Nonlethal Damage

[Sylthia]

Since it seems that Roy has no choice in the matter, do you think he'll deal nonlethal damage to the other gladiators in the arena. Even if he's forced, killing others for simply being in a bad situation doesn't seem like a Lawful Good thing to do. He's probably got quite a few levels on everybody except Belkar and maybe the Bounty Hunter and the Half-Dragon Half-Ogre, so the -4 to the attack roll wouldn't hurt. I'm sure they had a few lectures on nonlethal damage in Fighter College.

[Ancalagon]

Fighting not as good as you can in a life-and-death-situation (the others might want to kill Roy) is a good way to get himself killed. So I'm not sure he'll risk this.

He's probably going to wiggle himself out of it, by attacking guards and escaping... getting Belkar under control in this situation will be a very, very hard task.

Belkar might do all the killing so there's no one left for Roy to fight. ;)

[Querzis]

Fighting not as good as you can in a life-and-death-situation (the others might want to kill Roy) is a good way to get himself killed. So I'm not sure he'll risk this.

There are exactly 3 people in the entire arena who even have a chance against Roy so I really doubt a -4 to hit make a real difference.

[Ancalagon]

There are exactly 3 people in the entire arena who even have a chance against Roy so I really doubt a -4 to hit make a real difference.

Sure, but the question still is: Would you bet your life on that?

[Querzis]

Sure, but the question still is: Would you bet your life on that?

If I was lawful good? Yes. Fortunately I'm not good which means I dont need to risk my life for others but yes, if I was good, I most definitly would.

Beside I dont get your logic. Sure its a bit more dangerous to use non-lethal damage in gladiator fight but its a lot more dangerous to escape prison and end up with an entire evil empire after you.

[Ancalagon]

I dont need to risk my life for others but yes, if I was good

Roy also does not NEED to risk his life. Note he's no Paladin.


Beside I dont get your logic. Sure its a bit more dangerous to use non-lethal damage in gladiator fight but its a lot more dangerous to escape prison and end up with an entire evil empire after you.

What is bad on the logic? "It's a life and death situation, therefore, I cannot risk to be nice". It's a pretty plain and basic thought. Roy is down there in the arena and if the empire is not totally stupid, escape will be, as you say, hard.
So, this is the theory we know so far, it comes down to "fight as good as you can or risk dieing". So you saying "how dangerous escape" is underlines only the need to stay in the arena, thus take part in the fight to live, therefore Roy has to face the basic problem of this discussion. Which again comes down to what I said is the problem.

[factotum]

Which is the more Lawful and Good act:

a) Dying in the arena because you don't want to kill any of the other participants, who have no such compunction where it comes to you and will gut you as soon as look at you.

b) Killing the aforementioned people who are trying to kill you so you can further your plan to prevent an evil epic-level lich getting access to a world-destroying monstrosity.

I know which one I'd go for...

[Querzis]

Roy also does not NEED to risk his life. Note he's no Paladin.

...hes still good which still means he wont kill innocent people for the amusement of an evil general? Not getting your point, you dont need to be a paladin for this, you just need to be good.



What is bad on the logic? "It's a life and death situation, therefore, I cannot risk to be nice". It's a pretty plain and basic thought. Roy is down there in the arena and if the empire is not totally stupid, escape will be, as you say, hard.
So, this is the theory we know so far, it comes down to "fight as good as you can or risk dieing". So you saying "how dangerous escape" is underlines only the need to stay in the arena, thus take part in the fight to live, therefore Roy has to face the basic problem of this discussion. Which again comes down to what I said is the problem.

...I dont know if its because english is not my native language but I really have no idea of where you are going with this. You're the one who proposed the escape in the first place. Your logic was that Roy would much rather escape then use non-lethal damage so why are you now saying he would much rather kill innocent prisoners then try to escape (or at least I think thats what you are getting at?). Either way, if thats really what you are proposing, you obviously dont know much about Roy. He wont kill innocent prisoners, being a paladin got nothing to do with it. So he'll either use non-lethal damage or try to escape and if you agree that escaping is harder then just using non-lethal damage (or at least I think you are now?) then really, whats your point?


