PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

Page 23 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <slrnd5lrmu.bcu.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>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

I'm glad someone decided to immortalize Matt's comment. I am too attached to
my ancient .sig to do it myself.
--
"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...)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
> In article <slrnd5lrmu.bcu.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>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
>
> I'm glad someone decided to immortalize Matt's comment. I am too
> attached to my ancient .sig to do it myself.

I stripped the name -- didn't want to be *too* provocative -- but the
quote was too good to ignore. It was time to change my .sig anyway.


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

Suddenly, madafro@sbcglobal.net, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the
darkness and exclaimed:

> IMO, paladins are soldiers of Good - emphasis on "soldier" - and are
> considered to be in a constant state of war with Evil. As such, they
> are not obligated to honor the surrender of any foe with confirmed evil
> intent, no matter how much the enemy whines and begs. Kill the bastard,
> and let the priests pray for his salvation in the afterlife.
>

Finally, someone's talking sense.

--
Billy Yank

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

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

[bigsnip]

> Paladins are obligated to adhere to their Code. Although they must
> "respect legitimate authority," they are not obligated by the terms of
> their Code to slavishly follow the laws of the land. They are soldiers
> of their ethos, not of the local nobility. If that means a paladin must
> kill a beloved monarch that is secretly worshipping Asmodeus in his
> basement, than that is his duty, even if he hangs for it.

I've long been a proponent of 'good doesn't mean nice', and that honor
is what you make of it.


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 vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:55:29 -0500, David Serhienko
<david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:37:40 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
>> scribed into the ether:
>>

>>>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?).

Jeff is suggesting just removing the items outright, which is not a
metagame solution.

If the issue is player perception, then deal with that. If the berries are
not causing an in-game problem, then the adage about not fixing things that
aren't broken applies.

>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.

That they are eggs of some sort which after incubating in the barbarian's
pouch, have popped up as some interesting little critter is extremely
non-hamfisted.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:d3f14f$ftp$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> In article <MFw6e.4198$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.

I've been fairly carefully snipping the simple ad hominem attacks and
ignoring them as simple excess to the conversation. I'll respond to MSB's
content(such as it is), but I'll pass on the verbal hershey squirts, thank
you very much.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1113267062.053054.37370@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Paladins are obligated to adhere to their Code. Although they must

I am curious if anyone has any form of "generally agreed upon" or perhaps
published Paladin's Code (TM). Has anyone ever bothered, even if it's
specific to a single deity, to actually "write down" the code of the
paladins, at least in their campaigns. I haven't. Anyone?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:j4hm51t533ilml0vn6qc8drqumjrtv8ujg@4ax.com...
> >Preferably, metagame problems should have metagame solutions. That
> >said, Jeff has ALREADY acknowledged that... when the first person
> >suggested it (Tialan?).
>
> Jeff is suggesting just removing the items outright, which is not a
> metagame solution.

Of course it is. There is no logical/rational/non-hamfisted explanation, so
the metagame solution is to simply rule zero them out of existance. It's
*A* solution, not necessarily an OPTIMAL solution, but it's *A* solution.

> If the issue is player perception, then deal with that. If the berries are
> not causing an in-game problem, then the adage about not fixing things
that
> aren't broken applies.

You're drawing a line of distinction that is impossible to draw. The
in-game situation is causing a METAgame problem. The perceptions of the
PLAYERS is being messed with because of the abilities of the CHARACTERS, and
that ability is being modified by in game stuff. Yes, the cause of the
problem is an IN GAME cause, but the effect that is not desired is one that
affects the METAGAME, not the game. I'm quite sure the characters are more
than comfortable have uber-fighter going toe to toe with the bad guys when
it comes to that.

> >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.
>
> That they are eggs of some sort which after incubating in the barbarian's
> pouch, have popped up as some interesting little critter is extremely
> non-hamfisted.

Personally, I think it's a good idea, but it is nonetheless hamfisted,
awkward, inelegant and kludgy, from most perspectives. There has been no
prior indication that these things are eggs of any kind, there has been
nothing to foreshadow that such an event might be possible, it's going to be
quite obviously percieved for what it is, a cooked up kludge to rid the
party of the rest of their ex-berries now eggs of doom. It's the D&D
equivalent of duct tape, and no matter how you dress it up, if it looks like
duct tape, acts like duct tape, and works like duct tape, it's going to be
viewed as duct tape.

