. Paladins must protect the innocent,
> not the cowardly.

Well, it's more about the helplessness than it is about the surrender(and
admittedly easy abuse of the surrender policy).

> As I said, IMC, if the aggressors don't offer a chance to
> surrender, then they don't get the chance when the fight goes against
> them; unless perhaps the defenders have use of a captive. It's not a
> matter of Good and Evil, but of simple survival.

Simple survival: the orc's only chance was to beg for mercy.

> > 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.
>
> Right, they drop weapons, you yell "fight or die, coward", and keep
> killing. The baddies will fight back, or at least have a runner's chance.

It's about honor, too, you know. It's not honorable to kill someone who has
their back to you and is running away.

> > I would honestly have no problem with that, for a mid level paladin, but
not
> > one just starting out(as was the case here).
>
> Heh. Go out, locate the ones responsable for this mess, and
> dispence justice. That's pretty much what Paladins do: if someone tries
> to kill them along the way, don't expect them to play nice.

Actually, I *do* expect them to play nice, in the "honorable" sense. No,
they aren't going to "not kill you" if you're in the middle of attacking
them, but if you surrender, I expect that they will do the honorable thing
and not kill you simply out of spite.

> <Paladin's 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.
>
> Nonsense. It's /all/ down to technicalities: that's why they can
> smite the *Evil*, and they only have to go out of their way to protect
> the *innocent*. Protecting Evil from the fair retribution of the
> innocent is the exact oppostite of the Paladins code.

Protecting ANYONE from unfair retribution is the precise point of the
paladin's code.

--
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:
> "U.P.:up" <majelix@gehennom.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd5eele.kdh.majelix@orcus.gehennom.net...
>
>>Jeff Goslin<autockr@comcast.net> gave the game away:
>>
>>>Paladins in our campaign do NOT rough people up. Thieves do things like
>>>that. It is not "honorable" for a paladin to do it.
>>
>>There goes that whole "smiting" gig.
>
> Smiting the wicked in the midst of their wickedness, no problem. Smiting
> the wicked after they've laid down their arms and surrendered to you, that's
> pretty much out.

Nonsense.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:21:06 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> In this instance, the paladin had only one realistic choice: tie
>> them up and leave them there. He couldn't let them go(they would
>> warn their superiors too quickly), he couldn't kill them(they were
>> surrendering to him), and he didn't have time to turn them over to
>> the powers that be(time was a factor in the mission they were on).
>> Leaving them bound and gagged would have given them enough time to
>> leave the area without being followed by the critters, and left no
>> blood on the hands of the paladin.
>
> Leaving them bound and gagged in such a way they could be guaranteed
> to not get away would mean binding them to the point that they could
> well stave or die of thrist before getting free. That's the same as
> killing them. Or do you think it's okay for paladins to expose babies?

FWIW, it's more merciful to grant a quick death than a lingering one.
If word gets out that 'in an effort to be merciful, because they
surrendered' he ties them up and abandons them, he's going to find that
people *won't* surrender.

Among the martial types of a lot of cultures, dying in combat is more or
less expected (if resisted as much and as well as possible). In many
cultures, a warrior living to die of illness, starvation or old age was
considered dishonorable, or at least less than desireable.

If someone surrenders, a 'Good' person will either kill them outright,
keep them prisoner (and feed them, etc.) or even grant parole[1], or let
them go. Tying them up and abandoning them is probably less than good.

[1] That's where the captured person promises to not try to escape or
attack you, but you're responsible for keeping him safe. In some
cases it can even go farther -- you might let him rearm to work with
you until such time as the capture ends (usually on ransom). Of
course, the captured person has to be trustworthy.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vaccuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

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

In article <MFw6e.4198$yq6.34@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> You are a fool, Goslin.
> Please, just stop posting already.

It might lower your blood pressure a bit, but some of the rest of us want
*something* to read. Most of the volume lately has been Jeff and people
flaming him, plus Rump Ranger and people flaming him. I suppose there's
Shawn, too. Of the three of them I prefer Jeff. Actually I slightly prefer
Rump Ranger from before the latest flamefest.

Maybe I should pray for more people to post on-topic.
--
"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...)