Which is the more Lawful and Good act:

a) Dying in the arena because you don't want to kill any of the other participants, who have no such compunction where it comes to you and will gut you as soon as look at you.

b) Killing the aforementioned people who are trying to kill you so you can further your plan to prevent an evil epic-level lich getting access to a world-destroying monstrosity.

I know which one I'd go for...

...yeah so unless you missed the title of the thread, non-lethal damage. Really not hard to do especially since Gannji and Enor are the only one who could even be a threat to him, Belkar as already beaten all the other gladiators alone, Roy wont miss such low-level gladiator because of a -4 to hit! Geez you guys are bloodthirsty, you dont need to kill someone to defeat them.

[Liwen]

Which is the more Lawful and Good act:

a) Dying in the arena because you don't want to kill any of the other participants, who have no such compunction where it comes to you and will gut you as soon as look at you.

b) Killing the aforementioned people who are trying to kill you so you can further your plan to prevent an evil epic-level lich getting access to a world-destroying monstrosity.

I know which one I'd go for...

You making an assumption that the other participants are blood thirsty psychos with no quarrels on killing. Granted Belkar and the lizard bounty hunters are of that kind, but news flash, Roy demonstrated he can one-shot Belkar with no lethal damage with his big innuendo friendly stick and the bounty hunters repeatedly dropped hints that they wouldn't win in a fair fight against someone's of Roy level.

Even if Roy goes easy and does not attack to kill, his chance of winning the fight are still in the realm of reasonable for anyone of a Lawful Good alignment. It may seems stupid, illogical in perspective of the greater good, but a truly good person will take personal risks to avoid killing. Roy has already admitted he's going to take that risk to Tarquin.

[SPoD]

I think a bigger problem is the crowd. If Roy uses nonlethal damage, the audience (who is accustomed to watching bloody fights to the death) will perceive that he's "holding back". They'll boo him, and in a gladiatorial match, being booed means it's thumbs down for you. Especially since he's now told Tarquin that he won't fight, so T won't have any reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. Which then means that Roy gets a hungry dinosaur released to eat him when he has none of his magical equipment.

This is exactly what I think will happen, though, because Roy vs. Dinosaur is too awesome NOT to see.

[PopcornMage]

Tarquin's probably heard a lot of guys refusing to fight. He knows some die, he knows some change their minds. Heck, it's probably a red light in his head that this is going to be a major plot point and he feels obligated to play his role.

[Sylthia]

Tarquin may target Roy if he holds back a bit, but he'd still be putting on a decent show by incapacitating all his opponents. If anything, merely knocking out, rather than killing his opponents may lead Roy into that middling crowd that the two older gladiators advised him to aim for. He's not out refusing to fight, and since he's at such a higher skill level than the typical gladiator, the commoners may still enjoy watching him fight.

[John Cribati]

The crowd will like him if he spouts enough witty banter, like in the Miko fight.

[Kish]

What is bad on the logic?
The apparent belief that "good" means "won't kill slaves who are being forced to fight him unless there happens to be a trivial risk in doing so."

"It's a life and death situation, therefore, I cannot risk to be nice".

Also, the characterization of not killing people as "being nice."

[Beelzebub1111]

One of the things that defines good is taking risks for the safety of others. Killing when it's kill or be killed is a neutral action at worst. Trying to save lives when those you're saving are trying to kill you? That's borderline exalted.

[Juggling Goth]

b) Killing the aforementioned people who are trying to kill you so you can further your plan to prevent an evil epic-level lich getting access to a world-destroying monstrosity.

Problem is, you can only decide the ends justify the means for so long before it all goes a bit Redcloak.

[Souhiro]

Well, remember that old films of gladiators. The fights WEREN'T to death: When one was done for, he kneelled, and the emperor put his thumb upside or down, sparing the life of the loser, or sealing his fate.

But... Remember "Gladiator"? Remember what happened to Tigris of the French People?.


So, I must ask two questions: The Ogre-Dragon has a huge advantage, by it's breath attack and his spell-like habilities. So why aren't any caster on the circus? and why there aren't any women, too?