Someone else brought up the whole "hamfisted" problem, that some solutions
are less elegant than others, and that's true, but almost ANY solution that
is both immediate and permanent that involves the removal of these berries
is necessarily going to be inelegant to say the least, simply due to it's
necessarily abrupt nature. It may be FUN(as in the case of the hatching
rage berries), but it will nonetheless be fairly kludgy.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
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 funny thing is, I have played with many barbarians, and I really do not
see this happening.

> 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.

He will reach that point soon enough on his own.

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

No, it is the fault of your players, for giving his character all the
berries. If they split them among the front-line fighters, it would likely
be better in general for the party as well.

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

It sounds like the berries will have no effect on this, then. He can rage
twice per day, right?

> 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.

I feel your other characters are not doing their jobs if the barbarian is
always in the spotlight.

> 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.

They *made themselves that way* by giving the barbarian all the berries
(and, in the case of the fighter, by making and stubbornly sticking to a
severely suboptimal build).

> Including, of course, my PC, when I'm not DMing.
>
> Thus, it would be very nice if the berries went away.

There are two scenarios here:

1) The barbarian does not use the berries. Thus, they are having no actual
effect on anything, other than a *perceived* effect.
2) The barbarian uses the berries. He will run out of those berries, and
any problem they present will be solved.

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:O6Gdnd4eE6Pob8ffRVn-ig@comcast.com...

> So, now, assuming they have to go NOW rather than later,

That is a huge assumption, and one with which I strongly disagree.

As I already said, there are two scenarios here:

1) The barbarian does not use the berries. Thus, they are having no actual
effect on anything, other than a *perceived* effect.
2) The barbarian uses the berries. He will run out of those berries, and
any problem they present will be solved.

Also note that the players created this imbalance, by giving all the berries
to the barbarian.

> what's your non-hamfisted solution to get rid of them. Every other
> suggestion has been
> deemed hamfisted,

That is not true. I deemed *your* suggestions hamfisted, and they were.

> so what's your brilliant idea?

I have already suggested several. One, have a few scenarios with a great
many combats. Two, have the berries start to look a little old, and start
having the player roll for potency. The first day, they work on a 2-20 roll
on a D20, the second day, they work on a 3-20, etc. They run out of potency
within 20 days. The other person's suggestion that the "berries" turn out
to be eggs of some strange creature, serving as a plot hook for further
adventure, was pretty good as well.

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HIednXb9i8Vnb8ffRVn-vg@comcast.com...

> 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.

Goslin, you are whining again. Stop.

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

On 11 Apr 2005 20:28:58 +1200, Robert Singers
<rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

>> Or do you think it's okay for paladins to expose babies?
>
> Yes, just not eat them.

How can you say that? As long as they didn't intend to eat them when
they exposed them, eating them is no worse.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "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 funny thing is, I have played with many barbarians, and I really do not
> see this happening.

What I meant was, with their massive hit points and massive damage, they
sit front and center, forming, essentially, the lynchpin of combat. All
plans revolve around the Barb's role.

When the Barb deviates from the plan, the plan tends to go Fubar.
That's been my experience in 3.x, and might be a local dynamics thing,
but this is the second gaming group I've seen it happen in.

>>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.
>
> He will reach that point soon enough on his own.

He won't get a 3rd rage until lvl 8 (and he just reached 5).
Advancement is slowing as levels are gained, mostly because both DMs
have agreed that advancement SHOULD slow down now that both new players
have a fair handle on the game, but before thihngs start to get REALLY
complicated at mid to high level.

>>The fact that the barbarian can Rage, essentially at will, is a
>>combination of my fault, DM2s fault, and the berries.
>
> No, it is the fault of your players, for giving his character all the
> berries. If they split them among the front-line fighters, it would likely
> be better in general for the party as well.

Ok, I'll add that to the list of things I'll blame for the situation,
but I won't heap it entirely on their heads.

>>I can't control the fact that DM2 runs very few combats, preferring
>>investigation scenarios with one or two big combats.
>
> It sounds like the berries will have no effect on this, then. He can rage
> twice per day, right?

Yep. "Heironius grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot
change, etc"

>>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.
>
> I feel your other characters are not doing their jobs if the barbarian is
> always in the spotlight.
>
>>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.
>
> They *made themselves that way* by giving the barbarian all the berries
> (and, in the case of the fighter, by making and stubbornly sticking to a
> severely suboptimal build).

Yes, true. I can't make the fighter see sense, but I can massage the
berries away.

