PDA

View Full Version : Atlas Shrugged in D&D



Pages : [1] 2

Talakeal
2015-01-12, 04:56 PM
So my DM has a rather odd house rule.

In his campaign world magic items are strictly controlled, and we are playing an extremely low wealth campaign. Magic item creation is not banned, however there is a global law that if you create a magic item you must immediately surrender it to the local monarch for military use. Failure to do so is both a chaotic and evil act and brands you an outlaw in the eyes of both man and god, meaning that anyone can attack or rob you without violating their alignment, and paladins are actually obligated to do so.

What do you guys think about this from an ethical standpoint? Do monarchs have the right to seize property arbitrarily? Can a paladin attack someone because their church (who is allied with said king) has declared them a heretic or outlaw? How about if you are wrongfully accused of a crime; can good characters smite away without risking their own alignment?

aspekt
2015-01-12, 05:04 PM
Uhm. Yes.

However that doesnt mean that a fictional world can't have ways of mitigating these powers.

For instance, in the real world, while monarchs and churches have done these things in the past they have also abstained from using those powers. Often because the political and general support of the populace would affect them negatively.

There is no reason a monarch has to be the same thing everywhere. Especially not in a fantasy world.

Almarck
2015-01-12, 05:08 PM
Uh, is this a house rule because it's a setting detail that makes the game interesting? Or is it because your DM does not like people making magic items (because it might break low wealth) and decides the best way to handle that is by restricting doing that the hardest and most unbelievable totalitarian way possible?

Also, I get no edition tag is listed, so, does detect alignment work on arbitrary or objective good? As in, based on the teachings of your faith or on what "cosmic" forces of good think is good. There is a slight but important difference here.

Talakeal
2015-01-12, 05:10 PM
Uh, is this a house rule because it's a setting detail that makes the game interesting? Or is it because your DM does not like people making magic items (because it might break low wealth) and decides the best way to handle that is by restricting doing that the hardest and most unbelievable totalitarian way possible?

Almost certainly the later.

However I was wondering, from an ethical standpoint, if this is actually rules legal from an alignment standpoint.

Lord Torath
2015-01-12, 05:49 PM
I personally would cry "Shenanigans!" If that is the case, then no one should have any magic items that are not direct gifts from the king. Unless the rules are different if you find the magic item instead of making it yourself, which makes no sense from the ruling authority's point of view. If all magic items created belong to the king, then any that are found were also created at some point, so they also belong to the king. I don't suppose you get reimbursed for your newly created magic item when the king takes it? Yeah. Didn't think so.

Is it still an Evil Act if you make your magic items beyond the boundaries of any kingdom? Or will the border simply be too far/hard to cross?

Unless the monarchs are personally powerful, as well as politically powerful (army, navy, etc.), I don't see them lasting long before a coalition of nobles and magic user/artificer guilds depose them. Not even the Sorcerer Kings of Athas try to claim ALL the magic items...

Milo v3
2015-01-12, 05:58 PM
Why is it an evil act? Even if it is deemed selfish, that would just be neutral.

Also, it is not a good act to kill someone just because they broke the law. Killing is deemed only as a good act if it would prevent a considerably larger amount of evil in the world, a person making a single item and not handing it over would not be any justification to murder the creator as a single act. Also, gods are irrelevant for paladins, since they get their power from good rather than gods, so they would be obligated to actually Not kill a person just because someone made a tyrannical law about it.

Segev
2015-01-12, 06:06 PM
Technically, debating whether a church or god CAN do this is easily answered: obviously, they can. They have the force of arms and magical/divine power and can use it how they will.

The real underlying question that is being asked is whether a church and god can do this and still be good.

The head of any autocratic state can lawfully do whatever he wants. If he is consistent in how he lays out his laws and why, and he enforces them even-handedly (not necessarily "fairly" in the sense that the laws themselves must be fair, but in the sense that he doesn't change them or choose not to enforce them arbitrarily), then he is Lawful-aligned.

"All magic items created immediately become property of the King, and failure to hand them over marks you an outlaw!" is a harsh law, but if enforced consistently, is not Chaotic.

A Chaotic magic item crafter, obviously, will only obey the law if he fears being caught or has some motive for turning over his items that serves him more than keeping them for himself.

A Lawful magic item crafter will likely turn them over if he is an adherent to the King's laws. This will be most of them, as Lawful people don't tend to stay in regions whose laws contravene their own ethical code. John Galt, whom I reference because of the title of this thread, was actually Lawful. But he did not agree with the laws being passed in his land. He had a very throughly thought-out ethical code, and he operated within the bounds of that code to deprive those whose laws contravened it of his (and other, like-minded men's) services.

A Lawful Church could also support the King's law, and could even determine that this is part of their dogma (perhaps they really do believe in divine right of kings), and require it to be law in all lands devoted to the Church.

The sticky point is the one where the refusal to adhere to the law is not only automatically Chaotic (which it should only be if you're otherwise a believer in that Church and the laws of that Kingdom), but automatically evil, to the point that a paladin's Smite power works on such an outlaw.

That implies moral authority. The reason this smells off is because a god who tells his followers to rape women and children and then sacrifice them on bloody altars is probably not a good god. Even if he says he is. And he probably doesn't get to empower Paladins to smite those who refuse to commit these "sacred" acts.

Similarly, it is questionable whether one can dictate that "all magic items are the property of the King" is a sufficiently Good-aligned commandment that not only can a Good-aligned god issue it, but refusal to obey would constitute an act of evil so outrageous that one becomes smite-worthy from doing it even once.



Obviously, the DM can do whatever he wants. But, frankly, I would argue strenuously with him over his definition of "Good" and "Evil." There could be a good explanation in-story. Perhaps the Church and god are NOT "Good," and have something other than Paladins that they claim are Paladins. (Clerics with appropriate Domains, perhaps?)

But barring that, just from what is presented here, I would not, personally, say this is the stricture of a Good-aligned god or church, and that it certainly would not make you both Chaotic and Evil to refuse to adhere to it. Chaotic, it could be argued, depending on context. You'd need an awfully strong personal ethical system to countervail the refusal to adhere to the world-spanning one to maintain a Lawful alignment while flying in the face of this societal norm. But it certainly shouldn't be considered Evil in a moral sense. Not objectively.

Talakeal
2015-01-12, 06:06 PM
Why is it an evil act? Even if it is deemed selfish, that would just be neutral.

Also, it is not a good act to kill someone just because they broke the law. Killing is deemed only as a good act if it would prevent a considerably larger amount of evil in the world, a person making a single item and not handing it over would not be any justification to murder the creator as a single act. Also, gods are irrelevant for paladins, since they get their power from good rather than gods, so they would be obligated to actually Not kill a person just because someone made a tyrannical law about it.

Resisting legitimate authority. Also, they are willing to use lethal force to make you comply, so therefore anything you do in self defense is a violent act against a lawful good entity, therefore an evil act.

Also, it is not even their "god" which is giving the command, merely a high ranking member of the god's church who is in tight with the king.


I personally would cry "Shenanigans!" If that is the case, then no one should have any magic items that are not direct gifts from the king. Unless the rules are different if you find the magic item instead of making it yourself, which makes no sense from the ruling authority's point of view. If all magic items created belong to the king, then any that are found were also created at some point, so they also belong to the king. I don't suppose you get reimbursed for your newly created magic item when the king takes it? Yeah. Didn't think so.

Is it still an Evil Act if you make your magic items beyond the boundaries of any kingdom? Or will the border simply be to far/hard to cross?

Unless the monarchs are personally powerful, as well as politically powerful (army, navy, etc.), I don't see them lasting long before a coalition of nobles and magic user/artificer guilds depose them. Not even the Sorcerer Kings of Athas try to claim ALL the magic items...

We are sometimes allowed to keep magic items we find. It is more or less arbitrary, based on whether or not the DM find's the item to be "OP". I do not know if they give compensation, no one has had the balls to actually try it yet; but I assume no. Also, the item does not have to be made in the kingdom, it is merely taken as a "tax" the first time you enter a kingdom.

Also note that the king doesn't use every magic item personally, he gives them out to agents who are in his pocket for military or law enforcement use. Thus the nobles are unlikely to rebel as they are the one's who actually get to keep the magic items more often than not.

NichG
2015-01-12, 06:19 PM
It feels like there's a lack of context. There are lots about this that feels weird, but to me the biggest question is 'where does this global law come from?'. A global law suggests a global ruler of some form who makes the law. Without something like that, there's weird jurisdictional problems that seem like you could use to rules-lawyer your way out of it.

For example, if you make magic items while in territory that is contested by two countries, whose law should apply? Or how about unclaimed territory? If you plop yourself down on a deserted island that is very far away from other countries, announce 'I have invaded this land and claim it in the name of me', and declare yourself king of the island, do passing ships suddenly have to deliver their magic item cargo unto you?

So it sounds like there must be a global authority in order to make this a global law (so e.g. in the island situation, if your title doesn't come from that authority, it doesn't count). Who is the global authority, and what's their deal? Why is the cosmos making their laws a matter of Good?

If it turns out that the world is e.g. a bastion of the forces of the heavens situated in Celestia, under direct command of a solar emperor and tasked with providing forces to fight against the hordes of the hells, okay, that's something of a justification for things working this way. If this is just mortal self-appointed kings independently and simultaneously deciding to grab all the magic items for themselves, there's no real reason why it should be evil.

Milo v3
2015-01-12, 06:25 PM
Resisting legitimate authority. Also, they are willing to use lethal force to make you comply, so therefore anything you do in self defense is a violent act against a lawful good entity, therefore an evil act.
Except if they are using lethal force to make you comply, they are committing an evil act, there is a reason why police aren't meant to shot everyone who commits a crime, if you steal a loaf of bread and run from a cop who tries to catch you, and then the cop tries to murder you for it, they are committing an evil act, since killing is defined as an evil act with only very specific exceptions. Self-Defence is self-defence. Doesn't matter if it's a violent act against a lawful good entity, it is a neutral act to defend yourself from a Lawful Evil paladin trying to murder you.


Also, it is not even their "god" which is giving the command, merely a high ranking member of the god's church who is in tight with the king.
Doesn't matter. Good is what paladins are about first and foremost. Law is secondary to Good for a paladin. They aren't allowed to commit evil acts, just because some guy made an evil act the law.

Talakeal
2015-01-12, 06:31 PM
Except if they are using lethal force to make you comply, they are committing an evil act, there is a reason why police aren't meant to shot everyone who commits a crime, if you steal a loaf of bread and run from a cop who tries to catch you, and then the cop tries to murder you for it, they are committing an evil act, since killing is defined as an evil act with only very specific exceptions. Self-Defence is self-defence. Doesn't matter if it's a violent act against a lawful good entity, it is a neutral act to defend yourself from a Lawful Evil paladin trying to murder you.


Doesn't matter. Good is what paladins are about first and foremost. Law is secondary to Good for a paladin. They aren't allowed to commit evil acts, just because some guy made an evil act the law.

Many places in the real world authorize the use of force for resisting arrest, and it often escalates into lethal force regardless of how trivial the initial crime was. I don't think we can debate the morality of such without getting into RL politics, but it is hardly an open and shut issue.

As for paladins and goodness, I agree that is the RAW of it, but in all of my years of gaming I have never met another DM who would allow Paladins (or any divine caster for that matter) who was not dedicated to a single god from whom they derive their power.


It feels like there's a lack of context. There are lots about this that feels weird, but to me the biggest question is 'where does this global law come from?'. A global law suggests a global ruler of some form who makes the law. Without something like that, there's weird jurisdictional problems that seem like you could use to rules-lawyer your way out of it.

For example, if you make magic items while in territory that is contested by two countries, whose law should apply? Or how about unclaimed territory? If you plop yourself down on a deserted island that is very far away from other countries, announce 'I have invaded this land and claim it in the name of me', and declare yourself king of the island, do passing ships suddenly have to deliver their magic item cargo unto you?

So it sounds like there must be a global authority in order to make this a global law (so e.g. in the island situation, if your title doesn't come from that authority, it doesn't count). Who is the global authority, and what's their deal? Why is the cosmos making their laws a matter of Good?

If it turns out that the world is e.g. a bastion of the forces of the heavens situated in Celestia, under direct command of a solar emperor and tasked with providing forces to fight against the hordes of the hells, okay, that's something of a justification for things working this way. If this is just mortal self-appointed kings independently and simultaneously deciding to grab all the magic items for themselves, there's no real reason why it should be evil.

The DM feels that it is just "common sense," and that every monarch in every campaign world he has ever run in the last 30 years (according to him) has had the same draconian laws for dealing with PCs, which he claims is the only realistically and rational course in the world of magically powered murder hobos.

Milo v3
2015-01-12, 06:37 PM
Many places in the real world authorize the use of force for resisting arrest, and it often escalates into lethal force regardless of how trivial the initial crime was. I don't think we can debate the morality of such without getting into RL politics, but it is hardly an open and shut issue.
Then consider it from the D&D perspective. Where it would be evil. Since Book of Vile Darkness describes killing as evil, unless certain prerequisites are met and then it becomes neutral. This situation wouldn't meet the prerequisites, so it would be an evil act for the paladins to use lethal force in this situation. Lawful Evil admittedly, but evil non the less.


As for paladins and goodness, I agree that is the RAW of it, but in all of my years of gaming I have never met another DM who would allow Paladins (or any divine caster for that matter) who was not dedicated to a single god from whom they derive their power.
To me that more disappointing, every single divine caster has the option of getting powers from non-god sources... Paladins have Good as their source, Druids have Nature as a default (with gods as a side option), Clerics have Gods as their source (with a concept as a side option).

Strangely, I have only seen one paladin in my games that ever choose to worship a god.

BWR
2015-01-12, 06:44 PM
In defense of the absent DM, there may be some rhyme or reason to the acts that we are not party to. DMs banning items because they don't like it is fine. DMs banning item creation because they don't want PCs to do it is fine. DMs wanting a stricter control on what sort of gear the PCs get is fine.
In short, there is nothing wrong with DMs putting limits in their games that aren't in the basic toolbox (the rule books). They should just be upfront about what and why and how, and try to think things through and listen to arguments why X isn't as much of a problem as the DM seems to think.

From an in game perspective, this is fine. It adds flavor and whatnot. Ethically? The DM is the final arbiter of what is ethical in his/her setting, so anything s/he says is ok, is by definition ok. Players may not agree with it personally, PCs may not agree with it, it may even be self-contradictory, but the DM's word is final.

HunterOfJello
2015-01-12, 06:47 PM
Sounds like a good world to either go join the army in or take over the monarchy in. (Or both!)

You could alternatively declare yourself as a monarch in rebellion and then get the gods' blessing that way.


Reminds me more of Fullmetal Alchemist than Atlas Shrugged.

1337 b4k4
2015-01-12, 06:57 PM
Obviously, it's well within the authority of a monarch to claim whatever property they see fit in the name of the crown and to use the force of the state for force it's subjects to comply. That is inherently a "lawful" act provided such things are allowed for within the laws of the land. Assuming the monarch is of the absolute variety, it's probably safe to assume the have enacted such a law. Lawful does not imply a "nation of laws" as we think of it today. Within the bounds of absolute monarchy, it is certainly possible for the king to authorize deadly force for compliance of even the most mundane laws, and many a peasant before you has died testing this theory.

As to whether violating that particular law could also be an "evil" act largely depends on how morality is implemented in the game world. Is there an objective morality, handed down by the gods themselves? Or is there a morality largely formed from cultural norms? In either case, it would further depend on how that morality addresses your responsibilities (as a subject) to the monarch. For example, if the morality of the land declares that the monarch is an agent of god, and that all the laws passed by that monarch are the word of your god, and assuming that said god is of the "good" alignment and approves of such a law, then it could be reasonably argued that the act is indeed evil as a direct contradiction of the edicts of an agent of god.

That said, even within the D&D milieu, a singular evil (and for that matter unlawful) act is not (usually) sufficient to alter someone's alignment. Remember alignment, even as GG proposed it, was relative to your overall temperament and persuasion. An orc who saves a drowning kitten is no more good than a man who pees on a statue of his god is evil, even though the orc has saved a life and the man has blasphemed. The only class which is held to a stricter standard is the Paladin, and that has to do with their code, not their alignment per se. A paladin could theoretically fall, even without changing alignment.

goto124
2015-01-12, 07:40 PM
This is assuming the DM wants to make stories out of the whole 'magical-items-are-outlawed' thing. If he wants to limit magical items for purely mechanical reasons without going into its implications, might as well tell the players OOCly.