-The EVIL Souhiro Answers to the Good Souhiro-

Sou, my good friend. ALL the female prisoners are sentenced to serve Lord Tarquin. No matter if they tried to steal a loaf of bread, or if they tried and killed an emperor. And all those prisoners NEVER think about to flee. Remember: Tarkin's CHA is Over Nine Thousands.

[PopcornMage]

So, I must ask two questions: The Ogre-Dragon has a huge advantage, by it's breath attack and his spell-like habilities. So why aren't any caster on the circus? and why there aren't any women, too?


Casters would be imprisoned specially, not left to roam around free. Women are in a different section.

[Irbis]

Which is the more Lawful and Good act:

a) Dying in the arena because you don't want to kill any of the other participants, who have no such compunction where it comes to you and will gut you as soon as look at you.

b) Killing the aforementioned people who are trying to kill you so you can further your plan to prevent an evil epic-level lich getting access to a world-destroying monstrosity.

[yawn] Seeing how B) is basically badly veiled excuse to indulge in CE behaviour when convenient, not even when necessary, I'd say A).


I know which one I'd go for...

You have an alignment-appropriate avatar, I see :smallamused:

[Winged789]

I really doubt that he will face a combination of "Does not deserve to die" and "legit threat" at the same time.

[Souhiro]

Man, Roy has enough INT and experience as a fighter, to just know who is a threat and who is just a poor Lvl-1 commoneer who has been given a sword and a loincloth.

I realli expect him to spare a few lives, and perhaps having to kill another, just to be bugged by The Belkster. Also, I really think that there will be the "Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down" rule.

[Irbis]

They'll boo him, and in a gladiatorial match, being booed means it's thumbs down for you. Especially since he's now told Tarquin that he won't fight, so T won't have any reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.

You mean he will live? :smallamused:

Ironically, popular perception reversed the meaning of the gestures from what they used to be in gladiator, Roman times.

[KillItWithFire]

This whole situation could have just been avoided if he had told Tarquin who he was. Tarquin would probably had granted him pardon on the simple premise that he was in the same order his son was. More to the point however, Roy is certainly skilled enough, even with a -4 penalty to trounce anyone in that arena, most of them without even taking a hit. The only issues I see are Enor and Belkar (Not Gan-ji because I think Roy outmatches him) Enor because of his strength and breath, Roy will probably have to use lethal damage against him, and Belkar because he's unpredictable. Who knows? Belkar might actually not fight Roy in a stunning bout of loyalty... ok you're right that's totally far fetched. :smallbiggrin:


Ironically, popular perception reversed the meaning of the gestures from what they used to be in gladiator, Roman times.


and you're correct, thumbs down was spare him as it was an insult not to die in the arena when you had lost. The general media flips it around though for us stupid viewers as it's easier to figure out "thumbs down is bad." Personally so long as th context of the post let's me know which they are talking about, I don't care how historically accurate they are.

[Kislath]

Elan, Haley and V are all going to be sitting right next to Tarquin when this all happens. That's bound to have some sort of influence on the situation.

[thubby]

and you're correct, thumbs down was spare him as it was an insult not to die in the arena when you had lost.

this isn't true. gladiators were prisoners, social stigma and all, honor really wasn't an issue.
and as a whole they very much avoided killing the gladiators if they could. they were rare enough that getting them butchered wasn't worth it.

and roy will most likely use non-lethal. with the exception of the dragon, even a high level character isn't going to do much damage in any given round.
even if someone is doing more damage than expected, it's going to be a while before it kills him, and he has plenty of near full power attack to turn it around.

for that matter, with 1 good non-lethal, he can use regular attacks afterwords and he still wont have to actually kill them.

[KillItWithFire]

I'll admit I hadent heard that before but it sounds plausible enough. I think this will require some further delving. But I digress, It seems that the general consencious is that Roy will use non-lethal damage for any oppenent that he will face save for a few problem oppenents, speciffically Enor.

[BridgeCity]

. . . gladiators were prisoners, social stigma and all, honor really wasn't an issue.
and as a whole they very much avoided killing the gladiators if they could. they were rare enough that getting them butchered wasn't worth it.

