I had my first TPK tonight. Fair?

[pluizig]

So my entire party didn't survive last night's session. This was my first Total Party Kill, so I'm not sure, but I think it was a bit harsh.

Party:
2H Barbarian, Evocation/Conjuration Wizard, Archer Cleric, Archer Ranger, Paladin, 2WF Swashbuckler (me)
All Level 4, all badly to sub-par optimized. We're definitely more of a role-playing group than number crunchers.

We were playing the Forge Of Fury module, a straightforward Dungeon Crawl to ease our DM into the rules of 3.5. (He'd only played GURPS before.)

Once we were deep in the Dwarven Halls, we were stopped by a single Duergar. He told us, after negotiation, that we could pass though their halls (for a price), but if we stepped out of line, 'there would be trouble'.

This didn't sit well with out Paladin, and we decided to attack anyway after being led though. Out come about twelve invisible Duergar, who massacre the party in about six rounds.

Our DM told us we brought it on ourselves by picking a fight with powerful creatures - even though we'd only seen one of them and four more unarmed ones. The warnings of 'trouble' should have been enough, he said.

Now I'm fine with being punished for being stupid, and this wasn't the smartest move we've ever done, but still: is this fair?

[Helldog]

Of course it is.

[Oindoth]

I'd call it fair.
Firstly, the Paladin behaved very un-Paladin-like, in that he attacked the rightful (as far as he knew) owners of lands he wished to pass through with no provocation. He definitely should have either tried to negotiate, or have paid the price and moved on.

Secondly, attacking an unknown force, on their home turf, when he had already been warned that they would know if he stepped out of line and would be dealt with appropriately, is a *very bad idea*. Honestly, if it didn't result in a TPK, then I would be surprised.

Thirdly, it's a module. If that's what it says is a consequence to a certain action (i.e. being attacked by Draugr Duergar), then them's the bones. Tough luck to the party!

[Kenneth]

Very much so. I mean you paladin basically just thought " well, we had an agreement and i do not like it, so I am going to attack' which in my opinion is worhty of fal from grace paladin-ness. SO if i was DMing more than that would have happened.

but yeah your TPK is completely fair, you were giving an ample warning, and made a very detremental choice on attacking after you had an agreement.

[Vortling]

Personally I would have given more warning than "there will be trouble" as a DM. Trouble is a very unspecific term. If I had been DMing I would have given at least a "are you sure you want to do that?" OOC. Did your DM give any indications that the duergar were "powerful creatures" before you attacked them? You'll want to have a talk with your DM outside of game about the differences you have in what constitutes a fair warning of a tough fight.

Was it fair? I'm guessing your DM thought so, and that you don't think so. This isn't something the internet can resolve for you, but something you need to speak with your DM about.

[pluizig]

OK, I get where you're coming from, but a few notes:

- We knew that this place wasn't the Duergar's rightful living place. They'd desecrated a Dwarven stronghold.
- The Paladin was in favor of attacking from the start. Evil creatures, plus the above.
- In addition, the Paladin didn't negotiate. He was a bit of a loose cannon, so the two more diplomatic PCs made the truce.
- We'd never seen evidence of a large force. As far as we knew, there only were a handful of Duergar there.


But as I said, I see where you're coming from. I guess Dungeon Crawls (or modules in general) aren't for us.

As to who thought it was fair or not. Some players thought it was, others didn't. The DM was not sure (hence the topic), and I'm just sad that I lost my character.


(EDIT: Grammar)

[Oindoth]

Honestly though, attacking any faction on their home turf, without sufficient intelligence and either the advantage of surprise or overwhelming numbers is bound to get you killed, especially if you don't try to retreat.

[Ravens_cry]

On one hand, stupid paladin. On the other, the point could have been made without a TPK. It was fair, but a TPK should be avoided unless not avoiding it causes more problems than avoiding it in my opinion.
A TPK is like your computer restarting when a massive error occurs, it's a failure mode.
Killing, oh, say the Paladin who dragged everyone into this mess and KO-ing the rest, only to wake up in a Dwarven prison, would have been sufficient in my opinion. Now the DM can have an NPC offer them a deal, do such and such for me, or we execute you murderous scum. Oh , and your exiled from these lands once the mission is complete, on pain of death.
Why go so much trouble to avoid a TPK?
Because it breaks continuity, especially in a more plot based game. If you can just pull a bunch of other 'heroes' out of the woodwork, one starts to wonder why they couldn't have done this stuff in the first place. Also, all the connections and relationships that have been building between the PC and NPC, gone.
Getting the game started again also is just awkward.

[Oindoth]

On one hand, stupid paladin. On the other, the point could have been made without a TPK. It was fair, but a TPK should be avoided unless not avoiding it causes more problems than avoiding it in my opinion.
A TPK is like your computer restarting when a massive error occurs, it's a failure mode.
Killing, oh, say the Paladin who dragged everyone into this mess and KO-ing the rest, only to wake up in a Dwarven prison, would have been sufficient in my opinion. Now the DM can have an NPC offer them a deal, do such and such for me, or we execute you murderous scum. Oh , and your exiled from these lands once the mission is complete, on pain of death.
Why go so much trouble to avoid a TPK?
Because it breaks continuity, especially in a more plot based game. If you can just pull a bunch of other 'heroes' out of the woodwork, one starts to wonder why they couldn't have done this stuff in the first place. Also, all the connections and relationships that have been building between the PC and NPC, gone.
Getting the game started again also is just awkward.

I think I can fairly second this opinion. Just because it was fair to do it, doesn't mean it was the best choice.

[ahenobarbi]

What Ravens_cry wrote. Only I wouldn't kill paladin (if [s]he apparently had a reason to attack).

[RndmNumGen]

Honestly though, attacking any faction on their home turf, without sufficient intelligence and either the advantage of surprise or overwhelming numbers is bound to get you killed, especially if you don't try to retreat.

This. Even if the Duergar didn't build the stronghold, they were living in there, and thus probably knew a lot more about it's architecture than you guys did. They probably had a lot more of them hidden away as well(It's a fortress right? Not unreasonable for several hundred of them to be stashed away there.)