How, exactly, does the kingdom keep track of everyone who makes a magical item? If guns are illegal in a country, and you make a gun in your home, there're ways to track you down. But it's not 'police magically appear and take away the item as soon as it is made'. Sure, it could happen in a fantasy world, but the DM might as well have magical items not exist at all in the world. Also, what exactly happens if the PCs refuse to hand it over? If it's LG (not LE), it's probably more reasonable for them to be sent for trial. As long as the players know beforehand, so that they won't argue about how the DM is punishing them needlessly for having magical items. Stuff to consider.

It seems that the DM wants to make magical items hard to get and make. Outlawing them ICly means you can't waltz into a store and buy them, and it can make for interesting storylines if a magical item is required to e.g. take out the BBEG. Nothing wrong with that, as is the Chaotic nature of it (since you are breaking the law).

Speaking of the Chaotic nature, your Lawful PCs are going to have a hard time justifying them keeping magical items. It could be resolved, just something to take note.

Breaking the law doesn't have to literally push your alignment towards Evil, especially if it's for a good cause and the monarch is Lawful Good, not Lawful Evil.


The DM feels that it is just "common sense," and that every monarch in every campaign world he has ever run in the last 30 years (according to him) has had the same draconian laws for dealing with PCs, which he claims is the only realistically and rational course in the world of magically powered murder hobos.

Since the DM wants the monarch to be LG, he has to make their Good-ness beliveable...

gom jabbarwocky
2015-01-12, 08:18 PM
I can totally understand wanting to make magic items rare or harder to acquire as a GM. But there are a lot of ways to do that without resorting to the above mentioned tactics, which seem weirdly totalitarian, arbitrary and, most damningly, uncreative.

goto124
2015-01-12, 08:26 PM
Agree. Either just make it an OOC ruling and tell your players beforehand, letting players not join if they don't like it (RL issues might kick in, but I digress), or make it not so arbitrary and uncreative, which is what we've been discussing.

Talakeal
2015-01-12, 08:34 PM
Agree. Either just make it an OOC ruling and tell your players beforehand, letting players not join if they don't like it (RL issues might kick in, but I digress), or make it not so arbitrary and uncreative, which is what we've been discussing.


I can totally understand wanting to make magic items rare or harder to acquire as a GM. But there are a lot of ways to do that without resorting to the above mentioned tactics, which seem weirdly totalitarian, arbitrary and, most damningly, uncreative.

I agree it is heavy handed and overly complicated, but the DM in question likes to pretend that he plays by pure RAW (he absolutely does not, but he likes to keep up the veneer, but that is a different topic).

I am more wondering about the claim that refusing the follow the arbitrary and selfish demands of people who are in positions of authority is an evil act and that they and their allies can then persecute you with lethal force without risking their own alignment or divinely granted powers.

Red Fel
2015-01-12, 08:42 PM
I'm going to agree with other posters.

It's one thing if your DM opens by saying, out of character, that he will be throttling WBL and vetting magic items. That's fine, I can respect that decision, assuming he has the decency to adjust challenges accordingly.

It's quite another to support the dramatic leaps of you-might-very-well-call-it-logic-but-I-never-would that you've described. To wit: Barring an incredibly sophisticated divination system, I see no way for the administration of the kingdom to know, instantly and automatically, when unauthorized magical items have been crafted. Regional laws are rarely perfectly parallel to cosmological laws, nor are the latter generally enforced by mortal rule. Violation of regional laws is not, by default, a Chaotic act. Even assuming it is, a single Chaotic act is rarely sufficient to shift a character's alignment all the way into Chaotic. Violation of a law, in the absence of other considerations, is not a moral or immoral act whatsoever, and thus is not an Evil act. Even assuming it is, a single Evil act - particularly one as minor as "crafting an item" is not sufficient to shift a character's alignment all the way into Evil. The fact that a person is in power does not make them the legitimate authority, nor does it make resisting their jackbooted thugs enforcers an Evil act. Self-defense, even against a Lawful Good entity, is not an Evil act, provided you aren't employing unjustified force. Self-defense against an unexpected or lethal attack is not an Evil act, period.
The DM's arguments are hollow and fallacious. There is no charitable way to describe it. If he wants to make magic items not-a-thing, that's his prerogative, but this particular method is an atrocious way to do it. He doesn't just break immersion; he stalks it into an alleyway, smashes its knees with a sledge hammer, slams its fingers in the lid of a dumpster, then cackles cartoonishly while running it over with a steamroller. The Joker watches all this with a queasy look on his face.

It ain't right, s'what I'm sayin'.

Almarck
2015-01-12, 08:45 PM
No, it is not. Legitimate authority does not make one good, it makes one lawful for adhering to strict due process and proceedures. Law can be good or evil depending on the purpose of the law itself.

Given the data you have given us so far, the laws themselves are inherently selfish and thus cannot be good or just. At most, it's selfish opposing them and slightly evil. Slightly. And if it's a guy who's got nothing else than that item and it helps him live and support his family? Well, then it's not evil, not good.


Put another way, would guillotining someone who decides to not hand over a pair of really good shoes he just made to the local governor who has entire warehouses of shoes a justifiable or good act? Would you people who carry out the deed an kill this man for no other reason than refusing to hand over a pair of shoes have acted in the right? If I was a guard who signed up to support such draconian and arbitrary laws, knowingly it would lead to situations like this, I can't call myself a "good guy"

goto124
2015-01-12, 08:54 PM
the DM in question likes to pretend that he plays by pure RAW (he absolutely does not, but he likes to keep up the veneer, but that is a different topic).

Ouch. This is going to be a problem. Either he picks up on the creative ways to do it, or it ends up a bad game and more posts get contributed to the Worst DMs thread. The players could just not try to make/get magical items, but might run into trouble if the encounters aren't adjusted accordingly.

Do you think you could convince him?



Given the data you have given us so far, the laws themselves are inherently selfish and thus cannot be good or just.

The DM's argument is that those shoes are more like overpowered killer hidden knife shoes. Or guns. Your main point about the overly harsh rule still stands.

JusticeZero
2015-01-12, 08:59 PM
Legally, they can do it. Pragmatically it's less clear. Furthermore, it's not clear he realizes that that is actually pushing for a very high magic game, because list casters will faceroll everything.

gom jabbarwocky
2015-01-12, 09:38 PM
*Snipped for brevity*

Well said. I'd argue that the OP's GM doesn't really have a leg to stand on, either in-game or out of game, especially since there are plenty of ways to deprive a setting of magical items that aren't so hamfisted. If I'm a player and that's how the GM rolls, that's fine as long as they are up-front about it and don't feel the need to hide behind rules and setting contrivances. It breaks verisimilitude and assumes you don't think much of your player's intelligence.

It kind of sends up a red flag for me if a GM establishes a setting where an otherwise conventional thing is suddenly punishable by capital punishment. Generally speaking, the only crimes that merit that are stuff like, you know, murder. Even if you don't care about stuff like the finer points of ethics, murdering criminals can get expensive. It's usually more lucrative to fine them.

Arbane
2015-01-12, 09:47 PM
This sounds unreasonably heavyhanded as described, but it has some interesting ramifications. (As in 'ways the PCs can break the setting for fun, profit, and DM's tears.')

The first country to announce "make all the magic items you want and keep them, we just charge a tax!" will have EVERY MAGICIAN IN THE WORLD moving there.
Which admittedly will carry its own set of problems. :smallbiggrin:

Hm. If this is a D&D world, that means there's large societies of 'monsters', right? Who make their own magic items, and probably don't care what the 'good' gods want.... So there's probably a Drow (or Duergar, or someone) group getting rich smuggling magic items while destabilizing the surface governments....

Knaight
2015-01-13, 01:44 AM
As a setting element, this isn't necessarily too unreasonable. There are stability issues, but a monarchy wherein standard practice is to ban independent production of magic items makes sense - the skills to make them are rare enough that centralized control is reasonably feasible, and presumably the monarchies are in the habit of retaining people who make them and having them do so. Similarly, the outlaw system wherein legal protections are removed was a proven method of control for older civilizations. There are going to be black market problems, as magic items are generally reasonably easy to transport and smuggling shouldn't be all that hard, but as a setting element it's generally believable. If the magic items are D&D style, they are also generally really expensive and heavily military, so it's not necessarily that different than state control of production of military vehicles, with obvious differences in smuggling.

The problem here is that the DM has decided to stick in alignment, and from the sounds of things distort the setting element to make it punitive. Take the attacks and robbery - it sounds like just about any character will, because it "won't violate their alignment", which doesn't make any sense. A lot of people just don't favor attacks and robbery, and even a lot of people who do probably have the self preservation instincts not to attack adventurers, particularly when they can't even legally keep what they took and will have people attacking them. This is like looking at a tank, concluding that it is an illegally owned tank in private hands, concluding that you have the legal right to try to capture it, and then trying to capture it knowing you have to give it right back. I can easily see getting to the point where you conclude you have the legal right. The actual capture attempt? Not so much.

Then there is the requirement of paladins. You'd think that they could get to be a bit choosier in what fights they pick. Presumably there are other things they should be doing, and as a setting element the imperative to try to repossess magic items right then and there is somewhat less believable. There are other priorities, and then there's the even bigger matter of survivable plans. To use the tank analogy again, say some police see a stolen tank. Their job is to deal with crimes, and for the analogy these particular police aren't on some sort of dedicated force that puts this one outside of their jurisdiction. Somehow, I don't see the police driving after the tank on their own trying to recapture it.


The first country to announce "make all the magic items you want and keep them, we just charge a tax!" will have EVERY MAGICIAN IN THE WORLD moving there.
Which admittedly will carry its own set of problems. :smallbiggrin:
Other then the magicians on lucrative contracts making magic items for the nations which have the ban, anyways. Probably while enjoying special access to some magic items at that.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2015-01-13, 02:43 AM
It's a stupid draconian law that is a pain in the ass to enforce properly (unless you have the power of DM Fiat) and would likely draw the ire of every single dragon and arcanist with a magical bauble who ever crossed paths with a lawman of that nation.

And the alignment crap is worse. It's only feasible that violently resisting arrest would be evil. Owning it surely isn't; perhaps chaotic if the law makes sense (which the DM's brain somehow suffers to believe), but if upon discovery your plan is to surrender or run away from the legitimate authorities instead of fighting them, you're not ever actually doing anything evil! And in order for a paladin to murder you with impunity they have to assume you're going to respond with violence, which is complete and utter crap unless you've done so before... in which case they're attacking you because you killed their fellow lawmen, not because you're smuggling a Feather Token.

Playgrounders in Talkaleal's area, I beseech you: Recruit him to a decent game!

icefractal
2015-01-13, 04:05 AM
So who actually makes magic items? Seems like there'd be no incentive to, if they're going to be immediately seized. Which means that even more so, a kingdom that only takes, say, 25% of the item's value would have most of the world's supply of items, given as people living there actually craft items, unlike elsewhere.

But hey, maybe all the rulers have agreed on this. Which brings up the next question - why would the PCs want to bring any items back to this kind of kingdom? Live out in the wild, send someone to get supplies while you keep your items outside the kingdom. Or become outlaws, why not? If the DM didn't want a party of lawless rebels, he shouldn't have given such a good motivation to become that!

goto124
2015-01-13, 04:35 AM
This thread is generating some nice campaign ideas...

Knaight
2015-01-13, 04:45 AM
So who actually makes magic items? Seems like there'd be no incentive to, if they're going to be immediately seized. Which means that even more so, a kingdom that only takes, say, 25% of the item's value would have most of the world's supply of items, given as people living there actually craft items, unlike elsewhere.

We know that they're seized by the monarchy. That's a pretty strong disincentive for making anything for people other than the monarchs or black market purposes, but that still leaves the monarchy there to commission magic items. It also leaves them open to having them commissioned through them, by those they are willing to let have magic items. It's heavily implied that churches have access to them, which itself heavily implies that they can pay the monarchy to have the royal magic item producers make something for them.

In essence, every indication points to magic items being prevalent, just strongly controlled by the state apparatus, which includes religious orders, nobles, etc. that all have access to them. It's not necessarily all that unstable, and the world's supply of items really aren't up for grabs.

NichG
2015-01-13, 05:35 AM
Obviously the kingdoms aren't going far enough to deal with the murderhobo problem. Clearly, being above Lv3 should be a capital crime unless you're a member of the state military and bound to fealty.

Because trying to use a law to take magic items away from groups of high-level characters does not actually make your country more stable against the depredations of said high-level characters. It just paints a big target on you as 'the kingdom which has a hoard of stockpiled magic items for us to pillage'.

Nagash
2015-01-13, 05:42 AM
I see this as no different then modern arms laws. Most magical items are either implicitly to make you better at violence or have a creative items that can do so.

And before anyone says "but so and so item doesnt" i doubt anyone is gonna get up in arms over a token of feather fall. Laws like this would be designed to restrict the modern equivalent of military weapons. So yes your wand of fireballs or sword of super acidy burning can very well be restricted.

However the GM needs to then take into account how these laws simply dont work in the real world and only create a black market where the weapons are still readily available to criminals and honest civilians have no access to defend themselves.

Being caught in possession of such a weapon could very well constitute a legal penalty, including death. IE if your caught at the LA airport with a rocket launcher they probably wont try non lethals first and just put you down.

However possessing one does not make you evil. Nor does resisting arrest with non lethal methods. But attempting to enforce the law does not make the law givers evil either. They are enforcing society approved laws.

Its a complicated issue, and would create a huge black market and blow the crime rate through the roof of that society but its not out of line as long as he has thought the implications through and theres not a crazy "rocks fall" situation where your immediately caught.

Knaight
2015-01-13, 06:00 AM
However the GM needs to then take into account how these laws simply dont work in the real world and only create a black market where the weapons are still readily available to criminals and honest civilians have no access to defend themselves.

Putting aside the parts where this is more debatable and political, it's worth noting that the laws work just fine for some things. There's a noticeable dearth of black market tanks, fighter jets, military helicopters, etc.

Arbane
2015-01-13, 06:01 AM
However the GM needs to then take into account how these laws simply dont work in the real world and only create a black market where the weapons are still readily available to criminals and honest civilians have no access to defend themselves.


How much adventurers are 'honest citizens' is up to debate :smallbiggrin:, but their need to defend themselves isn't. "There's an orc horde attacking that village? Don't ask us, call the army - THEY'VE got all the magic swords!"

Kalmageddon
2015-01-13, 06:36 AM
Refusing might be a Chaotic act if this law is both really old and almost universally respected by everyone, but why is it an Evil act? What evil can come out of keeping some minor magical item for yourself?

Cazero
2015-01-13, 06:48 AM
What evil can come out of keeping some minor magical item for yourself?
Your example is not goody-doer enough.
How can solving famine permanently with food/water creation items distributed for free be an evil thing?

goto124
2015-01-13, 09:29 AM
There's a noticeable dearth of black market tanks, fighter jets, military helicopters, etc.

Probably because they're hard to smuggle in your pocket :smalltongue:


I see this as no different then modern arms laws. Most magical items are either implicitly to make you better at violence or have a creative items that can do so.

Except IRL you can't shoot bullets from your hands. In fantasy worlds, you can shoot those same spells from your hands, so why ban just magical items? What makes up magical items anyway? Is it just wands and scrolls, or does it include the +5 Sword?

A Tad Insane
2015-01-13, 11:22 AM
{Scrubbed}

1337 b4k4
2015-01-13, 11:24 AM
There's a noticeable dearth of black market tanks, fighter jets, military helicopters, etc.

Eh, there's a noticeable dearth of them in western first world countries, but I would argue that's largely because the citizens of those countries are more or less happy with their governments, the governments are relatively stable and these items are difficult to manufacture and distribute in secret. But for example, the drug cartels in Central and South America are known to have plenty of black (or grey) market military hardware. Similarly in ex eastern bloc countries this was (and in some cases still is) a problem with the fall of the Soviet Union.

{Scrubbed}

Segev
2015-01-13, 11:26 AM
{Scrubbed}

In a D&D setting, people make and keep weapons - even powerful ones - because they can. And because they use them to do very dangerous jobs (e.g. being an adventurer). The reputation of the individual is, under most campaigns' assumptions, the determining factor in whether it's a good, bad, or indifferent thing that he just finished building his Vest of the Archmagi.