That actually depends on what time in Rome's history you are looking at. They started out being slaughtered, with the proper outcome of a match very much thought to be the death of one of the two fighters. This changed later on.

As with the non-leathal damage thing, there is a chance Rich will have a summa rudis, which was a referee in the arena who would stop the fighters and allow them to rest etc. If there is one in the comic then he may call for the editor to decide what to do, as they did in some stalemate cases, and the editor may order Roy's death even if he does beat all the other fighters.

I feel however that the most likely outcome is that Rich will be historically accurate in that it was mainly the crowd, through their reactions, who decided if a Gladiator lived or died. I would think that after witnessing Roy beat seven types of hell out of everyone in the arena, the crowd would want to keep him alive to see him do it again at the next games.

[dgnslyr]

Dealing nonlethal damage might even impress the crowd. Seeing an obviously skilled gladiator humiliate without seriously harming a lesser gladiator might be a refreshing change from all the blood and gore. I mean, Roy is strong enough that he could, if he wanted to, toy with a lesser fighter for a long time, taunting and dealing painful but nonlethal blows. Of course, I find it a bit difficult to see Roy doing something like this. Now, Belkar, on the other hand, might, if Roy explains how this is a good idea.

[JRKlein]

As for Belkar, all Roy has to do is convince him that killing the guards and staging a jailbreak will be more of a challenge than this gladiator BS. Belkar's always looking for a challenge - to further cement his Sexy Shoeless God of War status, no doubt.

[Ancalagon]

As for Belkar, all Roy has to do is convince him that killing the guards and staging a jailbreak will be more of a challenge than this gladiator BS. Belkar's always looking for a challenge - to further cement his Sexy Shoeless God of War status, no doubt.

Yet, that was before they knew they would be fighting... the situation has totally changed now that they know the gladiatoring will be more than "train some around, then get sprung before something serious happens".

[Grendus]

Belkar broke out of a paladin prison, I think he's already proven that no bars can feasibly hold him. However, if he can convince Belkar that fighting the guards will be more fun than killing unskilled gladiators (not hard, it's more fun to watch the confidence slide off their faces as they go pale from blood loss than to fight someone who's more likely to slip and impale himself on his own weapon) he could probably get away with it. Belkar might even do it willingly as part of his "fake character development".

More likely, however, they won't have to do much fighting. The only situation in which they might is if Roy really is doing incredibly well (stunning dozens of level 1 commoners, for example) and Haley decides that it would be better to not rock the boat with Tarquin. Otherwise, I can't imagine that Haley, Elan, V, and Durkon won't be at the games - at bare minimum Tarquin will want Elan to join him there, and Elan would panic and beg his dad to save Roy if he got in trouble.

[KingFlameHawk]

I think that everybody is missing an important point. Lots of people are argueing about whether or not killing gladiators in forced combat is lawful good but everyone is missing an important detail. When, Spoiler, Roy died the deva specifically told him that being lawful good isn't about just doing what is good and lawful but trying to be lawful good. So as long as he tries to avoid killing people but is forced to for the greater good it could still be considered a lawful good action.

[BridgeCity]

. . . So as long as he tries to avoid killing people but is forced to for the greater good it could still be considered a lawful good action.

That doesn't really change anything here. You still have to determine whether or not Roy has the ability to win using just non-lethal attacks to determine whether or not he has the option to do so. Only if it is proven he absolutley cannot win without killing people does he start being forced to.

[thubby]

That doesn't really change anything here. You still have to determine whether or not Roy has the ability to win using just non-lethal attacks to determine whether or not he has the option to do so. Only if it is proven he absolutley cannot win without killing people does he start being forced to.

he doesn't have to use ONLY non-lethals, just 1.

[Souhiro]

If he could cast Deathwatch , he only would need 1 nonletal. But saying that, is like saying that the only important HP is the last one.

[thubby]

If he could cast Deathwatch , he only would need 1 nonletal. But saying that, is like saying that the only important HP is the last one.

it's the truth, especially here.