[Tvtyrant]

I probably would have killed at least one of the members, and let the others escape by having the Duergar mostly stop fighting to loot the body. If they don't take the hit, then they're fair play.

[Jopustopin]

I think I can fairly second this opinion. Just because it was fair to do it, doesn't mean it was the best choice.

I disagree. The best choice is to teach PC's not to cause the game to become unrealistic by having dwarves throw people in prison. What are they going to do teach the PC's not to break laws? Ransom the PC's? I mean, what exactly are the dwarves even doing with a prison?

[Oindoth]

I disagree. The best choice is to teach PC's not to cause the game to become unrealistic by having dwarves throw people in prison. What are they going to do teach the PC's not to break laws? Ransom the PC's? I mean, what exactly are the dwarves even doing with a prison?

A capture does not necessitate a prison. And I mean, yes, Duergar are mad, corrupted dwarves, but they're not stupid. A living prisoner is always more useful than a dead one, if nothing else so you can use them as slaves for mining. It's a good opportunity, even, to send the PCs on what is supposedly a suicide mission. Capture them, tell them an ancient, dwarven artifact is hidden deep below the fortress at the end of a well-trapped, well-guarded (by automatons) tunnel, give them a tough fight and a method of escape, and bam, most of the players can live, they get a nice reward, and you could even introduce the Paladin's new player as another slave sent with you. Done deal.

[Hunter Killer]

But, Oindoth, that would (GASP!) require the DM to do something outside of the published module!

[Oindoth]

But, Oindoth, that would (GASP!) require the DM to do something outside of the published module!

And sometimes that's necessary. What's a DM to do?

I did say the TPK was perfectly fair, for just that reason. If he wanted to follow the module, that's his perogative. That does not mean that there wasn't an option to not allow the TPK to happen, and just reward one particular player for his bad move appropriately. I'm not going to pass judgement on which is necessarily better, though I do have my opinion, but it remains, in my eyes, a perfectly fair, sensible conclusion.

Edit: Oh, and by the by, I don't appreciate the sarcasm. I'd always heard the Playground was full of nice folks :smallfrown:

[bloodtide]

Now I'm fine with being punished for being stupid, and this wasn't the smartest move we've ever done, but still: is this fair?

Yes this was fair. This type of thing happens in RPGs and makes them unique compared to other forms of storytelling.

This is a great example of 'common sense'. Say you had some land and buildings, and you were letting a group of dangerous and armed folk pass through. Would you just 'trust' them? Or would you be watching them with plenty of back-up near-by?

And guess no one in your group knew about Duegar? Even a simple knowledge role can get you the fact that they can become invisible.

[Orsen]

I probably would have killed at least one of the members, and let the others escape by having the Duergar mostly stop fighting to loot the body. If they don't take the hit, then they're fair play.

Personally I like this option best. That sends a clear message about this being a real world with real world consequences while, giving the players a chance.

As a DM who's never TPK'd (but come very close!), I've stopped games temporarily to ask OOC if the players want me to turn on easy mode. They never do but I warn or ask OOC.

[Friv]

It was certainly harsh, but your paladin was also kind of dumb if he decided to attack without checking the numbers.

Assuming a decent GM, if you have a few people standing around, seeming supremely confident that they can handle you, the possibility that they can, in fact, handle you has to be taken into account.

In addition, you say that they massacred you in six rounds. Did you spend those rounds retreating because you were badly outnumbered?

Really, it sounds like the DM decided to make a blunt point about how his games would run, in order to forestall future problems. It was kind of a dumb way to do it - as mentioned, a TPK is generally a failure on the DM's part as much or more than on the players' - but it was certainly a valid ending to that particular situation, and a moderately realistic one.

[Starbuck_II]

We were playing the Forge Of Fury module, a straightforward Dungeon Crawl to ease our DM into the rules of 3.5. (He'd only played GURPS before.)

Once we were deep in the Dwarven Halls, we were stopped by a single Duergar. He told us, after negotiation, that we could pass though their halls (for a price), but if we stepped out of line, 'there would be trouble'.

This didn't sit well with out Paladin, and we decided to attack anyway after being led though. Out come about twelve invisible Duergar, who massacre the party in about six rounds.

(Spoiler)
Well, first the DM adds extra Duergar not in the module. No seriously, he multiplied the extra invisible ones by 6 (there are 2 invisible ones in the module and the main dude). Unless he added from other rooms... but there aren't 12 even then. I don't know how but he made more than the module even puts in it.
The module says that the duergar perfer to chase not kill the party. They give you one round to run before alaughtering you.

I think the DM just got angry and decided to kill you.

[Helldog]

Edit: Oh, and by the by, I don't appreciate the sarcasm. I'd always heard the Playground was full of nice folks :smallfrown:
Then someone lied to you.

[Oindoth]

Then someone lied to you.

Aww, that's a pity. Oh well, I'll just hop into the Ponies thread, then. I like them.

[pluizig]

It was certainly harsh, but your paladin was also kind of dumb if he decided to attack without checking the numbers.

Assuming a decent GM, if you have a few people standing around, seeming supremely confident that they can handle you, the possibility that they can, in fact, handle you has to be taken into account.

In addition, you say that they massacred you in six rounds. Did you spend those rounds retreating because you were badly outnumbered?

Really, it sounds like the DM decided to make a blunt point about how his games would run, in order to forestall future problems. It was kind of a dumb way to do it - as mentioned, a TPK is generally a failure on the DM's part as much or more than on the players' - but it was certainly a valid ending to that particular situation, and a moderately realistic one.


The numbers *were* checked as much as possible, but without a way to see invisibility (as I said, low optimization) or knowledge that Duergar could turn invisible, it looked like a managable fight.

We tried to retreat, but we were soon pinned between an exit manned by the enemy, a solid wall, a raging river and a 120-foot drop.

The DM swears he didn't try to make a point. He says it's because he hadn't figured out 3.5's challenge rating yet. In fact, a few sessions ago he complained about us dropping the opposition too quickly and easily.