NichG
2015-01-13, 11:38 AM
People are bringing up the point that its adventurers' jobs to deal with military-grade threats. But it sounds like in this setting, that isn't actually true. In such a setting, if it were logically executed, the king wouldn't be going to adventurers to solve the orc army problem. He'd be going to his own team of individuals who he has kitted out with all the magic items he's confiscated.

If I were going to run such a setting, the expectation would be that adventurers are generally unwanted troublemakers, and they're basically unnecessary. The world goes on turning without adventurers - world-ending plots and the like would be verboten, because its always a bad idea to combine world-ending plots with an unlovable world. The sorts of adventures that PCs who aren't members of some country's military would generally get into would be more 'lets help the rebellion' or 'lets be bandit lords' or things like that. Basically, the world is out to get us so not only let it solve its own problems, loot it while it's doing so.

If I introduced such a setting element, it would be with the direct intended purpose of inducing that sort of behavior and thinking among the PCs. Because no, in such a setting a king shouldn't be asking for favors with one hand and taking from you with the other.

icefractal
2015-01-13, 02:06 PM
Yeah, actually now that I think more about it, this is a pretty viable premise for a campaign. It's just that it would either be a campaign where the PCs are working for the government, or are rebels/outlaws*. Which doesn't seem to be what the DM is going for, but I can't say that for sure.

* Or a slice of life thing where the PCs are non-adventuring types like merchants and entertainers, and thus have no need for proscribed magic items. I just find that unlikely for D&D.

Talakeal
2015-01-13, 03:53 PM
I am pretty sure the DM would just kill us if we actively chose to play evil or outlaw characters. In such a case literally everyone in the world would be "kill on sight" to us, and we wouldn't have any place to rest or resupply.

Othniel
2015-01-13, 04:44 PM
I am pretty sure the DM would just kill us if we actively chose to play evil or outlaw characters. In such a case literally everyone in the world would be "kill on sight" to us, and we wouldn't have any place to rest or resupply.

Now, I don't have a lot of experience on my side here, but I do have a couple thoughts.

1) Are you enjoying gaming with this DM?
2) If not, have you tried to talk to the DM and explain why you aren't having fun with his homebrew rules?
3) What does the rest of your group think?

Red Fel
2015-01-13, 04:53 PM
I am pretty sure the DM would just kill us if we actively chose to play evil or outlaw characters. In such a case literally everyone in the world would be "kill on sight" to us, and we wouldn't have any place to rest or resupply.

Unless there is a cosmic "kill on sight" aura, or instantaneous transmission of accurate information, you'll find places to hide where people don't know you're outlaws. Unless the law is uniformly respected and obeyed, and nobody even dreams of rebellion, you'll find sympathetic people to help you.

And while I won't advocate leaving the table, necessarily, I would certainly suggest that you talk to this DM about making out-of-game requests instead of in-game rulings like this. What he's asking for is a metagame function - controls on the use and possession of magic items. Enforcing it with in-game rulings is just sloppy and immersion-breaking.

Honest Tiefling
2015-01-13, 05:00 PM
Personally, I'm okay with this idea up until the point that it becomes an evil act. If breaking the law is evil, why does chaotic good exist? There is going to be a point in this place where the magic-wielding knights of the kingdom cannot respond quickly enough to a situation, or are somehow blocked legally to do so. Using a magic item in this situation where the law has failed should not be evil. Chaotic? Heck yeah! Evil? Heck no. My character could become evil for saving orphans because some doofus with a shiny hat said so.

I think this campaign would be better WITHOUT alignment, or the idea that the church is more Lawful Neutral then Lawful Good, and that the church is firmly on the side of the draconian empire. Do you abide by the law, hoping against hope that the power hasn't gone to someone's head, or circumvent it to investigate and possibly help those who have fallen through the cracks?

Talakeal
2015-01-13, 05:03 PM
Unless there is a cosmic "kill on sight" aura, or instantaneous transmission of accurate information, you'll find places to hide where people don't know you're outlaws. Unless the law is uniformly respected and obeyed, and nobody even dreams of rebellion, you'll find sympathetic people to help you.

And while I won't advocate leaving the table, necessarily, I would certainly suggest that you talk to this DM about making out-of-game requests instead of in-game rulings like this. What he's asking for is a metagame function - controls on the use and possession of magic items. Enforcing it with in-game rulings is just sloppy and immersion-breaking.

According to the DM once a good church declares you evil your alignment becomes evil. At that point you detect as evil and become a viable target for paladins and holy words and good outsiders and the whole deal.

Segev
2015-01-13, 05:06 PM
Given that this is Talakeal's tale, I would be unsurprised to learn that he has found another DM who is...railroading in the extreme. Not only, I'm sure, would the now-evil party be personae non-grata in any place at all, but everybody would automatically know to call the nearest high-level paladin and his hit squad of clerics to execute the horrific criminals. Hiding amongst the villains would also be impossible, as they would kill the PCs, too, because villains always backstab everybody (which means the PCs, even if the villains work together, themselves, just fine).

Talakeal's experiences are kind of infamous for involving almost comically atrocious gaming foibles amongst key actors therein. It's remarkable.

Douglas
2015-01-13, 05:31 PM
The Mod Radiant: Steer clear of real world examples and references. This topic is heavily political, and that is only ok when it is clearly fictional.

Knaight
2015-01-13, 07:03 PM
People are bringing up the point that its adventurers' jobs to deal with military-grade threats. But it sounds like in this setting, that isn't actually true. In such a setting, if it were logically executed, the king wouldn't be going to adventurers to solve the orc army problem. He'd be going to his own team of individuals who he has kitted out with all the magic items he's confiscated.
On the other hand, we're talking about a small team of exceptional individuals undergoing a quest for a monarch, decked out with magic items. These aren't adventurers how, exactly?


I am pretty sure the DM would just kill us if we actively chose to play evil or outlaw characters. In such a case literally everyone in the world would be "kill on sight" to us, and we wouldn't have any place to rest or resupply.
This is just dumb. The vast majority of people have better things to do than pick fights with heavily armed outlaws, it probably wouldn't be that hard to pretend to be one of the monarchy approved squads, and even without that magic items are concealable, and it's entirely reasonable that one could walk in to a smaller settlement, resupply, and leave without anyone being the wiser.

Which actually brings up another possible party dynamic. You've got an unafilliated group of adventurers, with lots and lots of fake paperwork. They've got the documentation that they are authorized to use everything they have, and it always seems to be from some distant country where it's difficult to actually check whether they have it. They consistently have papers detailing the orders they have, which conveniently match up perfectly with whatever they are currently undergoing (or at least provide valid cover for it). So on and so forth.

Talakeal
2015-01-13, 07:12 PM
On the other hand, we're talking about a small team of exceptional individuals undergoing a quest for a monarch, decked out with magic items. These aren't adventurers how, exactly?


This is just dumb. The vast majority of people have better things to do than pick fights with heavily armed outlaws, it probably wouldn't be that hard to pretend to be one of the monarchy approved squads, and even without that magic items are concealable, and it's entirely reasonable that one could walk in to a smaller settlement, resupply, and leave without anyone being the wiser.

Which actually brings up another possible party dynamic. You've got an unafilliated group of adventurers, with lots and lots of fake paperwork. They've got the documentation that they are authorized to use everything they have, and it always seems to be from some distant country where it's difficult to actually check whether they have it. They consistently have papers detailing the orders they have, which conveniently match up perfectly with whatever they are currently undergoing (or at least provide valid cover for it). So on and so forth.

As I said, the whole thing is a way for the DM to control magic items in the campaign. He does not like the thought of PCs crafting items, random treasure tables, or purchasing items at magic mart. However he likes to claim that he runs the game by RAW, so he uses narrative FIAT rather than rule zero to keep it like this. I am honestly not really interested in fighting him in this manner as I am just fine with a low magic game, and I doubt it would work anyway as he would just come up with some other narrative FIAT to take our toys away.

I am really more interested in the concept of people in authority, being government or church, being able to declare someone evil if they resist or fight back against arbitrary laws. or oppressive states.

I also believe the DM has stated that high level clerics in his world have developed a sort of reverse "Sanctify the Wicked" spell, that can turn their enemies evil and thus allow them to persecute and rob said enemies with a clear conscious, but I didn't ask him for the details as the very concept seemed so alien and morally reprehensible to me. He claimed it was a real spell, perhaps something from an earlier edition with a name like "Mark of the heretic," or some such thing, if anyone has ever heard of it.

Douglas
2015-01-13, 07:23 PM
I am really more interested in the concept of people in authority, being government or church, being able to declare someone evil if they resist or fight back against arbitrary laws. or oppressive states.
The only way this makes any sense is by arbitrarily redefining what "evil" means.


I also believe the DM has stated that high level clerics in his world have developed a sort of reverse "Sanctify the Wicked" spell, that can turn their enemies evil and thus allow them to persecute and rob said enemies with a clear conscious, but I didn't ask him for the details as the very concept seemed so alien and morally reprehensible to me. He claimed it was a real spell, perhaps something from an earlier edition with a name like "Mark of the heretic," or some such thing, if anyone has ever heard of it.
What. Just... what.

The act of casting such a spell would be among the most Vile, Evil things it is possible to do. It is one of the very few things I, as a DM, would seriously consider being enough to drop the caster's alignment to Evil for a single action. Forcibly converting your enemy's alignment to evil is not "turning him into an acceptable target", it's forcing someone to become evil against their will.

icefractal
2015-01-13, 07:25 PM
I am pretty sure the DM would just kill us if we actively chose to play evil or outlaw characters. In such a case literally everyone in the world would be "kill on sight" to us, and we wouldn't have any place to rest or resupply.If you can get the rest of the players on board ... call his bluff. Go outlaw anyway, and if the DM kills you all off, you make new characters that are also outlaws. The DM is as much inconvenienced by a TPK as the players are - possibly more-so. Remember - "viking hat" power is imaginary, because a DM without players is just a guy sitting at a table alone.

And yes, I advocate this even if - especially if - the DM is just doing this because he wants to control PC access to magic items. Because that kind of hypocracy (pretending you're running by the book when you clearly aren't) pisses me the hell off. I'd be fine with a DM that banned item creation OOC (I may or may not play, but I wouldn't try to sabotage it), but this kind of deceptive BS deserves no mercy. :smalltongue:

Of course, you need the other players on board for this. If everyone else is happy with the status-quo, not much you can do besides rolling with it or leaving.

Arbane
2015-01-13, 07:27 PM
I also believe the DM has stated that high level clerics in his world have developed a sort of reverse "Sanctify the Wicked" spell, that can turn their enemies evil and thus allow them to persecute and rob said enemies with a clear conscious, but I didn't ask him for the details as the very concept seemed so alien and morally reprehensible to me. He claimed it was a real spell, perhaps something from an earlier edition with a name like "Mark of the heretic," or some such thing, if anyone has ever heard of it.

I'm not going to comment on real-world religion or politics (which this sounds like a ham-handed commentary on), but it seems that in this game Good and Evil are 'whatever the church(es) SAY it is'.

Throwing someone out of your religion? Perfectly OK. Turning someone 'evil' in a world where that is a Real Thing That Exists? Evil. Using that as the sole excuse to kill them? ALSO EVIL.

goto124
2015-01-13, 07:33 PM
Assuming that leaving is not an option for Talakeal for complicated RL reasons, and he can't convince the DM to change (seriously, he should try those options first), what is the best option for him? Don't bother with magical items? But there seems to be much bigger problems, especially with the DM's view of alignment. Play along and let himself be railroaded? Or go against the DM, be outlaws and constantly get killed? It might also depend on how other players think. Do they agree with you (Talakeal) or the DM?

SiuiS
2015-01-13, 07:34 PM
So who actually makes magic items? Seems like there'd be no incentive to, if they're going to be immediately seized. Which means that even more so, a kingdom that only takes, say, 25% of the item's value would have most of the world's supply of items, given as people living there actually craft items, unlike elsewhere.

But hey, maybe all the rulers have agreed on this. Which brings up the next question - why would the PCs want to bring any items back to this kind of kingdom? Live out in the wild, send someone to get supplies while you keep your items outside the kingdom. Or become outlaws, why not? If the DM didn't want a party of lawless rebels, he shouldn't have given such a good motivation to become that!

Think state alchemists. Magic items are not made lightly. Which means anyone with the skill and power can leverage that into government contracts. Suddenly, you've got plot hooks of shady government magistrates trying to shave some off the top and being out maneuvered and playing against the crafting factions because Inner Kingdom scrutiny gets everyone in trouble.

You also have players as wizards, gishes and hard liners working as contract operators because the kingdom just cannot afford to pay for crafting, support it's infrastructure, and enforce this law without extreme taxation...
Damn. This is gold. Hey, Talakeal! Get the campaign I for from your DM for me please? This sounds amazing =D

goto124
2015-01-13, 07:35 PM
Sadly, a lot of our ideas won't work for the DM, given his intentions :/

DigoDragon
2015-01-13, 07:39 PM
I can see an amusing adventure of magic item smuggling turn into a campaign. PCs trying to run the blockades to deliver a cart full of Gray Bags of Tricks. Dumping Potions of Cure Light Wounds in the harbor in protest of unfair elixir taxes! Unrest leading to burning down the city's armory after it's looted for those +1 Swords!

Give me enchantments or give me death!!

SiuiS
2015-01-13, 07:40 PM
Refusing might be a Chaotic act if this law is both really old and almost universally respected by everyone, but why is it an Evil act? What evil can come out of keeping some minor magical item for yourself?

The obvious answer is ancient primordial pacts!

This law is so prevalent that somehow it has a literal moral consequence! What fel powers lie at the heart of this kingdom? What reality twisting contracts have they made to do this? Is it a high primordial archon bound by seven swords of artifact strength, a unique being whose very existence is both mystery and anathema to the current reality? Is the law to confiscate all weaponry really a double sided sword, funneling trinkets to the central government so they can continue to power the artifacts that hold some beastly thing, the mater of the tenth later of Hell's avatar?

Sweet deity of choice, this concept is so much better than entitlement issues people have voiced so far make it look!

Talakeal
2015-01-13, 07:44 PM
If you can get the rest of the players on board ... call his bluff. Go outlaw anyway, and if the DM kills you all off, you make new characters that are also outlaws. The DM is as much inconvenienced by a TPK as the players are - possibly more-so. Remember - "viking hat" power is imaginary, because a DM without players is just a guy sitting at a table alone.

And yes, I advocate this even if - especially if - the DM is just doing this because he wants to control PC access to magic items. Because that kind of hypocracy (pretending you're running by the book when you clearly aren't) pisses me the hell off. I'd be fine with a DM that banned item creation OOC (I may or may not play, but I wouldn't try to sabotage it), but this kind of deceptive BS deserves no mercy. :smalltongue:

Of course, you need the other players on board for this. If everyone else is happy with the status-quo, not much you can do besides rolling with it or leaving.

DM's can railroad you without killing you. Heck, I have had DM's simply have epic level casters teleport us around, rob us, or mind control us before to get us back on track.

This is a campaign where he has shot down walking across a room to attack a monster four times in one turn (All movement provokes AoOs even 5 foot steps and withdraw, it is a standard action to draw a weapon, movement penalties for encumbrance and armor stack, my map is not to scale so each square represents 20 feet not 5) with four house rules which he claimed were RAW. Frankly it isn't worth arguing or trying to escape his railroad.

The bigger irritation is that he constantly mocks and berates us out of character for making poor decisions or not roleplaying enough (even when doing one leads to the other; see my previous threads) or corrects stories about previous campaigns.

I am aware this game is terrible and I should leave. I did leave once and stayed away for almost a month, but the DM was continually begging me to come back, and eventually my family pressured me into taking pity on him. Now I am just kind of going along for the ride; maybe one day I will start my own blog about this game as I haven't even scratched the surface about the nonsense we have to put up with on a weekly basis.


The only way this makes any sense is by arbitrarily redefining what "evil" means.


What. Just... what.

The act of casting such a spell would be among the most Vile, Evil things it is possible to do. It is one of the very few things I, as a DM, would seriously consider being enough to drop the caster's alignment to Evil for a single action. Forcibly converting your enemy's alignment to evil is not "turning him into an acceptable target", it's forcing someone to become evil against their will.