[BridgeCity]

he doesn't have to use ONLY non-lethals, just 1.

. . . which is a rather pointless statement to make, given that it does not change the validity of what was actually said.

[derfenrirwolv]

Its entirely roys fault that he's in the situation where he may need to kill someone, since he opted not to be rescued. Its up to him to take a little risk against the others and take the -4, or fight defensively, or pull a ghandi and refuse to fight (and have durkon ressurect him later)

Their sentence was until the day they die. If roy dies and durkon resses him he's free to go.

[KillItWithFire]

But is that really a risk you're willing to take. Think of Belkar, if he dies he's gone for good. :smallfrown: We can't risk Belkar

[malloyd]

When, Spoiler, Roy died the deva specifically told him that being lawful good isn't about just doing what is good and lawful but trying to be lawful good. So as long as he tries to avoid killing people but is forced to for the greater good it could still be considered a lawful good action.

Could it? I wouldn't rule that way. I think pretty much any arguement invoking "greater good" is Lawful Evil. Think about it, you have a rule which most of society would agree with (hence Lawful) that you feel permits something that would clearly be an evil act (killing innocent people for the amusement of an audience) if you didn't have that reason.

I admit it runs against the conventions of heroic fiction (where characters often are indispensible) and the traditions of games which are supposed to be about your characters doing heroic stuff themselves and not broadcasting your mission all over the place and building coalitions of allies to do it instead, so I'd be inclined to cut you some slack about it being so evil that it would threaten alignment change, at least if you didn't do it very often, but you aren't going to get away with calling it good. Abstract good really does require acknowledging that you are never, ever indispensible. There's a *reason* pride is one of the deadly sins.

[the_tick_rules]

He might do that as long as his opponet isn't in danger of taking him out through lethal damage

[Sylthia]

Yeah, a lot of the infarctions against the Lawful Good code seem to be things for the greater good, like lying to paladins or just being snarky. If Roy was an equal in terms of skill and needed to use every last ounce of skill at his disposal, he might be able to justify using lethal damage against the gladiators, but even then, as a hero, he would have to try to use nonlethal damage until it was completely apparent that he wouldn't survive without lethal force. As the Deva said, trying to be Lawful Good is the important part, and part of that is taking great sacrifices at the risk of one's own life.
Using it against the bounty hunters could be somewhat justified since they have proven themselves to be evil (or at least to care more about revenge than cooperating).
If there arrises the situation where Tarquin will kill Roy if he does not deal lethal damage, then the decision has been taken from him, and that blood no longer is on Roy's hands. Somewhat like in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html

[Souhiro]

I'm with Rezkeshdadesh. A Lawful Good Characters tries to avoid killing weaklings. If he's matched with a Commoner Lvl-1, with STR of -3. I think he would even refuse to fight. But against the lizzards, they would attack with everything they have, and surely Roy would have to use everything he has.

I think that Roy & Belkar vs The Two Lizzards can be an epic moment, and we haven't see a major fight since the days of Darth V!

[Kish]

If there arrises the situation where Tarquin will kill Roy if he does not deal lethal damage, then the decision has been taken from him, and that blood no longer is on Roy's hands. Somewhat like in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html
Well, no, not like that. There, the actual situation was that Redcloak was threatening to destroy the souls of the Azurites unless O-Chul gave information O-Chul didn't have. O-Chul had no real choice to make and could do nothing.

[Nimrod's Son]

Seeing an obviously skilled gladiator humiliate without seriously harming a lesser gladiator might be a refreshing change from all the blood and gore.
This ain't the Empire of Humiliation. I think there's going to be blood one way or another.


When, Spoiler, Roy died
I'd imagine everyone talking about this current arc already knows that Roy died. :smallwink:


Their sentence was until the day they die. If roy dies and durkon resses him he's free to go.
That seems like a rather obvious loophole to the Empire's punishment system; I expect they've got methods in place of preventing that happening.

[ericgrau]

Hitting on one non-lethal attack is a lot easier than making all your attacks non-lethal. You make it your first attack then go lethal from there. It's not 100% certain, but chances are the target will fall unconscious without dying.