(Spoiler)
Well, first the DM adds extra Duergar not in the module. No seriously, he multiplied the extra invisible ones by 6 (there are 2 invisible ones in the module and the main dude). Unless he added from other rooms... but there aren't 12 even then. I don't know how but he made more than the module even puts in it.
The module says that the duergar perfer to chase not kill the party. They give you one round to run before alaughtering you.

I think the DM just got angry and decided to kill you.

Again, I think this is because of his inexperience with 3.5 balance and CR. He's added monsters before (or made them stronger) to compensate for a 6-person party.

[Anxe]

6 person party doesn't mean multiply by 6! It means multiply by 1.5!

[Oindoth]

Well, considering first level Duergar are CR 1, and they don't seem over or under-CR'd ... That comes out to about an EL 7 encounter, against an EL 5-6 party, which is doable, but difficult. I'd say that their action and position advantage is what did you in, as it really would if you attacked them on their home turf.

[Helldog]

Well, considering first level Duergar are CR 1, and they don't seem over or under-CR'd ... That comes out to about an EL 7 encounter, against an EL 5-6 party, which is doable, but difficult. I'd say that their action and position advantage is what did you in, as it really would if you attacked them on their home turf.
But do we know what levels were the duergars?

[Sorcerer Blob]

So my entire party didn't survive last night's session. This was my first Total Party Kill

Congratulations brother, welcome to the Guild of Dungeon Mastery. You have fulfilled our entrance requirements.

But seriously, they happen. Players being dumb and/or unlucky make them happen more frequently. How you react to the TPK will directly inform how your player's react. If you brush it of as "oh well, accidents happen, think a little more next time," (maybe not those words exactly as it comes off slightly condescendingly) your party will react better with said attitude. Some players will be mad, some won't care, some might cry (seriously... some people take a game way too seriously.)

I really wouldn't worry about it too much, the first time I DM'd 3.X, in the second encounter, I killed all but one of the PCs. I laughed from nerves and confusion and luckily I had understanding players that know that low-level characters who walk into a dungeon have a death wish.

[Oindoth]

But do we know what levels were the duergars?

*Shrug* I 'unno, don't have the module. Starbuck?

[Starbuck_II]

*Shrug* I 'unno, don't have the module. Starbuck?

They appear to level 2 warrriors, except Snuerrgin (level 4, 18 hp ), Nimira (41 hp, Fighter 5), Ghared (level 3, 19 hp.
Assuming he only add other warriors then it was 12 level 2 warriors (CR 2 it says) and Ghared (CR 4).
I'm not sure what CR that equals. CR 9?

[Oindoth]

They appear to level 2 warrriors, except Snuerrgin (level 4, 18 hp ), Nimira (41 hp, Fighter 5), Ghared (level 3, 19 hp.
Assuming he only add other warriors then it was 12 level 2 warriors (CR 2 it says) and Ghared (CR 4).

Huh. That's much more difficult, then. Welp, guess that the DM's lack of understanding of the CR system would definitely have contributed to the TPK.

[Incriptus]

This didn't sit well with out Paladin, and we decided to attack anyway after being led though. Out come about twelve invisible Duergar, who massacre the party in about six rounds.

Now I'm fine with being punished for being stupid, and this wasn't the smartest move we've ever done, but still: is this fair?

Spell-Like Abilities: 1/day—enlarge person and invisibility as a
wizard of twice the duergar’s class level (minimum caster level 3rd)

I'll say it was "unfair" if your trip through there territory lasted longer than the enemy could have remained invisible. . . and if you had to be "led through" it was probably more than a 10 or even 20 minute trip.

[pluizig]

Spell-Like Abilities: 1/day—enlarge person and invisibility as a
wizard of twice the duergar’s class level (minimum caster level 3rd)

I'll say it was "unfair" if your trip through there territory lasted longer than the enemy could have remained invisible. . . and if you had to be "led through" it was probably more than a 10 or even 20 minute trip.

Ah, yes. They were Enlarged, too.

But whatever. What's done is done. Thanks for the input everyone.


Maybe I'll make another topic tomorrow about what I should make for new character.

[Helldog]

Congratulations brother, welcome to the Guild of Dungeon Mastery. You have fulfilled our entrance requirements.

But seriously, they happen. Players being dumb and/or unlucky make them happen more frequently. How you react to the TPK will directly inform how your player's react. If you brush it of as "oh well, accidents happen, think a little more next time," (maybe not those words exactly as it comes off slightly condescendingly) your party will react better with said attitude. Some players will be mad, some won't care, some might cry (seriously... some people take a game way too seriously.)

I really wouldn't worry about it too much, the first time I DM'd 3.X, in the second encounter, I killed all but one of the PCs. I laughed from nerves and confusion and luckily I had understanding players that know that low-level characters who walk into a dungeon have a death wish.
Pluizig wasn't the DM. Just so you know.

[hex0]

Spell-Like Abilities: 1/day—enlarge person and invisibility as a
wizard of twice the duergar’s class level (minimum caster level 3rd)

I'll say it was "unfair" if your trip through there territory lasted longer than the enemy could have remained invisible. . . and if you had to be "led through" it was probably more than a 10 or even 20 minute trip.

Yes. These abilities wouldn't have lasted this long. Enlarge Person is usually used on the surprise round (or the first round of combat) and Invisibilty is used for stalking prior to combat. You can't just have a bunch of giant invisible dwarves walking around for half an hour.

[Sorcerer Blob]

Pluizig wasn't the DM. Just so you know.

And now I feel stupid. This is what I get for not fully reading stuff when I have a million tabs open.

On a now informed note: It does sound as if the issue was a misunderstanding of the CR system, which is quite easy to make as a new DM.

[Starbuck_II]

And now I feel stupid. This is what I get for not fully reading stuff when I have a million tabs open.

On a now informed note: It does sound as if the issue was a misunderstanding of the CR system, which is quite easy to make as a new DM.