As I said, I didn't get all the details. I am not sure if the spell actually makes you act evil, or simply brands you a heretic which makes you count as evil for the purposes holy effects working on you and allowing paladins and clerics to attack you without committing an evil act.

goto124
2015-01-13, 08:25 PM
" the DM was continually begging me to come back, and eventually my family pressured me into taking pity on him."

How is the DM related to you? Who are the other players? What do they think of the DM?

Knaight
2015-01-13, 08:37 PM
Sadly, a lot of our ideas won't work for the DM, given his intentions :/

Well yeah. A lot of us have found reasonable interpretations of bits of this. There's an interesting setting conflict just waiting to happen, but it's never going to show up, because the DM decided to use it as a blatant railroading tool instead, among other things.

Incidentally, Talkeal: is this the same DM that is considering that atrocious Un-Twenty system? Because if it is, it's pretty clear evidence that they're terrible at everything RPG related.

Jay R
2015-01-13, 08:38 PM
Magic item creation is not banned, however there is a global law that if you create a magic item you must immediately surrender it to the local monarch for military use.

Finally - a good reason to make a cursed item.

Talakeal
2015-01-13, 08:44 PM
Incidentally, Talkeal: is this the same DM that is considering that atrocious Un-Twenty system? Because if it is, it's pretty clear evidence that they're terrible at everything RPG related.

Yes it is. Honestly though, it looked kind of good to me at first glance as well, which is why I brought it up here.


Finally - a good reason to make a cursed item.

Funny you should mention that, as cursed items seem to be what the game is about. So far we are level 5 and we have found 2 magic items, both of them are intelligent swords with goals contrary to our own that are indestructible and refuse to let themselves be taken from us / gotten rid of.

D+1
2015-01-13, 09:27 PM
wow. I can only say that this doesn't sound like a particularly compelling setting - at least not as described under this DM. I'd balk at any number of things the OP has mentioned and I just can't picture myself tolerating it for long. I'd certainly be having conversations with him about many of his setting concepts and approach to DMing, and why I objected to them. One thing is all but certain - he's not going to change his positions spontaneously. You'd best be enjoying this game IMMENSELY because this sort of thing is clearly going to be popping up at every turn. I don't necessarily object to a low-magic game but in many ways that's a MORE challenging game to DM than just letting PC's keep the magic loot they find. I'd be sorely tempted to continue playing just to revel in undermining the whole thing and trying to bring it all crashing down - and that'd make me the jerk. He at least would seem to have the excuse of just not knowing any better.

If you bring it up here I kinda get the impression you just don't know what to think of it all. By asking for public reactions you're getting a better grasp of just what it is that you're looking at. It doesn't look good from where I sit and it seems like it'd be more effort and heartache than it could be worth to try and bring him around to running a more normal game.

Lord Torath
2015-01-13, 09:45 PM
He's begging you to come back? Ask for concessions. If he really wants you back, make him pay for it. Not with stuff just for your character, but for stuff that will improve the game for everyone. I'm not necessarily talking about Loot, here either, although that wouldn't hurt. Make him sign a Manifesto (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/manifesto.htm). Not necessarily that one, but something like it.

Also, if your family is pressuring you to (re)join his game, tel them you only will if those pressuring you come along, make characters, and play along with you. Make them experience what you're going through with this guy. This is your life, and if you don't want to waste three hours a week at this guys table, you shouldn't have to.

Red Fel
2015-01-13, 10:37 PM
I am really more interested in the concept of people in authority, being government or church, being able to declare someone evil if they resist or fight back against arbitrary laws. or oppressive states.
Sounds fun. Let's do this.

As a rule, mortals don't get to declare a creature Evil. Evil is defined by your actions and mindset (or, in some cases, such as Undead and Outsiders, it's an inherent part of your existence). Not even a Good church has that privilege. Mortals don't get to tell the gods what to do; it usually works the other way around.

Resisting a law is not Evil. Perfect example: A Paladin comes to a country where all free men must own at least one slave. Slavery is Evil. The Paladin refuses to purchase a slave. Is he Evil for resisting an unjust law? Heck no. He's not even non-Lawful for resisting that law. He's still as LG as he's always been.

If your DM insists that members of this church can declare people Evil, and those people are then executed, insist on becoming a member of the church. Once you're in like Flynn, declare the leaders of the church and state Evil. By his ruling, you can. They now have to be executed - if they refuse, they are resisting the church, and therefore Evil.

This is a garbage and ham-fisted way of saying "Do what I want or everyone will murder you forever," and it stinks on ice. I'm not terribly fond of it.


According to the DM once a good church declares you evil your alignment becomes evil. At that point you detect as evil and become a viable target for paladins and holy words and good outsiders and the whole deal.

I also believe the DM has stated that high level clerics in his world have developed a sort of reverse "Sanctify the Wicked" spell, that can turn their enemies evil and thus allow them to persecute and rob said enemies with a clear conscious, but I didn't ask him for the details as the very concept seemed so alien and morally reprehensible to me. He claimed it was a real spell, perhaps something from an earlier edition with a name like "Mark of the heretic," or some such thing, if anyone has ever heard of it.

As I said, I didn't get all the details. I am not sure if the spell actually makes you act evil, or simply brands you a heretic which makes you count as evil for the purposes holy effects working on you and allowing paladins and clerics to attack you without committing an evil act.
He's full of crap. No charitable way to phrase it. Given that we're discussing D&D, we can look at RAW. By RAW, there are two ways for a creature's alignment to change: Actions: The creatures actions show a change in mindset commensurate with a new alignment. That is, if your LG Fighter starts murdering orphans for fun, it demonstrates that he is a person who kills innocent children for fun - an Evil tendency - and his alignment shifts accordingly. Shenanigans: Certain magic spells and items can change your alignment. Helm of Opposite Alignment is one of the classics, as are Mindrape and Sanctify the Wicked. Here's the thing - the latter two are seriously high-level effects, and the former is a curse. More importantly, all of these change a person's mind. They're no longer quite the same person.
In either event, the person's mind, their personality and perspective, has undergone a change. If the mind doesn't change, the creature will eventually shift back to its original alignment, because generally speaking, alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive - it explains what a creature is, rather than requiring how the creature must act.

Now, there are ways to make a creature appear to have an aura, to make them ping on Detect Evil and similar checks - Planar Motes are a thing, as are objects with powerful Evil auras, or Nystul's Magic Aura. But these don't make a creature actually Evil - they just make them appear to be Evil. And killing an innocent creature is Evil, even if it appears to be Evil - it's why "Smite first and ask questions later" is a recipe for a fall.

Nor can most of these be performed in absentia. In fact, most spells, even high-level ones, require you to be able to target your enemy in some way - being vaguely aware of them won't cut it without seriously powerful juju. And that's what's happening here. The church somehow automagically finds out about naughty craftsmen, declares them wicked, and bang, crash, the lightning flashed and now you're Evil. That dog will not hunt, sirrah.

Now, he can have homebrewed a spell that works at distance, without any real contact between caster and subject, that actually changes the subject's alignment, but he still runs into the first problem - if you don't act in an Evil manner, your alignment will shift back. And then church champions who kill you are committing Evil.


DM's can railroad you without killing you. Heck, I have had DM's simply have epic level casters teleport us around, rob us, or mind control us before to get us back on track.
And a DM who does that is one who needs a good talking-to.


This is a campaign where he has shot down walking across a room to attack a monster four times in one turn (All movement provokes AoOs even 5 foot steps and withdraw, it is a standard action to draw a weapon, movement penalties for encumbrance and armor stack, my map is not to scale so each square represents 20 feet not 5) with four house rules which he claimed were RAW. Frankly it isn't worth arguing or trying to escape his railroad.
I think it's pretty well-established that his grasp of RAW can charitably be described as existing on the same plane as aliens and the Loch Ness monster.


I am aware this game is terrible and I should leave. I did leave once and stayed away for almost a month, but the DM was continually begging me to come back, and eventually my family pressured me into taking pity on him. Now I am just kind of going along for the ride; maybe one day I will start my own blog about this game as I haven't even scratched the surface about the nonsense we have to put up with on a weekly basis.
Your family? Seriously? Did you tell them how frustrated you were? How difficult it was to deal with him? Why exactly did they take his side over yours?

Almarck
2015-01-13, 10:46 PM
It's possible that given the situation described, the DM might be desperate and so willing to do anything to make sure that the game he runs is the "perfect game", to the point that he's willing to do all sorts of strange things to ensure it happens.

Obviously it doesn't make the situation right if the above is true, but it does shed insight into the mindset of a man's decision making and rulings.

icefractal
2015-01-13, 11:17 PM
He's begging you to come back? Ask for concessions. If he really wants you back, make him pay for it. Not with stuff just for your character, but for stuff that will improve the game for everyone. I'm not necessarily talking about Loot, here either, although that wouldn't hurt. Make him sign a Manifesto (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/manifesto.htm). Not necessarily that one, but something like it.

Also, if your family is pressuring you to (re)join his game, tel them you only will if those pressuring you come along, make characters, and play along with you. Make them experience what you're going through with this guy. This is your life, and if you don't want to waste three hours a week at this guys table, you shouldn't have to.Seconded on all of this. Why the hell is your family getting involved, anyway? Tell them to go be in his game, if he's so desperate for players and they want to help him.

But as an intermediate step:
1) Lay out all your issues about the campaign, DMing style, rules, and whatever with the DM, one on one. Be clear that those are a dealbreaker, but you'll play if he stops doing bull**** stuff.
2) He's probably not going to stop at first, even if he says he will. So bring a book / laptop / whatever to the game, and at the point he starts pulling BS out, scoot back from the table and starting reading that instead. If he complains, just remind him that you'll return to the game when he start running it in an acceptable manner.

Yes, this would normally be an ******* thing to do. But when the DM is begging and pressuring you into being in his campaign, it's no longer your job to fit in, it's his job to run what you want to play. If he doesn't like that, he's free not to include you.

Also, I may be wrong and no offense intended, but based on the threads I've seen previously, you're pretty accepting of people walking all over you. Try putting your foot down more often, it may improve matters.

The Grue
2015-01-14, 12:29 AM
Also, I may be wrong and no offense intended, but based on the threads I've seen previously, you're pretty accepting of people walking all over you. Try putting your foot down more often, it may improve matters.

Basically this. Most Talakeal threads come down to the same problem: People around Tak are doing something that irritates or frustrates him but there are a million convenient excuses for why he cannot remove himself from the situation.

Talakeal
2015-01-14, 12:42 AM
Seconded on all of this. Why the hell is your family getting involved, anyway? Tell them to go be in his game, if he's so desperate for players and they want to help him.

But as an intermediate step:
1) Lay out all your issues about the campaign, DMing style, rules, and whatever with the DM, one on one. Be clear that those are a dealbreaker, but you'll play if he stops doing bull**** stuff.
2) He's probably not going to stop at first, even if he says he will. So bring a book / laptop / whatever to the game, and at the point he starts pulling BS out, scoot back from the table and starting reading that instead. If he complains, just remind him that you'll return to the game when he start running it in an acceptable manner.

Yes, this would normally be an ******* thing to do. But when the DM is begging and pressuring you into being in his campaign, it's no longer your job to fit in, it's his job to run what you want to play. If he doesn't like that, he's free not to include you.

Also, I may be wrong and no offense intended, but based on the threads I've seen previously, you're pretty accepting of people walking all over you. Try putting your foot down more often, it may improve matters.


Basically I can't cut off all contact with the guy because he and I are both players in another game that I actually am enjoying, and he was texting me multiple times a day begging me to come back. I told my parents and then guilted me into giving him a second chance. Based on some of the stuff he has said my parents are pretty sure he has mental problems, and that I am being cruel to him by holding him accountable for his nonsense.

At this point I am not really emotionally invested in the game in the slightest, and I have been bringing my laptop to the game and browsing the internet when it isn't my character's turn.

Now offense taken, you are absolutely right that I am not very good at putting my foot down. Most of the people I deal with are very "my way or the highway" types and will just call me bluff, and so I have learned to avoid it.

Honest Tiefling
2015-01-14, 12:49 AM
Okay, what mental problems does he have? Maybe this is a bit nosy, but...Depending on what they are, you are not responsible for him if he has them, especially if it is something he should be working on as opposed to something he cannot work on.

Also, I cannot get your link in your sig to work. Tangential, I know.

Talakeal
2015-01-14, 01:02 AM
Okay, what mental problems does he have? Maybe this is a bit nosy, but...Depending on what they are, you are not responsible for him if he has them, especially if it is something he should be working on as opposed to something he cannot work on.

Also, I cannot get your link in your sig to work. Tangential, I know.

I am not sure; basically he makes outrages claims about himself and his background and tells wild stories, but he also has a need to put everyone down and tell them they are wrong about things, both gaming related and not. For example, if I (hypothetical example here) tell a story about how I got a ticket for going 75 on a freeway in California he will insist that it couldn't have happened because California has a statewide 80 MPH speed limit on all freeways and that I don't know what I am talking about despite the fact that I am from CA and telling a true story. He does this about both anecdotes and trivia of all sorts, and if he doesn't know something he will make an answer and insist he is correct despite all evidence.

I have known a few pathological liars in my day, and he displays a lot of their behaviors, but he takes it several steps further and I think there is something further going on. As I said though, I have more or less given up on him as a lost cause, and really don't want to dedicate another thread to bashing him and his game.

Wow, someone actually clicked it; awesome! Yeah, I am in the middle of changing web hosts right now and my site is going to be down for a few days. The guys I were using were charging an arm and a leg and constantly trying to get more money out of me, it should be back up by next week.

Arbane
2015-01-14, 01:08 AM
I am aware this game is terrible and I should leave. I did leave once and stayed away for almost a month, but the DM was continually begging me to come back, and eventually my family pressured me into taking pity on him. Now I am just kind of going along for the ride; maybe one day I will start my own blog about this game as I haven't even scratched the surface about the nonsense we have to put up with on a weekly basis.

If you're going to stick it out with this nonsense, please do write about it! You could be the next Trekkin!
You do not want to be the next Trekkin.

Honest Tiefling
2015-01-14, 01:11 AM
Maybe others will disagree with me, but depending on your relationship (he seems to know your parents?), you aren't responsible for sorting through his ****. If he's not seeking help, I would say that it is no longer your problem. If your parents disagree, inform them that you have better things to do with your time. And considering that you don't even know what is going on, I'd bet dollars to donuts that you aren't that close. Drop him like yesterday's garbage and move on. You sir, seem like a decent fellow, but you might want to grow a polite spine. There is a difference between assertiveness and being a jerk and it seems like several people in your life are unaware of this distinction.

And I'll check out that link in a few weeks then.

Raine_Sage
2015-01-14, 02:01 AM
I'd read a blog about this game if you started one. Truly epicly awful games are a rarity, or at least the ones that last more than one session.

Nagash
2015-01-14, 02:10 AM
Putting aside the parts where this is more debatable and political, it's worth noting that the laws work just fine for some things. There's a noticeable dearth of black market tanks, fighter jets, military helicopters, etc.

Actually all of those things are readily available on the black market. They are just really, really expensive, and grab a lot of attention while not really being of any value to most criminal enterprises which thrive by avoiding attention on their business.

But globally, yes all of those things are available on the black market.

Nagash
2015-01-14, 02:53 AM
Make him sign a Manifesto (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/manifesto.htm). Not necessarily that one, but something like it.

Also, if your famil

Off topic but thx for that link. never seen it and with a few small adjustments i am posting it to my groups meetup.com page.

And on Topic, OP you have enough bad gaming stories for 10 life times.

Find whatever witch cursed you and give them what they want, seriously, whatever it is, give it to them. Its not worth this suffering.

In 20 years of gaming with craploads of groups in one of the most vagabond and inconsistent cities full of flakes and druggies in America I havent experienced a tenth of the garbage you have.

If groups are that rare in your area then players are too. And GM's need players. Call these guys on their crap early and hard. And appease that witch.

Rogue Shadows
2015-01-14, 02:56 AM
Resisting a law is not Evil. Perfect example: A Paladin comes to a country where all free men must own at least one slave. Slavery is Evil.