That will be plenty to defeat the weaker opponents. Against the very strongest he may have to go all lethal, or wait until he's sure he's winning and then use one nonlethal blow or demand a surrender. Which must involve the dropping of the weapon and slowly walking away from it, not saying "I agree" with his fingers crossed behind his back. Roy's not lawful stupid.

[Souhiro]

You know, the point is that Roy DON'T know ow many HP has his enemies in the arena. The "Weak Gladiators" are surely commoners, with low CON bonus and their D4 HDs, ant that if they have a bonus at all. So, if he don't want to kill his enemies, he must rely in non-lethals.

Munckining a bit, as ericgrau said, Roy could do the first attack a NonLethal, and the rest as Lethals, so they will easier to score, since the SRD says: "It doesn’t matter whether the nonlethal damage equals or exceeds your current hit points because the nonlethal damage has gone up or because your current hit points have gone down." But as a GM I wouldn't allow it.

[Kish]

That's not what the word "munchkining" means. You're probably thinking of "metagaming," but, ah, that would be an odd thing to object to in OotS.

[Saph]

As ericgrau pointed out, it's actually not that hard to subdue an opponent with nonlethal attacks if you know the right technique. You make your first attack a nonlethal one, and switch to lethal ones from there.

The maths is pretty involved, but short version: 1 nonlethal hit makes it probable the target will be knocked out rather than killed. 2 nonlethal hits makes it almost certain the target will be knocked out rather than killed. It does slightly reduce your effectiveness, but not by much.

It requires a fair bit of knowledge of rules and tactics, though. It would be in-character for Roy to know it, but it wouldn't be surprising if the Giant decided it was too complicated to make for a good story.

[theinsulabot]

I am not certain it would have to be all that complicated, Roy's first attack is a solid blow with the flat of the blade on top of its head, enemy gets dazed, and follows up with normal cuts. Eventually enemy fades and is knocked over. People are going to understand it wasn't because he killed, but the original staggering blow combined with being attacked again and again just became to much to handle, resulting in the enemy passing out. Especially since we have the neat system of the little eye X's thing to help show the difference between beaten into unconsciousness and killed

[Killer Angel]

Since it seems that Roy has no choice in the matter, do you think he'll deal nonlethal damage to the other gladiators in the arena. Even if he's forced, killing others for simply being in a bad situation doesn't seem like a Lawful Good thing to do.

If we stay in D&D morality...


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

So yeah, Roy will risk some hit, trying to not kill the prisoners forced to fight with him.

[hamishspence]

I am not certain it would have to be all that complicated, Roy's first attack is a solid blow with the flat of the blade on top of its head, enemy gets dazed, and follows up with normal cuts. Eventually enemy fades and is knocked over. People are going to understand it wasn't because he killed, but the original staggering blow combined with being attacked again and again just became to much to handle, resulting in the enemy passing out. Especially since we have the neat system of the little eye X's thing to help show the difference between beaten into unconsciousness and killed

I supported the hypothesis (which was coined at the time the strip events happened) that this is what happened to Miko when Roy fought her in Shojo's throne room- with the solid nonlethal blow, being the one that left a cross-hatched mark on her cheek rather than a cut.

The hypothesis was argued against a lot though.

So even if we saw Roy using the "nonlethal followed by lethal" strategy to knock people out- not everybody might agree that this was what was happening.

[Killer Angel]

I supported the hypothesis (which was coined at the time the strip events happened) that this is what happened to Miko when Roy fought her in Shojo's throne room- with the solid nonlethal blow, being the one that left a cross-hatched mark on her cheek rather than a cut.

The hypothesis was argued against a lot though.


Ah, the "Roy was morally justified attacking Miko" thread, Mk II...
Debilitating debate, indeed.

[theinsulabot]

I remember when we had that argument, but didnt we finally manage to nail things down to the satisfaction of all but a few extremely vocal belkar-is-not-evil style blowhards when we were able to link the 6 line pattern with all the other instances of blunt force damage, including when she hit the wall?

I mean, not the was he justified debate, that will never end, but the fact that he used the flat of his sword to hit her