It is not like the DM sent That Damn Crab. Now that would be a unexpected TPK for a new DM.

[killem2]

I think too many players think that playing a paladin is like being fully armored, mounted on a white steed with sword and shield in hand, version of Gaston, from beauty and the beast.


They always seem to get the LETS KILL EVIL stuff right, but never the diplomacy or disciple stuff right.

With that said, as a DM I would have given a small OOC warning, and since its a module, its clear as day to the DM what needs to happen.

Now you know!

[Waspinator]

Wait, the paladin code requires you to act with honor, including not lying or cheating. Shouldn't that include not breaking deals? If the paladin attacked first after the peace agreement, they broke their oath.

[Palanan]

My first 3.5 group went through that module, and I remember that encounter well. We tried negotiating; my elven druid, chump that he was, even paid wergild for a couple of the duergar we'd killed earlier. Eventually what's-her-name tried to doublecross us, so at that point we let 'em have it.

And we rolled them, in about three rounds. We were not, by any means, a group that had a clue about optimization: we had the straight rogue, the blaster wizard, the archer ranger, etc. There just weren't that many of them, nowhere near a dozen.

Forge of Fury, if anything, was a little lightweight as far as actual threats to the characters. Most of the trouble we made for ourselves with our convoluted plans. :smallbiggrin:

[Viktyr Gehrig]

"Fair", to me, means that the game rules themselves are followed and that the setting follows the genre assumptions that were established at the beginning of the game. In what I would consider a "standard" D&D game, a party of low-level adventurers that pick a fight with an entire Duergar clan in their own homes is going to die-- same as if they walked into a dragon's lair and challenged it to a duel.

[DigoDragon]

Out of curiosity, would surrendering/parley have been an option?

My opinion is that the TPK would probably be fair if the party had such options to surrender or flee the fight without losing their lives, or at least not all the lives.

[Killer Angel]

A capture does not necessitate a prison. And I mean, yes, Duergar are mad, corrupted dwarves, but they're not stupid. A living prisoner is always more useful than a dead one, if nothing else so you can use them as slaves for mining. It's a good opportunity, even, to send the PCs on what is supposedly a suicide mission. Capture them, tell them an ancient, dwarven artifact is hidden deep below the fortress at the end of a well-trapped, well-guarded (by automatons) tunnel, give them a tough fight and a method of escape, and bam, most of the players can live, they get a nice reward, and you could even introduce the Paladin's new player as another slave sent with you. Done deal.


But, Oindoth, that would (GASP!) require the DM to do something outside of the published module!


Edit: Oh, and by the by, I don't appreciate the sarcasm. I'd always heard the Playground was full of nice folks :smallfrown:

:smallconfused:
I'm not following you... HK wasn't being sarcastic to you, but to the DM. He was agreeing with you.

[Tyndmyr]

So my entire party didn't survive last night's session. This was my first Total Party Kill, so I'm not sure, but I think it was a bit harsh.

Party:
2H Barbarian, Evocation/Conjuration Wizard, Archer Cleric, Archer Ranger, Paladin, 2WF Swashbuckler (me)
All Level 4, all badly to sub-par optimized. We're definitely more of a role-playing group than number crunchers.

We were playing the Forge Of Fury module, a straightforward Dungeon Crawl to ease our DM into the rules of 3.5. (He'd only played GURPS before.)

Once we were deep in the Dwarven Halls, we were stopped by a single Duergar. He told us, after negotiation, that we could pass though their halls (for a price), but if we stepped out of line, 'there would be trouble'.

This didn't sit well with out Paladin, and we decided to attack anyway after being led though. Out come about twelve invisible Duergar, who massacre the party in about six rounds.

Our DM told us we brought it on ourselves by picking a fight with powerful creatures - even though we'd only seen one of them and four more unarmed ones. The warnings of 'trouble' should have been enough, he said.

Now I'm fine with being punished for being stupid, and this wasn't the smartest move we've ever done, but still: is this fair?

Pretty much, yeah. You're in their home. There's bound to be a lot of them around. Combat should either be avoided or handled with stealth and subtlety. I would assume any guard has people he can call on if need be. I mean, he isn't standing there 24/7, there basically has to be more of them around somewhere, even if not immediately visible.

Negotiating for a better deal is likely what I'd have done. That said...my level 1 party currently could probably take them. DC 20 color spray + CdG is pretty lethal. Round 1 would probably end in most of the visible ones being dead. The invisibility might be a bit harder to deal with, but I feel confident that we'd have at least escaped with most of us alive. Running is an option. Hiding is an option. Surrender is an option. If a fight goes badly, don't just keep fighting. Shift the terms of the encounter to something more favorable.

[Person_Man]

I think that players should have a chance of winning every combat that the DM throws at them, even if it's a small chance. In this instance, it appears as if the players did not have a chance of winning, and so I would not say that it was a "fair" encounter, and it certainly wasn't a fun encounter (the real goal of D&D).

As a DM I have a tendency to make random-ish encounters easy, and planned encounters very difficult. But I also give my players a lot of warnings and time to research the proper tactics and workarounds ("Hey, instead of fighting the Wizard, let's sneak into the Wizard's hotel room, bypass his Alarm spell, and Coup de Grace him while he sleeps).

I think it would have been better for all concerned if the DM had told the players through an NPC or quest giver that "There is a fortress full of Duergar, they outnumber you and have some potent racial abilities you might want to research, and taking them head on would be suicide."

Then they proceed to commit said suicide, I have no sympathy for them.

[Oindoth]

:smallconfused: I'm not following you... HK wasn't being sarcastic to you, but to the DM. He was agreeing with you. I interpreted it as him responding to my point regarding the fact that I believed he was following the module, and that he therefore shouldn't, as a new DM, be faulted for following it.

[Killer Angel]

I interpreted it as him responding to my point regarding the fact that I believed he was following the module, and that he therefore shouldn't, as a new DM, be faulted for following it.