There is some contention on that...personally I've always run it that Slavery is most definitely not Good but also not necessarily Evil. D&D would seem to support me on this - in the Forgotten Realms, for example, the nation of Mulhorand (before the spellplague) was well-known for having hundreds of thousands of slaves in bondage...yet the land's most common alignments were listed as LN, LG, LE - that is, LN was the most common alignment, followed by LG, followed by LE, with the rest making up distinct minorities. So there is an Evil in there but it's a distant third. Most notable is the fact that the Pharaoh was a Lawful Good Paladin, but he didn't fall despite ruling over a nation full of slaves and having the full authority to free those slaves if he desired.

Similarly, Chentessa both imported slaves and exported slaves to Thay, but their alignment listing was N, CG, and LN - no Evil alignment in sight. The Shaar was another realm that exported slaves but had no common Evil alignment.

So I think, in D&D or at least in the Realms, slavery doesn't score you any cool points with the Good deities, but it's not necessarily Evil.

SiuiS
2015-01-14, 03:41 AM
Basically I can't cut off all contact with the guy because he and I are both players in another game that I actually am enjoying, and he was texting me multiple times a day begging me to come back. I told my parents and then guilted me into giving him a second chance. Based on some of the stuff he has said my parents are pretty sure he has mental problems, and that I am being cruel to him by holding him accountable for his nonsense.

At this point I am not really emotionally invested in the game in the slightest, and I have been bringing my laptop to the game and browsing the internet when it isn't my character's turn.

Now offense taken, you are absolutely right that I am not very good at putting my foot down. Most of the people I deal with are very "my way or the highway" types and will just call me bluff, and so I have learned to avoid it.

Bluff less. This is not your deal. You don't need to deal with it. The pain of foot putting down will be less than continued aggravation.


There is some contention on that...personally I've always run it that Slavery is most definitely not Good but also not necessarily Evil. D&D would seem to support me on this - in the Forgotten Realms, for example, the nation of Mulhorand (before the spellplague) was well-known for having hundreds of thousands of slaves in bondage.

Slab set in D&D is Lawful, neither good nor evil (nor neutral). The fomorians, a lawful exemplar race, enslave vast swathes of the world and are not evil. Evil only factors into slavery if you treat slaves like garbage; remember that there have been many cultures where slavery was just like being forced to reset your social status, but you could still climb the ladder and become an actual respected person.

Collonial chattel slavery is what we usually think of and yes, that's definitely evil. It is far from the only or even most common form of slavery however. Slavery is at it's most basic, you do what you're supposed to and you will be fed and given shelter, but not paid unless you do good enough to warrant extra, and your services can be traded without your consent. That's it.

aspekt
2015-01-14, 03:47 AM
Finally - a good reason to make a cursed item.

Yes.

You are now honorary thread winner.

aspekt
2015-01-14, 03:52 AM
Off topic but thx for that link. never seen it and with a few small adjustments i am posting it to my groups meetup.com page.

And on Topic, OP you have enough bad gaming stories for 10 life times.

Find whatever witch cursed you and give them what they want, seriously, whatever it is, give it to them. Its not worth this suffering.

In 20 years of gaming with craploads of groups in one of the most vagabond and inconsistent cities full of flakes and druggies in America I havent experienced a tenth of the garbage you have.

If groups are that rare in your area then players are too. And GM's need players. Call these guys on their crap early and hard. And appease that witch.

I like this plan I think it has promise.

Seriously though unless you are getting some kind of twisted high off the dysfunctional group, find another one or start one of your own.

Heck DM one yourself. At least you now know all the things *not* to do as a DM, so you'd probably make a goid one.

Feddlefew
2015-01-14, 03:55 AM
If you're going to stick it out with this nonsense, please do write about it! You could be the next Trekkin!
You do not want to be the next Trekkin.

Reading about Trekkin's game is the closest thing to lovecraftian horror most people will ever experience. He's the reason we use the Purple Text for stupid evil.

Run. It's not worth it.

hamishspence
2015-01-14, 07:46 AM
Slab set in D&D is Lawful, neither good nor evil (nor neutral). The fomorians, a lawful exemplar race, enslave vast swathes of the world and are not evil. Evil only factors into slavery if you treat slaves like garbage; remember that there have been many cultures where slavery was just like being forced to reset your social status, but you could still climb the ladder and become an actual respected person.

Collonial chattel slavery is what we usually think of and yes, that's definitely evil. It is far from the only or even most common form of slavery however. Slavery is at it's most basic, you do what you're supposed to and you will be fed and given shelter, but not paid unless you do good enough to warrant extra, and your services can be traded without your consent. That's it.
That might be more "legacy" from older editions. From 3.5 onward, there has been a tendency to paint slavery in general as "incompatible with a Good alignment" - and as something that should be regarded as an evil by all Good characters (BoED, Cityscape, 4e Dark Sun Campaign Setting).

Formians and Mulhorandi get away with it because it's grandfathered in from older editions.

Brookshw
2015-01-14, 08:10 AM
I see this as no different then modern arms laws. Most magical items are either implicitly to make you better at violence or have a creative items that can do so.



Depends how closely were modeling Atlas Shrugged. For example Reardon Metal (iirc the name correctly) was used for trivial applications such as clamps on microphones. If we extend that to this scenario I'd imagine any magic item, no matter how small, could be subject to seizure.

Might be a fun situation if the campaign centered around fostering rebellion/sessession from the kingdom.

Bonus points if you name a character John Galt.

Solaris
2015-01-14, 08:47 AM
Maybe others will disagree with me, but depending on your relationship (he seems to know your parents?), you aren't responsible for sorting through his ****. If he's not seeking help, I would say that it is no longer your problem. If your parents disagree, inform them that you have better things to do with your time. And considering that you don't even know what is going on, I'd bet dollars to donuts that you aren't that close. Drop him like yesterday's garbage and move on. You sir, seem like a decent fellow, but you might want to grow a polite spine. There is a difference between assertiveness and being a jerk and it seems like several people in your life are unaware of this distinction.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

While blogs about horrible gaming are entertaining to read, there's no need to put yourself through this crap, Talakeal - and your parents shaming you into enduring more of it is... unkind to you, at best. It's enabling the DM to continue being a terrible person without consequence for his actions. Ordinarily, humans learn what not to do by their peers ostracizing them for doing the wrong things - the consequences of behaving as your DM has should be that he loses his players. He's abusing the power he has over you, and manipulated your parents when you attempted to escape his web.

NichG
2015-01-14, 09:20 AM
On the other hand, we're talking about a small team of exceptional individuals undergoing a quest for a monarch, decked out with magic items. These aren't adventurers how, exactly?

Its the difference between a mercenary and a soldier.

The soldier, especially a high level one, has a history with the kingdom, has been selected and groomed and promoted through the ranks for whatever criteria the monarch wants. They're likely to have connections in the area or at least the same kingdom - maybe they have family, a wife at home, or even noble titles that will be stripped from them if they betray the kingdom (which basically gives you the insurance that they're unlikely to do so unless they can convince over half their friends to join them). You can also apply a standard set of regulations on behavior and take pains to ensure that the soldiers are indoctrinated into them, which helps minimize incidental damage to the countryside.

The mercenary group is 'take what you get'. The group's composition, standard operating procedure, etc are theirs to determine, not yours. You can make demands of them, but its always going to be negotiation, and if they actually have more power than your entire army then its not really 'negotiation', its a protection racket. They're more likely to be wanderers and therefore not have a history with you (which means its harder to evaluate what they'll do, and its harder to motivate them to be loyal for loyalty sake). They're also less likely to have connections in the kingdom which can motivate them to remain loyal.

The most important difference though is metagame. The soldiers are stuck in a railroad plot - they do what the monarch says, and thats the entirety of it. That makes them less suitable for PCs. The mercenaries (adventurers) take the contracts they choose - they have agency.

Segev
2015-01-14, 09:25 AM
Out of curiosity, how does having these cursed intelligent malign items relate to the "global" rule that makes you CE for not having turned over items to the king?

Are you given a pass because you've TRIED and are cursed with these terrible things that keep coming back? Or are you CE enemies of the state and all that is good and holy because you dare to be cursed?

goto124
2015-01-14, 09:43 AM
Out of curiosity, how does having these cursed intelligent malign items relate to the "global" rule that makes you CE for not having turned over items to the king?

The soldiers might notice the cursed items cutting themselves out of whatever vault they're stored in, jumping across roads and plains just to reach the adventurers. Even more noticable if a soldier grabs one of the items, and it screams 'I WANNA BE WITH MY MASTER' followed by slicing his hands up.

It doesn't have to work that way, but the imagery was funny.

The king could also take it to be the adventurers intentionally trying to kill off his people... I hope the DM doesn't think of that, the game is bad enough :smalleek:

Rogue Shadows
2015-01-14, 10:40 AM
That might be more "legacy" from older editions. From 3.5 onward, there has been a tendency to paint slavery in general as "incompatible with a Good alignment" - and as something that should be regarded as an evil by all Good characters (BoED, Cityscape, 4e Dark Sun Campaign Setting).

Well, as a further example, the 5E Monster Manual points out that all Genies keep slaves and will judge each other based on the number and quality of each other's slaves - even the Chaotic Good djinn. It does go out of its way that djinn treat their slaves well, though. It might be a legacy idea, but as long as it's sticking around we have to deal with the fact that the concept of slavery itself doesn't appear to be Evil.


The soldiers might notice the cursed items cutting themselves out of whatever vault they're stored in, jumping across roads and plains just to reach the adventurers. Even more noticable if a soldier grabs one of the items, and it screams 'I WANNA BE WITH MY MASTER' followed by slicing his hands up.

The Brave Little Frostbrand.

hamishspence
2015-01-14, 10:45 AM
It might be a legacy idea, but as long as it's sticking around we have to deal with the fact that the concept of slavery itself doesn't appear to be Evil.
5E has tended to revert a lot to older editions in its ideas - for example making Orcs much more "controlled by their god-given urges" than is ever implied in 3.0.

BoED was moving heavily toward "modern morality" - and made a point of stating so.

Generally, when a person isn't chattel - the term "slave" isn't really applicable - "serf" or "indentured servant" or "bondsman" may fit better.

Lord Torath
2015-01-14, 12:57 PM
The Atans in the Tamuli by David Eddings fit into this. They feel they are too dangerous to allow themselves freedom (overly proud barbarian-style race), and if they are slaves, they can't kill each other over (imagined) slights without their "owner's" permission. And this is from the point of view of the slave race, not their "owners".

Tamora Pierce's Trickster's Choice features a country with slavery, but some families treat their slaves more like servants than slaves (while others treat them as, you know, slaves).

Jay R
2015-01-14, 12:59 PM
A clearly evil monarch who has an extremely large store of magic items.

Is it possible that the DM is trying to set him up as the BBEG, and that you're supposed to eventually try to take him down and get all the goodies?

Talakeal
2015-01-14, 02:17 PM
As I said, I am more or less emotionally checked out on game night at this point, I am not enduring anything, just spending an evening when I don't have anything better to do watching a train-wreck unfold.

Also, my parents don't know the guy, he just texted me while I was having dinner with them and I told them about the situation, and they said that he was obviously lonely and troubled and that if he was "groveling" for me to come back for three weeks I was being cruel to keep ignoring him.



A clearly evil monarch who has an extremely large store of magic items.

Is it possible that the DM is trying to set him up as the BBEG, and that you're supposed to eventually try to take him down and get all the goodies?

No, this hasn't even come up in my current game. It is simply something my DM has stated he has implemented in all of his campaign worlds since 1E to control the PCs power and remove the idea of being able to choose your own equipment.

The Grue
2015-01-14, 03:23 PM
Also, my parents don't know the guy, he just texted me while I was having dinner with them and I told them about the situation, and they said that he was obviously lonely and troubled and that if he was "groveling" for me to come back for three weeks I was being cruel to keep ignoring him.

I hear letting other people dictate what you do with your free time is a great way to have fun.

Knaight
2015-01-14, 03:53 PM
The soldier, especially a high level one, has a history with the kingdom, has been selected and groomed and promoted through the ranks for whatever criteria the monarch wants. They're likely to have connections in the area or at least the same kingdom - maybe they have family, a wife at home, or even noble titles that will be stripped from them if they betray the kingdom (which basically gives you the insurance that they're unlikely to do so unless they can convince over half their friends to join them). You can also apply a standard set of regulations on behavior and take pains to ensure that the soldiers are indoctrinated into them, which helps minimize incidental damage to the countryside.

A lot of this doesn't necessarily follow though, because there are a lot of in between structures that have historically been used. Take privateers - they're essentially independent agents with crown authority behind them to attack the enemies of the crown. It's basically a pirate with cushy relations towards one nation. That sort of group could conceivably have magic items. Then there's the matter of the nobility, which is explicitly stated to have some degree of access as a means of keeping them on the good side of the monarchy, and which have separate, private underlings. Those aren't really that analogous to a state military.

Plus, there's degrees of autonomy even within a military structure. Small squads deployed on their own for weeks or months often flouted regulations, and adventurers are basically the pinnacle of that. If they happen to be crown sponsored or connected to the crown through a noble, that likely still applies. At the meta game level, it is a different structure than completely independent adventurers. It doesn't necessarily involve any railroading, just buy in to the core concept.

NichG
2015-01-14, 06:38 PM
A lot of this doesn't necessarily follow though, because there are a lot of in between structures that have historically been used. Take privateers - they're essentially independent agents with crown authority behind them to attack the enemies of the crown. It's basically a pirate with cushy relations towards one nation. That sort of group could conceivably have magic items. Then there's the matter of the nobility, which is explicitly stated to have some degree of access as a means of keeping them on the good side of the monarchy, and which have separate, private underlings. Those aren't really that analogous to a state military.

Well, depending on the historical period, nobility often meant 'sworn to provide military support to one's monarch'. Its not identical to modern military structures certainly, but its more controlled than 'four random guys who just came in off the streets'. Those nobles have handles that the monarch can use to control them - families, lines of inheritance, etc which rely on the stability of the realm to retain their meaning. If a noble rebels, they're not just risking their own life, but they're also risking disenfranchisement of their children if they don't pull it off.

And privateers are an example of the kind of thing which I'd find very inconsistent with the sort of mindset that leads every nation in the world to confiscate all magic items. If you're worried about power in the hands of people you don't control, you don't provide incentives for it at the same time.



Plus, there's degrees of autonomy even within a military structure. Small squads deployed on their own for weeks or months often flouted regulations, and adventurers are basically the pinnacle of that. If they happen to be crown sponsored or connected to the crown through a noble, that likely still applies. At the meta game level, it is a different structure than completely independent adventurers. It doesn't necessarily involve any railroading, just buy in to the core concept.

Well sure, buy-in enables many things that are different than the usual expectations. But, as you point out, it's a completely different sort of campaign structure than self-directed adventurers. In a very controlling land, there will constantly be things which try to prevent small squads from being independent of oversight for long periods of time, because when that small squad is the military equivalent of a nuke people are going to keep a close eye on it. So particularly in this paranoid setting, I would expect it to really seriously mean a regimented game centered around specific missions, not just 'oh, we're soldiers not adventurers wink wink'.

Tvtyrant
2015-01-15, 03:29 PM
No, this hasn't even come up in my current game. It is simply something my DM has stated he has implemented in all of his campaign worlds since 1E to control the PCs power and remove the idea of being able to choose your own equipment.

Huh. This seems really odd to me, since with the exception of casters specific equipment is basically mandatory in most D&D games. I can see casters being problematic, but the best solution to balance issues is usually to just ask your players to be nice.

Heck I DM and if my players do something which I cannot react to (like deciding to fly to another continent on a whim) I either ask them OOC not to do it or tell them that I will need a week to prepare for that, so we are going to need to play something else for the rest of the night. Playing a game is exactly like being in a relationship, in that you have to constantly compromise and communication is key.

Raimun
2015-01-15, 07:23 PM
It depends.

If all magic item are powered by, I don't know... Evilium(?), the most Evil substance in the world and every magic item is basically like Soul Edge (http://soulcalibur.wikia.com/wiki/Soul_Edge), I would say Good people are within their rights to search and destroy said magic items.

However... you said the monarch takes them for his military? I'd say there's something fishy going on. Whether the magic items are Evil or not, it seems likely the monarch is himself Evil. If he hoards Evil items or makes up excuses to basically rob magic items out of greed, it seems likely he's up to no good. Of course, there could still be a twist and there is legitimate reason for all this but I wouldn't trust said monarch until I knew what the twist is.