>>Including, of course, my PC, when I'm not DMing.
>>
>>Thus, it would be very nice if the berries went away.
>
> There are two scenarios here:
>
> 1) The barbarian does not use the berries. Thus, they are having no actual
> effect on anything, other than a *perceived* effect.

As said before, though, I know for a fact, as the barb's player has
stated it, that he doesn't bother saving his Rages because he knows the
berries are there. So it isn't really just a perceived effect.

> 2) The barbarian uses the berries. He will run out of those berries, and
> any problem they present will be solved.

That is my preferred solution, and I'm trying to:

1 - increase the enoucnters per day
2 - add waved/ranged attacks to force the barb to deal with fatigueing
once in a while, and de-emphasize his hand-to-hand supremacy once in a while
3 - Learn to play act better so the party doesn't know the difference
between a Mook Fight and a BBEG fight... thus making the decision to
NOT rage during mook fights far more difficult
4 - begin foreshadowing an odor/discoloration on the berries, leading up
to them hatching Rage Demons at some point.

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

"David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:115nshbruvaq6b6@corp.supernews.com...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> "David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:

>>>The barbarian already takes the spotlight whenever combat happens, its a
>>>class feature.
>>
>> The funny thing is, I have played with many barbarians, and I really do
>> not see this happening.
>
> What I meant was, with their massive hit points and massive damage, they
> sit front and center, forming, essentially, the lynchpin of combat. All
> plans revolve around the Barb's role.

Hmm. I usually see Fighters taking up this role in my games, or multiclass
types (which include a bit of Barbarian, usually). The superior mobility of
Barbarians usually sees them taking a more mobile role in combat.

> When the Barb deviates from the plan, the plan tends to go Fubar. That's
> been my experience in 3.x, and might be a local dynamics thing, but this
> is the second gaming group I've seen it happen in.

I think it likely this is a local thing.

>>>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.
>>
>> He will reach that point soon enough on his own.
>
> He won't get a 3rd rage until lvl 8 (and he just reached 5). Advancement
> is slowing as levels are gained, mostly because both DMs have agreed that
> advancement SHOULD slow down now that both new players have a fair handle
> on the game, but before thihngs start to get REALLY complicated at mid to
> high level.

That sounds reasonable.

>>>The fact that the barbarian can Rage, essentially at will, is a
>>>combination of my fault, DM2s fault, and the berries.
>>
>> No, it is the fault of your players, for giving his character all the
>> berries. If they split them among the front-line fighters, it would
>> likely be better in general for the party as well.
>
> Ok, I'll add that to the list of things I'll blame for the situation, but
> I won't heap it entirely on their heads.

Your call.

>>>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.
>>
>> They *made themselves that way* by giving the barbarian all the berries
>> (and, in the case of the fighter, by making and stubbornly sticking to a
>> severely suboptimal build).
>
> Yes, true. I can't make the fighter see sense, but I can massage the
> berries away.

I still do not understand why your Fighter does not use them.

>> There are two scenarios here:
>>
>> 1) The barbarian does not use the berries. Thus, they are having no
>> actual effect on anything, other than a *perceived* effect.
>
> As said before, though, I know for a fact, as the barb's player has stated
> it, that he doesn't bother saving his Rages because he knows the berries
> are there. So it isn't really just a perceived effect.

That is the very definition of a perceived effect. He could do the exact
same thing even *without* the berries.

>> 2) The barbarian uses the berries. He will run out of those berries, and
>> any problem they present will be solved.
>
> That is my preferred solution, and I'm trying to:
>
> 1 - increase the enoucnters per day
> 2 - add waved/ranged attacks to force the barb to deal with fatigueing
> once in a while, and de-emphasize his hand-to-hand supremacy once in a
> while
> 3 - Learn to play act better so the party doesn't know the difference
> between a Mook Fight and a BBEG fight... thus making the decision to NOT
> rage during mook fights far more difficult
> 4 - begin foreshadowing an odor/discoloration on the berries, leading up
> to them hatching Rage Demons at some point.

It sounds like you have a good proposed system for achieving your goals. As
for #4, you could turn that into a full-blown plot. For example, what if
some evil sect of Orcs was keeping a hatchery going, so that all their clan
could essentially Rage at will? Scary thought. Perhaps long-term use
slowly makes the recipient more and more in tune with Rage Demons, and less
and less in control of their "humanity," eventually resulting in their
enslavement to Chaos and Evil. This hatchery could actually be part of a
long-term plot on the part of a Demon Prince to corrupt souls, unbeknownst
to the Orcs.