I see... well, both things have some truth in it. The DM was following the module (maybe... apparently he increased the number of duargar) so was justified in its retaliation, but was also too close minded to think outside the box and improvising something else, avoiding the TPK.
Anyway, give HK the benefit of doubt, or ask a clarification via PM. :smallwink:

[charcoalninja]

It wasn't fair because the DM wasn't paying attention to the duration of the duergar's spell like abilities. Additionally there's no way in hell a dozen armed and armoured dwarves the size of OGRES sneak up on an archer ranger, a paladin and a cleric. Spot and Listen are WIS based skills.

Being large size gives a dex penalty and a size penalty to steal in addition to their armour check penalty because guarenteed they were in chainmail+ so you're looking at what, a -8 to -10 stealth penalty? What's the dex on a Duergar?

Also, adding monsters to a mondule when you're new to the system is a bad idea. You guys died because your DM made some mistakes. It happens, nothing to get upset about, just to be more conscious of in the future.

I don't feel the Paladin was too out of line, these guys are Evil creatures after all and it sort of seems like the party wanted to deal with them but he decided not to and attacked. I don't think the paladin said "yeah we'll be good, thanks for letting us through evil dooods!" then turned around with a big ol' "GOTCHA SMITE!"

I could have just read it wrong but that's my take on the situation.

[Helldog]

Note that there were more PCs than in a conventional team (assuming that the module is for 4 players).

[Tyndmyr]

It wasn't fair because the DM wasn't paying attention to the duration of the duergar's spell like abilities. Additionally there's no way in hell a dozen armed and armoured dwarves the size of OGRES sneak up on an archer ranger, a paladin and a cleric. Spot and Listen are WIS based skills.

Being large size gives a dex penalty and a size penalty to steal in addition to their armour check penalty because guarenteed they were in chainmail+ so you're looking at what, a -8 to -10 stealth penalty? What's the dex on a Duergar?

That is a reasonable complaint. A couple of invisible duergar would be quite reasonable, but that many using their daily abilities and rolling improbably well on stealth checks just to be prepared for that moment seems...unlikely.

If the number of monsters were increased only in proportion to the number of players, I have no complaint there.

[Wings of Peace]

Personally I'd say it's fair. If my group wandered into occupied territory and decided to enforce political reform through physical discourse I'd probably let them either die, surrender and be jailed, or attempt to flee. If they chose to do none of those three things then they would likely die as a repercussion for not thinking their actions through (at that level anyways).

[Leon]

I think that players should have a chance of winning every combat that the DM throws at them, even if it's a small chance.

But the players should be smart enough to not initiate combat when they are uncertain of the balance of forces and there are some fights that are not winnable at times.

[Person_Man]

But the players should be smart enough to not initiate combat when they are uncertain of the balance of forces and there are some fights that are not winnable at times.

In theory yes, but how this occurs matters. Consider these three sceneries:


PC's walk up to a lone Duergar. Duergar warns them that they are in his territory, and tells them to leave or pay a toll, or that they would be killed. To back up this threat, he reminds them that Duergar can become Invisible at will, and that they are deadly warriors. PC's say screw you, and are ambushed by Invisible Duergar and killed.

PC's walk up to a lone Duergar. Duergar warns them that they are in his territory, and tells them to leave or pay a toll, or that bad things would happen. DM prompts PCs to make Sense Motive and/or Knowledge (Local) checks. If they succeed on the (DC 10ish) Sense Motive check, then they understand that the Duergar intends to kill them if they do not pay up, and is confident enough in the abilities of his kin that he can face down 5 PCs by himself. If they pass the (DC 20ish) Knowledge (Local) check, the DM tells them about Duergar abilities that might back up this claim, such as their ability to turn Invisible, Enlarge Person, etc. PC's say screw you, and are ambushed by Invisible Duergar and killed.

PC's walk up to a lone Duergar. Duergar warns them that they are in his territory, and tells them to leave or pay a toll, or that bad things would happen. PC's say screw you, and are ambushed by Invisible Duergar and killed.


As a DM, I would use Scenario 1 for new-ish players, Scenario 2 for more experienced players, and Scenario 3 only for veteran players who were used to a Tome of Horrors style of play.

[Tyndmyr]

Note that four more Duregar were visible. The possibility of an alarm being raised or the fight otherwise becoming more than party vs one guard is...fairly likely given that information.

I agree that they probably did not expect 11 invisible ones hanging around, but as a player, I would at least chat with the guy first and figure out the situation before leaping head first into combat.

I also don't prompt for sense motive/knowledge checks usually(unless players look remarkably clueless/ask for help), but I would provide additional information as warranted for any checks made. Still, a confident looking guard asking for a toll with four relaxed buddies lounging around, not going for weapons indicates a lack of concern. Even the newest player should be curious enough to talk first.

[Oindoth]

Not to mention that, if I read this right, the PCs were *already led through* the territory when they attacked. That means there was legitimately no reason for them to attack, except to get a refund.

[Tyndmyr]

Not to mention that, if I read this right, the PCs were *already led through* the territory when they attacked. That means there was legitimately no reason for them to attack, except to get a refund.

Right. It sounds suspiciously like "well, I don't want to pay". I would have probably warned the paladin that his behavior was not being terribly consistent with LG/his code.

[Waspinator]

Yeah, it's not exactly lawful to be the guy to break the deal and attack first.

[DrDeth]

(Spoiler)
Well, first the DM adds extra Duergar not in the module. No seriously, he multiplied the extra invisible ones by 6 (there are 2 invisible ones in the module and the main dude). Unless he added from other rooms... but there aren't 12 even then. I don't know how but he made more than the module even puts in it.
The module says that the duergar perfer to chase not kill the party. They give you one round to run before alaughtering you.

I think the DM just got angry and decided to kill you.

Thus, no- not fair. The DM brought in a unbeatable force. Was the pally right to attack evil foes who had recently done some pretty evil things? In my book, yes Ok so they warned him. Right, from now on all my monsters will have a Magic Mouth warning device, and if the party dares to go forward- DEATH TO ALL!

Clearing out a good folk stronghold taken over by Evil is what parties of adventurers are supposed to do.