Edit: Of course, now that I've read some of the more recent posts, it seems it's just a rather unelegant and a bit too meta way to limit magic item availability. If I wanted that, I would just make the items more rare but also take that in account when designing encounters... which would increase the work required.

goto124
2015-01-15, 07:28 PM
If we're coming up with twists for ourselves to use...

Could there be a way to protect yourself from the weapons' corrupting effects, or removing them?

Doesn't quite explain why the king keeps it all to his nobles though. Hard to make the kingdom anything other than Lawful Evil.

Almarck
2015-01-15, 07:34 PM
Maybe the Priests are good and the Nobles are evil. And because of some divine mandate or cosmic balance shenanigans, well... we end up with a situation like this.

Raimun
2015-01-15, 07:37 PM
If we're coming up with twists for ourselves to use...

Could there be a way to protect yourself from the weapons' corrupting effects, or removing them?

I meant a twist as they relate to campaign plots. Such as: "Turns out the monarch is actually collecting the items so that he could seal away their Evil power for eternity."

About what you asked, it doesn't seem likely. I don't obviously know but I would wager that the only way to use magic items without witch hunts and threats of execution would be to find or be gifted "kosher"-magic items.

Jay R
2015-01-15, 07:48 PM
No, this hasn't even come up in my current game. It is simply something my DM has stated he has implemented in all of his campaign worlds since 1E to control the PCs power and remove the idea of being able to choose your own equipment.

Oh. Then don't bother trying to fight the DM's intent. He doesn't want you choosing your own magic items, as in the first 35 years of D&D. OK, play the game that way, don't bother making any magic items, and consider magic items to be fun extras that appear in the game, rather than tactical decisions you make.

Always play the game the DM wants you to play, not the game he's trying to prevent.

golentan
2015-01-15, 07:59 PM
I gotta ask, is this a monotheistic setting? Because in standard DnD, even gods can't declare whole classes of actions evil or good, that's determined by the cosmic juju that even the gods are subject to (take Llolth, who fell to evil by her actions). And if it's not a monotheistic setting, and two churches go to war, and their heads declare the opposing church evil (because even lawful good religions often find themselves in opposition over politics), what the hell happens?

I gotta agree with the people saying that while this is a chaotic act, it's in no way evil unless you use the magic items for evil, and it's not even enough to shift your alignment (if lawful good adventurers are using their magic items to defend the kingdom and its subjects in circumstances where the official kingdom can't, won't, or hasn't yet acted, you are fulfilling your higher duty to the rights of all mankind: Lawful good doesn't require you to follow the law if doing so will harm innocents).

goto124
2015-01-15, 08:00 PM
Oh. Then don't bother trying to fight the DM's intent. He doesn't want you choosing your own magic items, as in the first 35 years of D&D. OK, play the game that way, don't bother making any magic items, and consider magic items to be fun extras that appear in the game, rather than tactical decisions you make.

Always play the game the DM wants you to play, not the game he's trying to prevent.

I guess that's the way to go if OP really REALLY cannot avoid playing with the DM, which should be his first option?

The Grue
2015-01-15, 08:20 PM
I guess that's the way to go if OP really REALLY cannot avoid playing with the DM, which should be his first option?

Well yes, if he's being shackled to a chair and physically forced to play with this DM then he might as well try and enjoy it.

EDIT:


Now offense taken, you are absolutely right that I am not very good at putting my foot down. Most of the people I deal with are very "my way or the highway" types and will just call me bluff, and so I have learned to avoid it.

{scrubbed}

Talakeal
2015-01-15, 09:22 PM
Oh. Then don't bother trying to fight the DM's intent. He doesn't want you choosing your own magic items, as in the first 35 years of D&D. OK, play the game that way, don't bother making any magic items, and consider magic items to be fun extras that appear in the game, rather than tactical decisions you make.

Always play the game the DM wants you to play, not the game he's trying to prevent.

I would be surprised if we even get that out of him; as I said the party has found two magic items so far (six players at level five) both of them cursed. He also says he uses similar "emergency taxes" any time the players receive a large amount of wealth such as defeating a dragon and taking its hoard, so the players never become rich and powerful enough to disrupt the setting.

Zalphon
2015-01-15, 09:39 PM
I've read this thread from page one on. Read every post, every reply, and I can say one thing. Leave the game if its truly that terrible. Nobody can force you to play--and if they're willing to cut ties if you won't, then they're not worth having around.

If you continue to play in this game, then I believe it is your own fault. Because D&D is a game which everyone must consent to subscribe to the game. You're consenting to tolerate the tyranny of your DM. And you can withdraw that at any point without risk of execution or excommunication--I'd say you're safe to walk away.

Almarck
2015-01-15, 09:48 PM
The problem is that Tak is in a game under another dm which this dm is also a part of. If he leaves that risks throwing that game out of whack, and apparently he quite likes that.


In other words, that's a sadistic choice. Assuming my memory is correct. I think it was brought up in page one.

Talakeal
2015-01-15, 10:00 PM
As I said, I am no longer upset by any of the crazy stuff that happens in the game because that would require me being emotionally invested.

I can't cut off contact with the guy completely as we are both players in another (much better) game.

In either case, I am not really asking for advice in this thread, and the only reason I mentioned him is for context. I could have (and in retrospect probably should have) just listed an anonymous "guy I was talking to" as the source of the campaign in particular. I am was far more curious about seeing if anyone else ran alignment in this way, and if there actually is (was) an ability for high level clerics to pronounce someone untouchable.

Zalphon
2015-01-15, 10:38 PM
In that case, no. There is no such ability {scrubbed}

Kish
2015-01-15, 10:45 PM
However I was wondering, from an ethical standpoint, if this is actually rules legal from an alignment standpoint.
Yes. The DM is the final authority on what the alignments mean. If your DM asked me "Do you think this interpretation makes sense?" I would not hesitate to tell her/him, "No, absolutely not, and also it'll make for way less adversarial play if you just ban all the item creation feats--I'd suggest giving wizards free Empower Spell to make up for the Scribe Scroll they're not getting but that's just me--rather than telling them they can create items but will be brutally punished for it." But neither the books nor the forum have the right to overrule your DM.

The answer to your revised question is: No. I would not. If for some reason I didn't like item creation, I'd just forthrightly ban the feats. I can't promise I've never made an alignment ruling any of my players thought was really bizarre though.

Solaris
2015-01-16, 12:42 AM
Yes. The DM is the final authority on what the alignments mean. If your DM asked me "Do you think this interpretation makes sense?" I would not hesitate to tell her/him, "No, absolutely not, and also it'll make for way less adversarial play if you just ban all the item creation feats--I'd suggest giving wizards free Empower Spell to make up for the Scribe Scroll they're not getting but that's just me--rather than telling them they can create items but will be brutally punished for it." But neither the books nor the forum have the right to overrule your DM.

Not really, because he threw out what all the books have to say on the subject of the alignments. He essentially invented his own new alignments, but they're really not reflecting D&D's alignments.

The Grue
2015-01-16, 01:01 AM
Not really, because he threw out what all the books have to say on the subject of the alignments. He essentially invented his own new alignments, but they're really not reflecting D&D's alignments.

Which he can do, and which is fine, because he's the DM.

goto124
2015-01-16, 01:07 AM
Which he can do, and which is fine, because he's the DM.

The way he does it however, makes for a bad game.

Are there GOOD alternative alignment systems?

Knaight
2015-01-16, 01:18 AM
The way he does it however, makes for a bad game.

Are there GOOD alternative alignment systems?

Yes. There are lots of alternatives to alignment that see use all over the place, and are generally solid mechanics. This example just isn't one of them.

Talakeal
2015-01-16, 12:25 PM
Yes. The DM is the final authority on what the alignments mean.

While this is technically true at the table, it is kind of meaningless in a discussion, whether it be on the forum or in real life. Keep in mind this didn't come up in a game, it was simply something he stated about D&D as if it were a fact rather than a house rule, and acted like I was insane that I didn't implement something similar in my game. In this case we are just two DM's talking shop, if that status makes us infallible as far as the rules are concerned then you get into the immovable object vs. unstoppable force paradox.

Feddlefew
2015-01-16, 03:21 PM
While this is technically true at the table, it is kind of meaningless in a discussion, whether it be on the forum or in real life. Keep in mind this didn't come up in a game, it was simply something he stated about D&D as if it were a fact rather than a house rule, and acted like I was insane that I didn't implement something similar in my game. In this case we are just two DM's talking shop, if that status makes us infallible as far as the rules are concerned then you get into the immovable object vs. unstoppable force paradox.

There's the possibility that he really thinks going against, or even questioning, a "good" authority is an evil act, and can't fathom other people not sharing his viewpoints. To put it another way, if an authority is presented as a good, then the only people who would disagree with or disobey the authority must be evil. So the problem might not be with his interpretation of RAW, but with his IRL ethics system. If that makes sense.

Generally I've found that people with this, uh, mode of thinking are impossible to work with, because you can't disagree with them or they start thinking there's something wrong with you. Sometimes people grow out of it, usually they can't and there really isn't anything you can do to help them.

Segev
2015-01-16, 03:46 PM
I was in a game with somebody who was playing a paladin, once. I was also playing a paladin. I was using PF mechanics; she insisted on using 3.5 mechanics. The DM didn't mind.

It started getting weird, though, when she complained about how not just was my paladin stronger than hers (PF smite is undenyably stronger than 3.5 smite), but that the PF smite was objectively more evil than 3.5 smite. Her reasonsing wasn't entirely clear to me, but her argument seemed to center around how declaring that a target must be destroyed and gaining lots of bonus damage against it until it was beaten is inherently evil, no matter how vile the target. But doing damage once to them is somehow not evil.

Her logic - such as it was - was actually frequently in this pattern. Whatever she happened to have her character doing was objectively what a good person would do. The rules of morality as applied to everybody were such that she never called anybody "evil," and would object strenuously if you claimed she did. She just was pointing out that your actions were exactly the kind of thing that only an evil person would do.

What was the good and moral thing? Why, whatever would best suit her purpose in justifying her actions and making her right in the argument. It was always specific, and just happened - because she was playing a moral character - to be what she wanted it to be.

My paladin was therefore obviously corrupt for not acknowledging the inherent moral superiority of her choices to his, and demonstrated selfishness by insisting on being the first to take risks. Now, there might be room to claim that (based on some inability to let others get hurt because he doesn't like seeing it, or something), but her reasoning never came close to justifying it.

Needless to say, I didn't fight too hard to convince her to stay in the game when she flounced out after a session one day, never to return.

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-16, 05:07 PM
I'm going to tackle the original post from purely in-setting, by-the-rules viewpoint, completely disregarding all OOC drama and second-guessing of GM motives. Forgive me if I fail to say anything that hasn't been said before.



In his campaign world magic items are strictly controlled, and we are playing an extremely low wealth campaign. Magic item creation is not banned, however there is a global law that if you create a magic item you must immediately surrender it to the local monarch for military use. Failure to do so is both a chaotic and evil act and brands you an outlaw in the eyes of both man and god, meaning that anyone can attack or rob you without violating their alignment, and paladins are actually obligated to do so.

Nothing out of the ordinary here, really. Going against the law of the land typically did brand you an outlaw in societies fantasy games seek to mimic, and being outlaw meant exactly what's described: being free pickings for anyone with enough strenght to bring you down. This is all business as usual, just hope the bounty on your head isn't large enough to attract too much negative attention.


What do you guys think about this from an ethical standpoint?

These kinds of societies are typically brought to being by one of two mindsets: either "might makes right" or "for the greater good". The former is typically frowned upon, but if you don't have sufficient might yourself, you're SOL. In the latter case, you'd need to know what the military is using all these trinkets for, and assess validity of their cause separately. Is the King divinely-appointed representative of an all-knowing, all-loving Power-that-Is who is waging war against an inherently evil being which threatens all of creation? Then yeah, he probably needs your toys more than you do and has a valid reason to take them away if he sees fit.

If he only wants them to stomp on the poor plebs of the neighbouring nation, you might want to reconsider.


Do monarchs have the right to seize property arbitrarily?

Supposing "divine right of the King" sort of situation, yes. The Monarch is God's appointed representative on Earth, so what the King says or decides might as well be said by God. Even if not, still see the "ultimate evil threatening all of creation" above.

If you think the answer is no, you probably buy into some fancy, anachronistic notion of "equality", and might want to try proving the King isn't actually backed by any otherworldy deific beings of Peace and Love.


Can a paladin attack someone because their church (who is allied with said king) has declared them a heretic or outlaw?

If we take the word "attack" in the broadest sense and include in it stuff like "arrest and bring in to fair interrogation and trial", the answer is undoubtedly yes. Whenever Paladins double as appointed law-enforcement members of a nation, they're under obligation to investigate and bring in front of justice all known lawbreakers.

This said, if Paladin in this case stands for "Champion of Lawful Good" like in D&D, and not just generic "holy warrior", then the Paladin is also obligated to make certain all charges against the accused are truthful, and that no creature rights of the accused are going to be violated. There might be some corner cases where the Paladin can get away with letting a magic crafter go, supposing the crafter is doing something to benefit the Greater Good despite the obvious illegality of their actions. In another case, the Paladin might be obligated to rebel against the Church and the King, because their actions, teachings and demands are not actually in line with Law, Good and the Paladin's code.

The alternative, of course, is for the Paladin to be paladin-in-name-only and take levels in, say, Fighter and Cleric to simulate all the class features he loses by following the Church's/King's orders. :smallwink::smalltongue:


How about if you are wrongfully accused of a crime; can good characters smite away without risking their own alignment?

Smiting an accused person before taking means to ensure they're actually guilty of what they're accused of is a great way to find yourself in the deep end of the alignment pool. In short: NO.

---

Now, some people have stated that "church/king/gods can't actually dictate what's chaotic or evil".

This is only true in the default, polytheistic setting of D&D. If the setting you're in actually has a true, capital-G God of Peace and Love in it, it sure as Hell can dictate whatever it wants. And so can the Church and the King, supposing the King is Rightfull and Divinely-Appointed heir to the throne, and the Church serves the One True God.

When in doubt, refer to the basic alignment rules. If the conscription of magic item crafters routinely kills and debases people for fun and profit of someone, whether that someone be clergy, King or God, then the whole set-up is probably Evil.

Knaight
2015-01-16, 05:13 PM
This is only true in the default, polytheistic setting of D&D. If the setting you're in actually has a true, capital-G God of Peace and Love in it, it sure as Hell can dictate whatever it wants. And so can the Church and the King, supposing the King is Rightfull and Divinely-Appointed heir to the throne, and the Church serves the One True God.

Debatable. This is actually a matter of current theological argument in current monotheistic religions, and even by theological argument standards it gets heated. Clearly it's not something that can just be assumed, and it's the sort of thing I'd be hesitant to bring to a gaming table, regardless of which way I stood on the question.

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-16, 05:24 PM
Any disagreement with me is obviously

https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0337/26/1406579864512.png

:smalltongue:

Talakeal
2015-01-16, 05:33 PM
I'm going to tackle the original post from purely in-setting, by-the-rules viewpoint, completely disregarding all OOC drama and second-guessing of GM motives. Forgive me if I fail to say anything that hasn't been said before.



Nothing out of the ordinary here, really. Going against the law of the land typically did brand you an outlaw in societies fantasy games seek to mimic, and being outlaw meant exactly what's described: being free pickings for anyone with enough strenght to bring you down. This is all business as usual, just hope the bounty on your head isn't large enough to attract too much negative attention.



These kinds of societies are typically brought to being by one of two mindsets: either "might makes right" or "for the greater good". The former is typically frowned upon, but if you don't have sufficient might yourself, you're SOL. In the latter case, you'd need to know what the military is using all these trinkets for, and assess validity of their cause separately. Is the King divinely-appointed representative of an all-knowing, all-loving Power-that-Is who is waging war against an inherently evil being which threatens all of creation? Then yeah, he probably needs your toys more than you do and has a valid reason to take them away if he sees fit.

If he only wants them to stomp on the poor plebs of the neighbouring nation, you might want to reconsider.



Supposing "divine right of the King" sort of situation, yes. The Monarch is God's appointed representative on Earth, so what the King says or decides might as well be said by God. Even if not, still see the "ultimate evil threatening all of creation" above.

If you think the answer is no, you probably buy into some fancy, anachronistic notion of "equality", and might want to try proving the King isn't actually backed by any otherworldy deific beings of Peace and Love.