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

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
> news:115nshbruvaq6b6@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Malachias Invictus wrote:

>>>There are two scenarios here:
>>>
>>>1) The barbarian does not use the berries. Thus, they are having no
>>>actual effect on anything, other than a *perceived* effect.
>>
>>As said before, though, I know for a fact, as the barb's player has stated
>>it, that he doesn't bother saving his Rages because he knows the berries
>>are there. So it isn't really just a perceived effect.
>
> That is the very definition of a perceived effect. He could do the exact
> same thing even *without* the berries.

Then I mean something different than you do when I say 'perceived'
effect. I understood it to mean that the existence of the berries has
an actual effect on how decisions are made, whether they are used or
not. I meant it isn't simply a perceived effect becuase it results in
definate, identifiable behavioral changes.

I now understand you as meaning that the berries have no actual effect,
since they are never used. Is that correct?

I don't think those two are that different from each other, and we're
just talking past each other a bit here.

>>>2) The barbarian uses the berries. He will run out of those berries, and
>>>any problem they present will be solved.
>>
>>That is my preferred solution, and I'm trying to:
>>
>>1 - increase the enoucnters per day
>>2 - add waved/ranged attacks to force the barb to deal with fatigueing
>>once in a while, and de-emphasize his hand-to-hand supremacy once in a
>>while
>>3 - Learn to play act better so the party doesn't know the difference
>>between a Mook Fight and a BBEG fight... thus making the decision to NOT
>>rage during mook fights far more difficult
>>4 - begin foreshadowing an odor/discoloration on the berries, leading up
>>to them hatching Rage Demons at some point.
>
>
> It sounds like you have a good proposed system for achieving your goals. As
> for #4, you could turn that into a full-blown plot. For example, what if
> some evil sect of Orcs was keeping a hatchery going, so that all their clan
> could essentially Rage at will? Scary thought. Perhaps long-term use
> slowly makes the recipient more and more in tune with Rage Demons, and less
> and less in control of their "humanity," eventually resulting in their
> enslavement to Chaos and Evil. This hatchery could actually be part of a
> long-term plot on the part of a Demon Prince to corrupt souls, unbeknownst
> to the Orcs.

OOOOOO! Even more fun for me!

I could have Rage Demons show up even before I start having the berries
in the party start to hatch. Just a couple of them, hanging around a
camp of corrupted Vile Orcs.

And, if you look at my thread on Epic Quest Ideas help sought, I'm
already trying to put together something where each major PC has some
role to play in piecing together a Big McGuffin...

This sounds liek a piece of that puzzle, to me....

I'm copying this bit over there =)

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news😛idnZFP0sZi4sbfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
> <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1113267062.053054.37370@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Paladins are obligated to adhere to their Code. Although they must
>
> I am curious if anyone has any form of "generally agreed upon" or perhaps
> published Paladin's Code (TM).

Yeah. It is in my Player's Handbook.

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

<arivne@cox.net> wrote:
>In Dragon magazine #38 (June 1980) on pp. 22-23, [Gygax] said that
>a paladin could, without violating his alignment, force a captured
>Evil creature to convert to Good alignment and then execute it so
>it couldn't backslide later.
>
>Apparently he thought of paladins as being members of the Inquisition.
>:-(

Think "Crusader". Or religious fighters from the other side...

Interactions between the Christians and the Muslims during the Crusades,
especially one "converting" the other, could be somewhat brutal...

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

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

>> 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.

In all liklihood if the players were playing in character they wouldn't
associate with the problem character. The best course of action with
characters you don't like is to either frame them or kill them and take all
their stuff.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

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

> On 11 Apr 2005 20:28:58 +1200, Robert Singers
> <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>>> Or do you think it's okay for paladins to expose babies?
>>
>> Yes, just not eat them.
>
> How can you say that? As long as they didn't intend to eat them when
> they exposed them, eating them is no worse.

Can they kill Bambi's mum too?

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> write:
>> Gary has had this opinion for at least 25 years. In Dragon magazine #38
>> (June 1980) on pp. 22-23, he said that a paladin could, without
>> violating his alignment, force a captured Evil creature to convert to
>> Good alignment and then execute it so it couldn't backslide later.
>
> That is pretty sick, quite frankly.

but utter inline with the inquisition.

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: The cutting edge of obsolescence.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

[Quotes slightly rearranged for clarity.]

Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> There are two scenarios here:
>>
>> 1) The barbarian does not use the berries. Thus, they are having no
>> actual effect on anything, other than a *perceived* effect.
>> 2) The barbarian uses the berries. He will run out of those berries,
>> and any problem they present will be solved.

David Serhienko wrote:
> As said before, though, I know for a fact, as the barb's player has
> stated it, that he doesn't bother saving his Rages because he knows
> the berries are there. So it isn't really just a perceived effect.

In my opinion, a barbarian should optimally strive to use up all of his
rages anyway, rather than saving some for a "boss fight" that might
never happen. While it does make sense to keep some resources in
reserve, rage is not an ace-in-the-hole ability. You've noted that the
barbarian tends not to use it against mooks, which may be a mistake on
his part. It's a good idea to use rage in /any/ fight where it could
accelerate the defeat of the opponents, even versus mooks, because it
prevents the expenditure of even more valuable resources like top-level
spell slots and hit points.

In other words, I think the berries would have no noticeable effect on
optimal barbarian strategy. If they do make a difference, it's only
because the player's normal strategy is suboptimal.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jay Knioum wrote:
>> Personally, I am sick of the mealy-mouthed, hand-wringing
>> interpretations of paladins that get the panties of some DMs tied into
>> knots. What's so hard about this?
>>
>> IMO, paladins are soldiers of Good - emphasis on "soldier" - and are
>> considered to be in a constant state of war with Evil.

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> Good show. Kudos. [Amusing anecdote snipped.]

Kudos to both of you.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:425a4d4d@clear.net.nz...

<snips>
>> 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).

The orcs were *not* helpless; they were cowardly. They could have
run, or hoped for some great string of luck and fought on.
Perhaps it's just that IMC, Orcs would know it's unlikely for
anyone to spare murderous brigands who attacked with intent to kill days
out from the nearest border post.

It's a different thing in civilised society, but even then you're
just capturing them to be executed, enslaved, or at least banished
(which few would survive long, what with all the monsters).

>> 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.

The Orcs only chance, IMC, would have been to offer some peacable
solution from the PCs *before* they attacked (like a demand of
surrender), to show that they're better than simple murderers.

My CE humanoids don't often do that (unless it's a trick), and
suffer appropriately as a result.

>>>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.

It's only dishonourable if you'd lead your enemy to believe you'd
spare them if they ran. That's not custom IMC, even if it is often
dangerous to go chasing down a scattered enemy.

There's nothing in the Paladins code that requires adherance to
bullshit romantic notions of chivalry, outside the old Unearthed Arcana
rules at least.
You seem to be confusing the promises made by modern soldiers to
hold to the mutually agreed Geneva conventions with what Paladins must
stick to. If there's such treaties between the Orcs and local humans
then so be it, otherwise the Paladin's just being foolhardy.

Paladin honour is about *not* lying, cheating, or deceiving; if
what he says to the murderous Orcs is "fight or die", then that's what
they get, there's no deceit there.

> 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.

<shrug> I see no honour in it, the killing is a matter of
practicality; at least away from the common laws of civilisation.
Declining the surrender isn't Good (it seems strongly Nuetral to me, a
Paladin would want to be doing enough other Good things to maintain
alignment), but in *every* society IMC, attacking without offering terms
means a fight to the death is the accepted outcome (even if few might
have the courage to stick it out).


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

In 3e at least it's protecting the *innocent* from acts of *Evil*.
The orcs weren't innocent, and the retribution was not Evil. You're left
with the dishonour of accepting a surrender you don't intend to abide by.

We obviously differ here, so that's about all can be said.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:425bc0bf@clear.net.nz...

> There's nothing in the Paladins code that requires adherance to
> bullshit romantic notions of chivalry,

You just hit the nail squarely on the head, while identifying a common
problem with GM attitudes towards paladins.

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

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iMudnVWwPODe38HfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> > There's nothing in the Paladins code that requires adherance to
> > bullshit romantic notions of chivalry,
>
> You just hit the nail squarely on the head, while identifying a common
> problem with GM attitudes towards paladins.

Well, yes, the nail has been hit squarely on the head, from my perspective.
But I have to wonder, what is the point of the paladin, if NOT to be the
prototypical chivalrous and honorable knight? It seems fairly obvious (to
me at least) that the idea behind the paladin is to be just that. It
therefore seems to make perfect sense to me that paladins would act in a
manner that reflects this (perhaps mistaken) understanding...

Is there some indication that your interpretation is more valid than any
other interpretation of the class?

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