[DrDeth]

Right. It sounds suspiciously like "well, I don't want to pay". I would have probably warned the paladin that his behavior was not being terribly consistent with LG/his code.

Why should a Good party pay a evil force, when the good party is there to clear out that evil force?

[Jornophelanthas]

Why should a Good party pay a evil force, when the good party is there to clear out that evil force?

I don't know the module, but I don't believe the party was in the dungeon to clear out the Duergar, but rather something that lies beyond the Duergar's territory.

Having been led through by the Duergar for a price, attacking them afterwards is not a smart move, and it is outside of the paladin's Lawful Good alignment.

- It is definitely a Chaotic act to not honor your part of a bargain. The mere fact that the other party you deal with is Evil is not sufficient reason to break the deal.
(The fact that the paladin did not make the deal himself is irrelevant, since two other party members made the deal and the paladin accepted the terms by accompanying them through the Duergar's territory.)
- It is definitely a non-Good act to attack someone because you don't want to pay them for a service. The fact that the Duergar were Evil might be reason to consider the act Neutral as an extenuating circumstance (since fighting Evil is one of the purposes of paladinhood and may be used as a justification for wanting to attack them), especially if the paladin used his Detect Evil ability to learn that they, in fact, were Evil.
If the paladin attacked for purely selfish reasons, it is an Evil act, and he should fall from paladinhood. Given the circumstances, I don't think this is justified.

Conclusion: the paladin's attacking the Duergar is a Chaotic Neutral act. In fact, I would even argue that it is a Chaotic Stupid act.

[Metahuman1]

Aww, that's a pity. Oh well, I'll just hop into the Ponies thread, then. I like them.

And the heard likes you.

Brohoof!

[Killer Angel]

Why should a Good party pay a evil force, when the good party is there to clear out that evil force?

Cause theparty needed to go from A to C, and the duergars were at point B.
They accepted to pay a toll to pass without fight.
The pally didn't like it? Then the party could have refused the whole thing since the beginning.

[charcoalninja]

I don't know the module, but I don't believe the party was in the dungeon to clear out the Duergar, but rather something that lies beyond the Duergar's territory.

Having been led through by the Duergar for a price, attacking them afterwards is not a smart move, and it is outside of the paladin's Lawful Good alignment.

- It is definitely a Chaotic act to not honor your part of a bargain. The mere fact that the other party you deal with is Evil is not sufficient reason to break the deal.
(The fact that the paladin did not make the deal himself is irrelevant, since two other party members made the deal and the paladin accepted the terms by accompanying them through the Duergar's territory.)
- It is definitely a non-Good act to attack someone because you don't want to pay them for a service. The fact that the Duergar were Evil might be reason to consider the act Neutral as an extenuating circumstance (since fighting Evil is one of the purposes of paladinhood and may be used as a justification for wanting to attack them), especially if the paladin used his Detect Evil ability to learn that they, in fact, were Evil.
If the paladin attacked for purely selfish reasons, it is an Evil act, and he should fall from paladinhood. Given the circumstances, I don't think this is justified.

Conclusion: the paladin's attacking the Duergar is a Chaotic Neutral act. In fact, I would even argue that it is a Chaotic Stupid act.

I disgaree, as you are making conjectures about the paladin's motives. I certainly don't think it was because he didn't want to pay and that it was in fact heavily motivated by the fact that they were evil. Other members of the party bargined for them to be lead through, and it's possible that they needed the duergar to find their way through at all in order to achieve their objective.

They agreed to be let through their territory and were warned that if they cause any trouble their would be consequences. The Paladin never said he wouldn't casue trouble, and didn't like the arrangement in the first place. So you could see it more like, fine now we are through and my party members have concluded their transaction with these creatures, now its time to rid the world of some serious evil.

Paladins also aren't allowed to associate with evil creatures at all, and can't work with them unless it serves a greater purpose. Leaving the duergar in place when they had all reasonable grounds to suspect they could defeat them is a terrible neglect for a Paladin. It's one thing to not detoure yourself hours and days out of the way for every wrongdoer you hear about, but this was a band of evil dwarves KNOWN to actively take slaves, and just generally do everything vile right in front of his nose. If the paladin left them alone when he could have destroyed them I feel that would be an evil act. Having the ability to stop evil and choosing not to is just as evil as helping the evil commit their atrocities in my mind.

But really there's too little information given to determine exactly why the paladin acted the way he did to condemn his actions as all chaotic and evily.

[killem2]

So, paladins attack evil, even if it means risking the lives of themselves, and possibly friends, family, innocents? :smallconfused:

[Tyndmyr]

So, paladins attack evil, even if it means risking the lives of themselves, and possibly friends, family, innocents? :smallconfused:

This is the Stupid Good alignment. No, it's not necessary to blindly attack everything that happens to ping evil. In fact, doing this may even be ethically problematic.

There are ways to have an evil aura without slaughtering puppies.

[The Random NPC]

So, paladins attack evil, even if it means risking the lives of themselves,

Yes.

and possibly friends,

If they're adventuring together, yes.

family,
They knew what they were getting into by marrying a paladin.

innocents? :smallconfused:

Only place it gets gray, if the cost outweighs the benifits, a paladin could be justified in letting evil off the hook, but most likely would still attack. He should try to minimize the threat to innocents.

P.S. Am I the only one who saw the title and thought, "The Dark Lord Snuggles returns!"?

EDIT: I don't mean to say they do it stupidly, they should try to avoid just throwing themselves at evil and hope to get lucky.
EDIT 2: I just remembered you don't get to choose your entire family, they would go under the innocents comment.

[killem2]

What I mean is, a paladin is completely devoid of all tactical battle stances?

Take a level 10 paladin. He has first hand intelligence that an army of necromancers (say 50) are on their way to storm the city of goodie two shoes mcgee.

This paladin, would then charge in, fight, even though he knows he will die?

I have a hard time believing it. Much like Chaotic Stupid, sure there is a Lawful Stupid. Both extremes would never be welcome in my campaign. Unless everyone plays the similar style of play.