If we take the word "attack" in the broadest sense and include in it stuff like "arrest and bring in to fair interrogation and trial", the answer is undoubtedly yes. Whenever Paladins double as appointed law-enforcement members of a nation, they're under obligation to investigate and bring in front of justice all known lawbreakers.

This said, if Paladin in this case stands for "Champion of Lawful Good" like in D&D, and not just generic "holy warrior", then the Paladin is also obligated to make certain all charges against the accused are truthful, and that no creature rights of the accused are going to be violated. There might be some corner cases where the Paladin can get away with letting a magic crafter go, supposing the crafter is doing something to benefit the Greater Good despite the obvious illegality of their actions. In another case, the Paladin might be obligated to rebel against the Church and the King, because their actions, teachings and demands are not actually in line with Law, Good and the Paladin's code.

The alternative, of course, is for the Paladin to be paladin-in-name-only and take levels in, say, Fighter and Cleric to simulate all the class features he loses by following the Church's/King's orders. :smallwink::smalltongue:



Smiting an accused person before taking means to ensure they're actually guilty of what they're accused of is a great way to find yourself in the deep end of the alignment pool. In short: NO.

---

Now, some people have stated that "church/king/gods can't actually dictate what's chaotic or evil".

This is only true in the default, polytheistic setting of D&D. If the setting you're in actually has a true, capital-G God of Peace and Love in it, it sure as Hell can dictate whatever it wants. And so can the Church and the King, supposing the King is Rightfull and Divinely-Appointed heir to the throne, and the Church serves the One True God.

When in doubt, refer to the basic alignment rules. If the conscription of magic item crafters routinely kills and debases people for fun and profit of someone, whether that someone be clergy, King or God, then the whole set-up is probably Evil.

That's all very well thought out, thank you for taking the time to post it.

One question though, what would you say would happen if there was corruption or disagreement among the higher ups? What if the divinely appointed king fell prey to his human weakness and made an error in judgment, or what if you had some low level cleric who believed that the heads of the church were ignoring scripture / divine will and was excommunicated for speaking out against their corruption?

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-16, 06:18 PM
That's all very well thought out, thank you for taking the time to post it.

One question though, what would you say would happen if there was corruption or disagreement among the higher ups? What if the divinely appointed king fell prey to his human weakness and made an error in judgment, or what if you had some low level cleric who believed that the heads of the church were ignoring scripture / divine will and was excommunicated for speaking out against their corruption?

In most cases, the dissending voices would be rapidly silenced for their obvious
https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0337/26/1406579864512.png

Now, if you've avoided that (at least for the moment), what any lawful and right-minded citizen would do is try and find proof of the wrong-doings of the corrupt clergy or royalty, and then bring these proofs before those clerics and nobles who are still true to the scripture. Failing that, it's time to found a good, old-fashioned underground rebellion to break the magic-item monopoly. Or you could pray for divine intervention and hope the One True God of Peace and Love actually likes doing its job. Of course, there's a sad possibility that you're said "divine intervention", in which case go back to playing detective or founding an underground rebellion.

If you're not a lawful right-minded citizen, you brownnose the King or the corrupt Church officials long enough to get your own dirty paws into this magic item business. Hopefully, you'll eventually get to a spot where you can assassinate them and take their place, or failing that, at least make them kill the people you don't like, instead of killing you.

goto124
2015-01-16, 09:40 PM
There's good, and there's Good. Depending on setting, we could have a kingdom that declares itself Lawful Good, when it's actually lawful evil or lawful stupid. In that kingdom, anyone who so much as deviates from the kingdom's Code (e.g. those trying to expose the wrongs of the kingdom, sexually free people that'll be called sluts in said kingdom) will be branded Evil, and be vulnerable to the kingdom's version of Smite Evil. Heck, maybe their Smite Evil is actually an alignment-independent attack with a misleading name. And it could run on Lawful=Good and Chaotic=Evil. Maybe the god the kingdom supposedly worships doesn't exist, allowing them to do as they please. Or said god is Lawful Evil, allowing for an evil divinely-appointed king.

If the king is divinely-appointed by a truly Lawful Good god, does that make him a non-combat, paperwork paladin of sorts? Which means he has to adhere to a strict code as well, and can easily Fall.

The PCs could misunderstand the intentions of the king in taking magical items away. Does that make them Evil? Even when they refuse to surrender their items, a truly Good kingdom would arrest them and give them a fair trial to explain things. Not kill them outright.

veti
2015-01-17, 03:49 AM
I'm a great believer in the Divine Right of DMs. Nothing a DM does, up to and including"throwing out the rulebook and the dice entirely and making everything up as they go along", can meaningfully be called "not rules-legal", because rule zero gives them the right to do it. (And you, the right to find another DM if you don't like it.)

In this case the DM has only messed with the *setting*, not the core rules, and everything about the setting - including the definition of Good and Evil - is even more clearly within his absolute domain, so that's about the end of it.

Since it sounds like he's been consistent and upfront about the whole thing, I really don't see you have anything to complain about. It's just a different world from the one you have in your mind. But that's precisely what fantasy is about. I'd try to enjoy it.

golentan
2015-01-17, 03:55 AM
I'm a great believer in the Divine Right of DMs. Nothing a DM does, up to and including"throwing out the rulebook and the dice entirely and making everything up as they go along", can meaningfully be called "not rules-legal", because rule zero gives them the right to do it. (And you, the right to find another DM if you don't like it.)

In this case the DM has only messed with the *setting*, not the core rules, and everything about the setting - including the definition of Good and Evil - is even more clearly within his absolute domain, so that's about the end of it.

Since it sounds like he's been consistent and upfront about the whole thing, I really don't see you have anything to complain about. It's just a different world from the one you have in your mind. But that's precisely what fantasy is about. I'd try to enjoy it.

As a 10+ years experienced DM? Rule 0 is supposed to be a scalpel, not a cudgel, and you should always play to your group rather than demand that they play to you.

D+1
2015-01-17, 01:30 PM
Basically I can't cut off all contact with the guy because he and I are both players in another game that I actually am enjoying, and he was texting me multiple times a day begging me to come back. I told my parents and then guilted me into giving him a second chance. Based on some of the stuff he has said my parents are pretty sure he has mental problems, and that I am being cruel to him by holding him accountable for his nonsense.
None of us here are fully aware of exactly what's going on - we only respond based on information you give us. Given that, I'd nonetheless say your parents are dead wrong on this. You don't have to accommodate or enable his behavior by both participating in AND not complaining about his D&D game. This is doubly true if he genuinely IS dealing with mental health issues. YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS MENTAL HEALTH. You certainly shouldn't be required by your own parents to go to his game and put up with his crap if they actually admit that he's got issues.


At this point I am not really emotionally invested in the game in the slightest, and I have been bringing my laptop to the game and browsing the internet when it isn't my character's turn.
This does neither of you any favors. It's cruel to hold him accountable for his nonsense, but it's NOT cruel to waste your own time by warming a seat and otherwise ignoring everything the people and the game happening around you unless/until your direct involvement is necessary - and then give only the briefest of acknowledgements before going back to your web browsing? As if THAT doesn't qualify as being rude as hell.

Removing yourself from a game you're not enjoying should not be that difficult, traumatic, nor carry any consequences beyond that game's borders:

"Sorry John, but I just am not enjoying this game. These are the reasons I'm not enjoying it and these are the things that would need to change in order for me TO enjoy it. I just don't see that happening and I feel that I'm only being rude to you and the other players to simply sit here and surf the web all night while NOT enjoying the reason I'm supposedly here. The kind of game YOU want to run is not the kind of game I like. There's nothing personal in that and I don't see that it can or will have any repercussions beyond this - like the other game that we're both players in and we both can and should continue to enjoy participating in together. I'm sure you'll still have fun in your game without me and I hope you do. I'm sure you will since you can replace me with another player who'll be more compatible with your style."

If he then hits you with the ol', "But I'll change! I'll change!" simply politely inform him that "the choice of participating IS MINE" and that you would once again like to POLITELY decline and that isn't and shouldn't be taken as an insult or slight of any kind. Also, that having politely declined he should, in turn, just as politely accept your decision and NOT pester you to again return.

Beyond that I can only repeat something from a well-known advice columnist: nobody can take advantage of you without your permission.

veti
2015-01-17, 04:00 PM
As a 10+ years experienced DM? Rule 0 is supposed to be a scalpel, not a cudgel, and you should always play to your group rather than demand that they play to you.

Rule 0 can be whatever shape you need it to be. The only real requirement is that the players have fun. If that's not happening then there *is* a real problem, but the problem isn't that the DM is breaking the rules, it's that the DM isn't doing their job well.

Chances are that you still wouldn't be having fun even if the world were vanilla FR or whatever, because you don't like the DM's style. That's a basic compatibility problem. Not a rules issue.

Talakeal
2015-01-17, 07:33 PM
Rule 0 can be whatever shape you need it to be. The only real requirement is that the players have fun. If that's not happening then there *is* a real problem, but the problem isn't that the DM is breaking the rules, it's that the DM isn't doing their job well.

Chances are that you still wouldn't be having fun even if the world were vanilla FR or whatever, because you don't like the DM's style. That's a basic compatibility problem. Not a rules issue.

Honestly I am pretty accepting of DMing styles and am pretty easy to please. A vanilla dungeon crawling campaign would be just fine with me. Heck, house rules are fine (I run my games with more than a few) as long as they are told to me beforehand rather than sprung upon me as a surprise.

This particular DM, though, likes to change his mind on rules midgame, criticize his players for "doing it wrong", and insist that his "house rules" are correct and because I didn't play with them in previous campaigns that I am lying / cheating when I tell gaming stories.

goto124
2015-01-17, 07:38 PM
May I ask, what is stopping you from leaving his games?

Mr Beer
2015-01-17, 08:29 PM
May I ask, what is stopping you from leaving his games?

{scrubbed}

SiuiS
2015-01-17, 09:37 PM
May I ask, what is stopping you from leaving his games?

Talakeal and DM are both in a game together as players. Leaving means DM will ask questions, throw fits, and cause problems in other game.

Compared to the opportunity cost of chatting with friends and occasionally saying "my dither hits the enemy", that's a big cost.

Haruki-kun
2015-01-17, 09:53 PM
The Winged Mod: Thread locked for review.

EDIT: Thread re-opened after review.

Solaris
2015-01-20, 10:44 AM
Which he can do, and which is fine, because he's the DM.

Like golentan said, Rule 0 is best applied as a scalpel, not a cudgel. It's there to patch the rules, not completely alter them in nonsensical, agency-neutering, balance-destroying ways. It's one thing to replace the alignment system with a 'marked as outlaw' thing - it's another to completely misinterpret the alignments as presented and then insist that's the way it really is.

"The DM can do whatever he wants" is an absurdity; if your players are posting on the internet complaining of your actions and have lost pretty much whatever enjoyment they have in the game, and are only in the game because you used out-of-game social forces to trap them in it... well, re-evaluating that interpretation of Rule 0 is probably in order if you're keen on people other than you enjoying your games.

Red Fel
2015-01-20, 11:10 AM
"The DM can do whatever he wants" is an absurdity; if your players are posting on the internet complaining of your actions and have lost pretty much whatever enjoyment they have in the game, and are only in the game because you used out-of-game social forces to trap them in it... well, re-evaluating that interpretation of Rule 0 is probably in order if you're keen on people other than you enjoying your games.

I disagree with this, but only in part, and only on a technicality of interpretation.

Specifically: A DM can do what he pleases, as he is the one in charge of the game world. But can and should are two different things. Before the DM does whatever he can do, he really ought to consider whether he should do it.

Can your DM make absurd house rules and change them mid-game? Yes. Should he? I would advocate very strongly against it.

With respect to the fact that you're at a different table together as players, I wouldn't let that stop you from leaving the table where he DMs, Tala. In all honesty, the one ought not impact the other substantially, unless he's a seriously emotionally unbalanced or juvenile individual. Tell him that, when it comes to DMing, he has a different play style and different expectations of the game from yours - which isn't far from the truth - but that you enjoy being at a table with him as a fellow player (assuming this is true). You have no reason to be uncivil, which means that if he is, it's on him.

If he texts you to come back, ignore his texts. If your family tries to guilt you, remember that guilt is something you feel, not something others can make you feel. (It sounds easier than it is; it's hard, but it's something you can learn.) Placate your family by reminding them that you're still in a game with him, just not one he runs; placate him by reminding him you enjoy time with him as a player.

You've got to do you first, chief.

Talakeal
2015-01-20, 12:44 PM
Also, I cannot get your link in your sig to work. Tangential, I know.

The website is still having problems, but I updated the signature link to my dropbox file if you are still interested.

Wardog
2015-01-20, 04:17 PM
Supposing "divine right of the King" sort of situation, yes. The Monarch is God's appointed representative on Earth, so what the King says or decides might as well be said by God. Even if not, still see the "ultimate evil threatening all of creation" above.

If you think the answer is no, you probably buy into some fancy, anachronistic notion of "equality", and might want to try proving the King isn't actually backed by any otherworldy deific beings of Peace and Love.


I don't think you necessarily need an anachronistic notion of "equality" to consider rule by fiat, arbitrary justice, and zero property rights to be unreasonable. In reality, absolute monarchs only ruled absolutely as long as they avoided provoking too many people into rebelling.

And the other side of "divine right of the King" is that a king that manages to provoke a successful rebellion clearly no longer has the favour of the gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven).

The Glyphstone
2015-01-20, 04:57 PM
In all honesty, the one ought not impact the other substantially, unless he's a seriously emotionally unbalanced or juvenile individual. .

Have you never read a Talakeal thread before? This basically describes every human being he knows that plays RPGs.

Talakeal
2015-01-20, 05:01 PM
Have you never read a Talakeal thread before? This basically describes every human being he knows that plays RPGs.

Nah, that's just selection bias. I game with plenty of nice people, just never enough at one time to start a new group without the problem guy(s) in the group. You just don't hear about them because I don't have any problems to ask for advice about.

My mage game, for example, is going great, and there are tons of nice people there.

Tyndmyr
2015-01-20, 05:43 PM
So my DM has a rather odd house rule.

In his campaign world magic items are strictly controlled, and we are playing an extremely low wealth campaign. Magic item creation is not banned, however there is a global law that if you create a magic item you must immediately surrender it to the local monarch for military use. Failure to do so is both a chaotic and evil act and brands you an outlaw in the eyes of both man and god, meaning that anyone can attack or rob you without violating their alignment, and paladins are actually obligated to do so.

What do you guys think about this from an ethical standpoint? Do monarchs have the right to seize property arbitrarily? Can a paladin attack someone because their church (who is allied with said king) has declared them a heretic or outlaw? How about if you are wrongfully accused of a crime; can good characters smite away without risking their own alignment?

Well, this is obviously using a different definition of good/evil and law/chaos than standard. This is not necessarily bad, but it does bring up lots of other interesting questions. What if you declare yourself a monarch, and announce that the party is your military? What if you join the military of another monarch besides the local ones? What if you steal already made magic items?

In terms of "does this follow extant rules" the answer is obviously not. And if the DM is doing this to keep the PCs poor, rather than to explore interesting setting questions, you should probably ditch him and find a better DM.


The DM feels that it is just "common sense," and that every monarch in every campaign world he has ever run in the last 30 years (according to him) has had the same draconian laws for dealing with PCs, which he claims is the only realistically and rational course in the world of magically powered murder hobos.

There is no common sense. "common sense" is code for "I want this, but don't want to explain it". If something WAS actually common sense, then it wouldn't be something ya'll were disagreeing over, now would it?

Also, as an aside, I don't see this as particularly related to Atlas Shrugged.

Segev
2015-01-21, 11:44 AM
Also, as an aside, I don't see this as particularly related to Atlas Shrugged.

I have been running on the assumption that Talekeal is refering to why he would never play an item crafter in this setting. That is pure assumption on my part, however.

I suppose it could also have something to do with "I could just leave the game," but that seems counter to other things posted in this thread, so I find that unlikely.

Talakeal
2015-01-21, 12:46 PM
Also, as an aside, I don't see this as particularly related to Atlas Shrugged.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I must admit I have never been able to actually read Atlas Shrugged. I have seen several adaptations though, and they all seem to revolve around the government putting unfair restrictions on industrialists and inventors who then leave society and cause the government to collapse.

I figured that this was a parallel to monarchs attempting to seize magic items which anyone tries to manufacture or sell, and the resultant struggle against said monarchs.