[Lapak]

Only place it gets gray, if the cost outweighs the benifits, a paladin could be justified in letting evil off the hook, but most likely would still attack. He should try to minimize the threat to innocents.

P.S. Am I the only one who saw the title and thought, "The Dark Lord Snuggles returns!"?

EDIT: I don't mean to say they do it stupidly, they should try to avoid just throwing themselves at evil and hope to get lucky.
EDIT 2: I just remembered you don't get to choose your entire family, they would go under the innocents comment.I can't say I agree with you. Let's pick a few paladin-types from fiction and see what they'd do when confronted with evil forces when innocents were at risk:

Deed of Paksenarrion spoilers:
Paksennarion Dorthansdotter (http://www.amazon.com/Deed-Paksenarrion-Novel-Elizabeth-Moon/dp/0671721046) willingly surrendered to a cult that she knew would torture her to death in order to secure the release of a vital hostage. She could almost certainly have killed them all, but the hostage would very likely have been killed before she did.

Dresden Files (Books 3 and 5) Spoilers:
Michael Carpenter (http://www.amazon.com/Grave-Peril-Dresden-Files-Book/dp/0451458443) restrained himself from attacking a nest of vampires who were openly preying on people while attending their party.

Shiro Yoshimo (http://www.amazon.com/Death-Masks-Dresden-Files-Book/dp/0451459407) sacrificed himself similarly to prevent another's death.

Order of the Stick Spoilers:
Lord Hinjo decided (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0482.html) that running back into a fight against overwhelming evil wasn't the right thing to do.

Contrast that last one with Miko's actions, incidentally.

By and large, the willingness not to mindlessly throw yourself at whatever Evil happens to be in front of you feels like a critical component of the truly heroic Paladin archetype. Sometimes that means letting Evil walk away even when you know that it will continue to be evil, sometimes it means literally laying down and dying to it in the service of the greater good.

Sometimes it also means stamping it out with a bold attack and praise for the powers of Good and Law on your lips - but knowing when a fight should be avoided is important to any true servant of Good. And there are other methods of stopping evil; he could attempt to convince them of the error of their ways, or encourage them to Goodness by helping them or by example, or many other things. 'Paladin' shouldn't mean 'guy who swings a two-hander at anything that pings his Detect Evil.'

[big teej]

So my entire party didn't survive last night's session. This was my first Total Party Kill, so I'm not sure, but I think it was a bit harsh.

Party:
2H Barbarian, Evocation/Conjuration Wizard, Archer Cleric, Archer Ranger, Paladin, 2WF Swashbuckler (me)
All Level 4, all badly to sub-par optimized. We're definitely more of a role-playing group than number crunchers.

We were playing the Forge Of Fury module, a straightforward Dungeon Crawl to ease our DM into the rules of 3.5. (He'd only played GURPS before.)

Once we were deep in the Dwarven Halls, we were stopped by a single Duergar. He told us, after negotiation, that we could pass though their halls (for a price), but if we stepped out of line, 'there would be trouble'.

This didn't sit well with out Paladin, and we decided to attack anyway after being led though. Out come about twelve invisible Duergar, who massacre the party in about six rounds.

Our DM told us we brought it on ourselves by picking a fight with powerful creatures - even though we'd only seen one of them and four more unarmed ones. The warnings of 'trouble' should have been enough, he said.

Now I'm fine with being punished for being stupid, and this wasn't the smartest move we've ever done, but still: is this fair?

I'm afraid I don't have time to read all the responses this got BUT

if this were to happen while I DM'd I believe the only difference would have been a slightly incredulous "do you really?" before the killing started.

[The Random NPC]

I can't say I agree with you. Let's pick a few paladin-types from fiction and see what they'd do when confronted with evil forces when innocents were at risk:

Deed of Paksenarrion spoilers:
Paksennarion Dorthansdotter (http://www.amazon.com/Deed-Paksenarrion-Novel-Elizabeth-Moon/dp/0671721046) willingly surrendered to a cult that she knew would torture her to death in order to secure the release of a vital hostage. She could almost certainly have killed them all, but the hostage would very likely have been killed before she did.

Dresden Files (Books 3 and 5) Spoilers:
Michael Carpenter (http://www.amazon.com/Grave-Peril-Dresden-Files-Book/dp/0451458443) restrained himself from attacking a nest of vampires who were openly preying on people while attending their party.

Shiro Yoshimo (http://www.amazon.com/Death-Masks-Dresden-Files-Book/dp/0451459407) sacrificed himself similarly to prevent another's death.

Order of the Stick Spoilers:
Lord Hinjo decided (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0482.html) that running back into a fight against overwhelming evil wasn't the right thing to do.

Contrast that last one with Miko's actions, incidentally.

By and large, the willingness not to mindlessly throw yourself at whatever Evil happens to be in front of you feels like a critical component of the truly heroic Paladin archetype. Sometimes that means letting Evil walk away even when you know that it will continue to be evil, sometimes it means literally laying down and dying to it in the service of the greater good.

Sometimes it also means stamping it out with a bold attack and praise for the powers of Good and Law on your lips - but knowing when a fight should be avoided is important to any true servant of Good. And there are other methods of stopping evil; he could attempt to convince them of the error of their ways, or encourage them to Goodness by helping them or by example, or many other things. 'Paladin' shouldn't mean 'guy who swings a two-hander at anything that pings his Detect Evil.'

It seems that I haven't explained my ideas of a paladin well. I do agree with your examples of what a paladin is, what I was trying to say was a paladin isn't going to stop fighting the good fight just because they (or thier adventuring party) might die. That said, that doesn't mean they will suicidally attack evil when there is a better way.
I was thinking of Shiro when I wrote this, I'm trying to say that to a paladin, their lives isn't as important as other peoples.

[georgie_leech]

It seems that I haven't explained my ideas of a paladin well. I do agree with your examples of what a paladin is, what I was trying to say was a paladin isn't going to stop fighting the good fight just because they (or thier adventuring party) might die. That said, that doesn't mean they will suicidally attack evil when there is a better way.
I was thinking of Shiro when I wrote this, I'm trying to say that to a paladin, their lives isn't as important as other peoples.

But that's just it. Starting a fight against an opponent with unknown capabilities isn't just risking his own life, but also the lives of his friends, the goals of the quest he is currently on and all the good that may come of it, and all the good he would ever do in his life if he hadn't violently broken the spirit of the agreement to be led through the Duergar territory.

[big teej]

OK, I get where you're coming from, but a few notes:

- We knew that this place wasn't the Duergar's rightful living place. They'd desecrated a Dwarven stronghold.
- The Paladin was in favor of attacking from the start. Evil creatures, plus the above.
- In addition, the Paladin didn't negotiate. He was a bit of a loose cannon, so the two more diplomatic PCs made the truce.
- We'd never seen evidence of a large force. As far as we knew, there only were a handful of Duergar there.


But as I said, I see where you're coming from. I guess Dungeon Crawls (or modules in general) aren't for us.

As to who thought it was fair or not. Some players thought it was, others didn't. The DM was not sure (hence the topic), and I'm just sad that I lost my character.


(EDIT: Grammar)

I must confess, I didn't see this before my last post.... BUT.

unless they are currently enslaving the dwarves (and even then) I'd probably sti....

actually you know what, even given this, I would have let em have it.

[DrDeth]

But that's just it. Starting a fight against an opponent with unknown capabilities isn't just risking his own life, but also the lives of his friends, the goals of the quest he is currently on and all the good that may come of it, and all the good he would ever do in his life if he hadn't violently broken the spirit of the agreement to be led through the Duergar territory.

Pretty much all foes have "unknown capabilities" thus a Pally should never fight evil, just go along ala Neville "Peace in our Time" Chamberlain?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

The pally never wanted to bargain with the Duergar in the first place.

[DrDeth]

I can't say I agree with you. Let's pick a few paladin-types from fiction and see what they'd do when confronted with evil forces when innocents were at risk:



What "innocents" were at risk? Adventurers, by definition, are not innocents, they knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

As per the OP "We knew that this place wasn't the Duergar's rightful living place. They'd desecrated a Dwarven stronghold.
- The Paladin was in favor of attacking from the start. Evil creatures, plus the above.
- In addition, the Paladin didn't negotiate. He was a bit of a loose cannon, so the two more diplomatic PCs made the truce.
- We'd never seen evidence of a large force. As far as we knew, there only were a handful of Duergar there."

Ok, maybe the pally was wrong in going along with the party at first. But attacking Evil, under those circumstances? Absolutely Right.

[Killer Angel]

What "innocents" were at risk? Adventurers, by definition, are not innocents, they knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

As per the OP "We knew that this place wasn't the Duergar's rightful living place. They'd desecrated a Dwarven stronghold.
- The Paladin was in favor of attacking from the start. Evil creatures, plus the above.
- In addition, the Paladin didn't negotiate. He was a bit of a loose cannon, so the two more diplomatic PCs made the truce.
- We'd never seen evidence of a large force. As far as we knew, there only were a handful of Duergar there."

Ok, maybe the pally was wrong in going along with the party at first. But attacking Evil, under those circumstances? Absolutely Right.

We can turn this around: the party make a deal they knew the paladin didn't agree and they put a paladin in a situation to go against its beliefs or fight.
This is no more pally's fault, but group's. The (deserved) result is the same.

[Tyndmyr]

Pretty much all foes have "unknown capabilities" thus a Pally should never fight evil, just go along ala Neville "Peace in our Time" Chamberlain?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

The pally never wanted to bargain with the Duergar in the first place.

Never making a deal with them is one thing, and a reasonable choice. Making a deal, then stabbing them is...rather less good. And regardless, investigation prior to stabbing is a good deal. I mean, they had the force to take it over, right? They live here? The possibility for a fair number of them is pretty good.

The party is apparently trying to force their opinions on the rest instead of agree. That is also a good way to end up dead.

I bet if the party had, after the paladin attacked, taken a step back and said "woah, I don't know why he did that...he's crazy. Have at him.", that would have been the end of it.

[georgie_leech]

Pretty much all foes have "unknown capabilities" thus a Pally should never fight evil, just go along ala Neville "Peace in our Time" Chamberlain?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

The pally never wanted to bargain with the Duergar in the first place.

No, they should go along with the idea of "Discretion is the better part of valor." Personally, I'd be trying to figure out why a single Duergar was so confident that he could make trouble for six armed-to-the-teeth adventurers.

As for not wanting to bargain at all, the fact is that he was a member of this party, the party made a deal, and despite his reservations, the deal went through. He did not leave the party, thus any bargain made by the group aplies to him as well. If he was so against it, why not just attack him right there?

[dark.sun.druid]

OK, I get where you're coming from, but a few notes:

- We knew that this place wasn't the Duergar's rightful living place. They'd desecrated a Dwarven stronghold.

...

- We'd never seen evidence of a large force. As far as we knew, there only were a handful of Duergar there.

Just a note (and I know I'm pointing this out a bit late), but if you were under the impression that there were only a handful of Duergar there, and also that they had desecrate a Dwarven stronghold, unless the stronghold was abandoned when they took it, this should have been an indication that they are formidable enemies. From my point of view, at least.

[Ancient Mage]

Discretion is indeed the better part of valor. In real life, codes of honor are great. In a dungeon, the paladin's codes are an annoyance. The Paladin in his lawful good fervor would probably smite the duegar. That's good roleplaying for a paladin, and the cleric should help, depending on his alignment. The rest of you on the other hand (in particular the wizard, he should have been smarter), should have fled upon seeing how outmatched you are. OR maybe counseled the paladin to not cause "trouble." The Duegar is not going to tell you what trouble means, you should guess that killing him is trouble.
On the plus side, TPK means that you get to start anew!

-Ancient Mage

P.S. for that dungeon, play a really tough character (fighter, barbarian) or a powerful character (wizard, cleric).