Segev
2015-01-21, 12:47 PM
Forgive me for my ignorance, but I must admit I have never been able to actually read Atlas Shrugged. I have seen several adaptations though, and they all seem to revolve around the government putting unfair restrictions on industrialists and inventors who then leave society and cause the government to collapse.

I figured that this was a parallel to monarchs attempting to seize magic items which anyone tries to manufacture or sell, and the resultant struggle against said monarchs.

That's accurate enough for the analogy to work, yep. No glaring misunderstandings of Atlas Shrugged's main plot point indicated here.

Talakeal
2015-01-21, 01:10 PM
That's accurate enough for the analogy to work, yep. No glaring misunderstandings of Atlas Shrugged's main plot point indicated here.

I am sensing sarcasm here (forgive me, but it is hard to tell in text); but I am not sure why. I just read the spark notes version and nothing there seems inconsistent with the novel.

Now, it doesn't touch on a lot of the deeper philosophical themes or many of the plot points, but it is just a pithy analogy. I wouldn't for example, say that a campaign where little people go on a quest to throw a ring into a volcano, is not similar to Lord of the Rings because it doesn't attempt to create a modern mythology for Britain in the style of the Icelandic sagas.

Segev
2015-01-21, 01:47 PM
I am sensing sarcasm here (forgive me, but it is hard to tell in text); but I am not sure why. I just read the spark notes version and nothing there seems inconsistent with the novel. Actually, no sarcasm was meant, though it was probably the "yep. No..." construction that made it sound like it. My apologies. Take what I wrote sincerely; it was meant as such.

Talakeal
2015-01-21, 01:59 PM
Actually, no sarcasm was meant, though it was probably the "yep. No..." construction that made it sound like it. My apologies. Take what I wrote sincerely; it was meant as such.

Ok, cool then.

Yeah, I tend to find that people typically use the words "Yep," or "Nope," when they are being smart alecks, so it made me suspicious.

Solaris
2015-01-21, 02:19 PM
Forgive me for my ignorance, but I must admit I have never been able to actually read Atlas Shrugged. I have seen several adaptations though, and they all seem to revolve around the government putting unfair restrictions on industrialists and inventors who then leave society and cause the government to collapse.

I figured that this was a parallel to monarchs attempting to seize magic items which anyone tries to manufacture or sell, and the resultant struggle against said monarchs.

Like Segev said, you pretty much have the plot.
... And that's really about all you need out of Atlas Shrugged. I regret reading as much of it as I did, and I am, shall we say, of a somewhat sympathetic political persuasion to the book's author (though I still find her an execrable person and philosophically dubious when it comes to details). It's one of those books where reading it is simply a tedious chore.

Segev
2015-01-21, 02:43 PM
Like Segev said, you pretty much have the plot.
... And that's really about all you need out of Atlas Shrugged. I regret reading as much of it as I did, and I am, shall we say, of a somewhat sympathetic political persuasion to the book's author (though I still find her an execrable person and philosophically dubious when it comes to details). It's one of those books where reading it is simply a tedious chore.

Yeah, it's...dense. I've read it, twice, but I don't generally find it an easy or lightly entertaining read.

And Rand has...well, let's just say she conflates some things that make her stances seem harsher than they need to, and leave it at that. For all her good points and how well she illustrated certain things, she had other baggage in there that obscures and clouds the message in other ways.

(And while he's a better fiction writer, Terry Goodkind's own works in the same field really stop being good illustrations by about the 4th or 5th book. And by Pillars of Creation and ... shoot, the one where his protagonist is captured by the commie dark sorceresss ... I got tired of hearing the same speech over and over. It was especially egregious coming from a 6-year-old girl, verbatim repeating what we heard a few chapters ago from the protagonist. I agree with your point, Mr. Goodkind, and even I am tired of hearing it in those exact words. SHOW, do not TELL.)


Ahem. Long story short, author tracts can be tedious even to those who agree with the author's overall message.

And while I would encourage reading Atlas Shrugged, anyway, I will say you have the crux of it.

TheThan
2015-01-21, 08:11 PM
I can actually see a DnD kingdom doing this.

In dungeons and dragons, magic translates directly into power. The people with the magic have the power to do what they want and only those with more magic (and therefore power) can really stop them.

So it would make sense that a tyrannical king would try to control all the magic items in his domain. After all, who would want a bunch of uncontrollable adventurers running around, these guys are decked out in so much gear that when hit with detect magic, they literally glow bright enough to blind. Now naturally these adventurers are bad for any self respecting evil tyrannical ruler so he would need to discourage them from operating in his domain. It also has the additional effect of making any rebellion against him hard to pull off since his people are the ones with the magic items and therefore the power.

But it shouldn’t stop there. Since magic is power, this ruler needs to control magic in his domain. So naturally he has enacted laws that force all spell casters and being with spell like abilities to register with the state. All these beings must register with the state and get a certificate of legitimacy from the king’s trusted court wizard. On an annual basis all wizards in the kingdom must hand over their spell books and any magical research they have to the king’s court wizard for him to copy down in his own spell books, guaranteeing that nobody knows any magic the king’s right hand man does not. Naturally these spells and research are distributed across the kingdom to all the other spell casters that work for him.
Failure to comply with these rule results in incarceration, confiscation of all magical material and items, and possible banishment or death depending on the severity or frequency of the crime.

Divine spellcasters must report to the main Cathedral in the capital city annually, where they undergo a similar situation. There would be only one authorized state religion and all others would be branded as heretics and subject to incarceration, banishment or death.
Naturally the people who enforce these laws must be at least (probably a bit more so) as powerful as the adventuring party, otherwise the party isn’t going to care. The first time they encounter this they should have to handle a tough fight, something that will make them go “maybe we shouldn’t be throwing magic around the town square during the day”.

This also needs to be a strong police state, a not so secret police keeping eyes on the population, a secret police keeping eyes on the police, and a super secret police keeping eyes on the secret police.

Man now I want to go do some setting design.

goto124
2015-01-21, 09:01 PM
these guys are decked out in so much gear that when hit with detect magic, they literally glow bright enough to blind..

Don't forget to add this as a mechanic!

Detect Magic

If the target has more than 7 magic items on her, the caster gets the Blind effect for an amount of time equivalent to 1 round of combat. If the target has more than 10 magic items, the Bloind effect lasts for 2 rounds of combat or its equivalent.

Cazero
2015-01-22, 07:13 AM
I can actually see a DnD kingdom doing this.

In dungeons and dragons, magic translates directly into power. The people with the magic have the power to do what they want and only those with more magic (and therefore power) can really stop them.

So it would make sense that a tyrannical king would try to control all the magic items in his domain. -snip-

Even a non tyranical sovereign can see the problem with unregulated use of magic by travelling hobos and decide to apply all those rules in accordance to a lawful good alignement.
I think the problem addressed in the thread is not the strict magic regulation part, but the fact that opposing it even in the most minor way is an act so vile and depraved that you instantly become a valid smite evil target.

Segev
2015-01-22, 08:51 AM
Oh, the setting element described is quite believable. I think the two things to which people are objecting is the idea that "every ruler, ever, period, would do this," and that "going against the ruler makes you automatically chaotic evil and thus a smite-worthy target for paladins."

golentan
2015-01-22, 08:57 AM
Oh, the setting element described is quite believable. I think the two things to which people are objecting is the idea that "every ruler, ever, period, would do this," and that "going against the ruler makes you automatically chaotic evil and thus a smite-worthy target for paladins."

I'm only objecting to the idea that keeping a magical item is an EVIL act. The "Changes your alignment" bit is the icing on the salmonella infested chicken: it doesn't belong there, and it makes an already terrible experience worse.

Solaris
2015-01-22, 09:24 AM
I'm only objecting to the idea that keeping a magical item is an EVIL act. The "Changes your alignment" bit is the icing on the salmonella infested chicken: it doesn't belong there, and it makes an already terrible experience worse.

Agreed. It's one thing for a king to send his knights after someone holding a magic item - it's another thing for the universe itself to deem anyone holding a magic item is an evil entity on par with murderers, child molesters, and people who talk in theaters.

golentan
2015-01-22, 09:35 AM
Agreed. It's one thing for a king to send his knights after someone holding a magic item - it's another thing for the universe itself to deem anyone holding a magic item is an evil entity on par with murderers, child molesters, and people who talk in theaters.

Right. Most kings will base their authority in part on law. Violating that law is definitely a chaotic act, and regardless of whether it's morally wrong (evil), depending on how the law covers it it's not something that the king can turn a blind eye to while maintaining his authority and appearance of an even handed rulership. Sending his law enforcement after lawbreakers is kind of in the job description, and after their illegal goods have been confiscated and they've been given a fair trial, he can show leniency in the sentencing if he's a good guy and there are mitigating circumstances. Fine, good, I'm on board with that.

Saying that a chaotic nonevil act (which I'm here defining as an act that 1. violates the law or tradition of the land or your culture, and 2. isn't harming innocents) is Evil because the church supports both law and good is just silly, law and good are two separate things, which is why we have 9 alignments and freedom fighters are a thing who don't necessarily have to eat babies. Having a single chaotic nonevil act change your alignment permanently is generally silly, but hey, sometimes it happens. Having a chaotic, nonevil act change your alignment to evil is beyond silly, it's stupid. Having paladins murder people who ping evil, especially if they ping evil because of a chaotic act which did not harm anyone? Ya jumped the shark several steps back here, ya lunk.

veti
2015-01-22, 09:50 PM
Just to explore this, let's consider the most extreme edge-cases we can imagine.

Now, say you're the Church in this world. One thing you know, but you don't share with everyone, is that there exist items in this world that appear to any casual inspection to be a simple magic item, but in fact have hidden depths. (Think Gollum's ring.) Someone who comes into possession of one of these may be slightly enhanced, or they may - if they figure out how to use it - be boosted to Instant Demigodhood.

I suggest, in that case, it's neither unreasonable nor un-good to pass a law saying that magic items should be turned over to the church for inspection, upon discovery. But then there's an obvious loophole if someone claims to have "made" the item themselves - so you'd naturally include those in the same law. And you'd devote significant effort to monitoring to detect the existence of magic items anywhere within your domain (however you choose to define that).

What about someone who breaks this law? A mostly-innocent adventurer, in ignorance of why it was put in place?

Suppose you're an adventurer, and you uncover a priceless treasure. You know the law of the land and the church say you should turn it over, but hello, "priceless treasure". You also know that they'll come after you, possibly in force, possibly quite soon. What do you do? Well, if you were chaotic enough to break the law in the first place, you probably start preparing for their visit. Set up traps, generally get ready for a fight. So when the Holy SWAT Team shows up - even if the item itself is no biggie - they would assume they'll be met with lethal force that includes unpredictable levels of magical power. They won't be pussyfooting about, they'll be prodding buttock and taking names with prejudice.

So, is keeping the doodad chaotic? Definitely, extremely. Is it evil? Well, since it all but commits you to a fight using lethal force against agents of law and good, and turning your back on all Good groups and agents in the campaign - I'd say so.

Obviously I made up this whole setting and scenario. I don't know if that's the secret in-game reasoning behind the laws. But neither does the OP.

Talakeal
2015-01-22, 09:59 PM
On a related question, are paladins generally allowed to attack good characters who happen to be outlaws?

Milo v3
2015-01-22, 10:08 PM
On a related question, are paladins generally allowed to attack good characters who happen to be outlaws?

Only if it would be non-evil to do so.

gom jabbarwocky
2015-01-22, 10:38 PM
On a related question, are paladins generally allowed to attack good characters who happen to be outlaws?

Well, I suppose it depends heavily on the scenario, but, yeah, totally. Just because a character is 'good' doesn't mean they all get along, and you could easily make a character with a good alignment an antagonist just as you can easily make an evil character a protagonist or ally for a lark. You wouldn't be able to smite them, obviously. But sometimes good characters do bad things, and when the hammer comes down, someone's gotta swing it, am I right?

Red Fel
2015-01-22, 10:40 PM
In other words, the question is too vague.

For example, Tala, if you had phrased it as, "Can a Paladin, unprovoked, attack a person he knows to be an outlaw, regardless of what that person may presently be doing?" Not so broadly, I would say. I would find it Miko-esque, in fact.

Look at the example (was it in BoED?) of a Half-Orc Paladin who came upon two Succubi in hiding, in love. The book presented a dilemma: The Paladin must choose between smiting Evil creatures - which Succubi obviously are - or upholding True Love, one of the noblest Good values.

If killing two Succubi isn't a sure thing, I'd be hard-pressed to allow killing an outlaw simply because that person is an outlaw. Context, man, give me context!

So let's add context. Say instead you had asked me, "Can a Paladin, coming upon a person he knows to be an outlaw, attack that person, where that person is Good, and is hiding from the law?" And my response is, it depends. In my mind, Paladins are paragons of Good. If confronted with a Good adversary, they will seek nonviolent resolution first. This may not be true of a Neutral or Evil adversary, but certainly a Good person ought to receive the benefit of the doubt. In my mind, a Paladin would ask the person to submit peacefully. If that offer is refused, yes, the Paladin could employ force, albeit nonlethal force, against such a person.

Let me be clear on my position, which is admittedly a matter of opinion: If a Paladin came upon a person he knew to be Good, who was not a threat to anybody (including the Paladin himself), he would not be justified in the use of lethal force. Could he attack? Under the right circumstances, yes. Could he kill? Only if forced, for example in self-defense. When a Paladin puts his Lawful duty over his Good values, he becomes, well, Miko. Paladins are dishonored for being un-Lawful; they fall for being Evil. Good matters more.

goto124
2015-01-23, 12:42 AM
On a related question, are paladins generally allowed to attack good characters who happen to be outlaws?

Arrest, yes. Non lethal attack purely to arrest them, yes. Kill on sight, no.

Edit: Best for the paladin to ask them to surrender peacefully first. If outlaw refuses, try to arrest him. Not kill him.

Solaris
2015-01-23, 01:06 AM
On a related question, are paladins generally allowed to attack good characters who happen to be outlaws?

... Are they paladins of tyranny? Or paladins of slaughter?

'Cause I'd rule that any allegedly good paladin who used lethal force against someone he knew was good-aligned, regardless of their legal status, wouldn't just fall, he'd pull a full-on Chicxulub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater). Divine wrath would manifest itself to lay a curse against the transgressor for betraying the fundamental universal forces of Good which he is supposed to be a paragon of in his mindless and dogmatic devotion to temporal laws written by punitiful mortals.

There would be a crater.

goto124
2015-01-23, 01:26 AM
There's the option of Lawful Evil paladins. I think they're called Blackguards here though, with the term 'paladin' referring to the LG kind.

Segev
2015-01-23, 09:03 AM
The traditional LG paladin is perfectly okay attacking a non-evil outlaw if his outlaw behavior is not of the "fighting against unjust laws" variety. The lovable thief who does a little good that "makes up" for the more egregious sins he sometimes commits, but never quite crosses a neutral-to-evil moral event horizon (and certainly is not comfortable staying there if he slips) is still a criminal who cares not that he's breaking laws and causing hardship for others, as long as he doesn't have to see it and can convince himself "they can afford it."

While the paladin couldn't smite him, he could definitely attack him with intent to subdue. Possibly even with intent to kill, if it's clear that attacking to subdue has caused the thief to escalate to lethal levels of self-defense.

But, as a general rule, paladins should not be looking for excuses to kill. Those necessities arise all on their own, thanks to genuine evil rearing its head. Paladins should be looking for opportunities to resolve things without violence, if possible while upholding justice and virtue. And without killing if similarly possible. Not to the extent of being stupid pacifists; paladins are holy warriors, after all. But restraint and judgment should be exercised to minimize killing. Bloodlust is simply not paladinal.

TheThan
2015-01-23, 05:36 PM
I agree that this Church shouldn’t have the power to brand you evil, force an alignment change and then send anyone and everyone after you.

which is what has been described. It sounds like even peasant farmers who have nothing to do with it are likely to straight up and blindly attack you; Even though they probably could use your help dealing with some local problem. ( a problem the authorities aren’t dealing with because they’re too busy picking on adventurers passing through).

Are these people being magically compelled to attack you? That level one peasant farmer has no business trying to pick a fight with you. He’s not trained, is really under equipped and basically doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance. Peasants are smart enough to know this; they wouldn’t be trying to jump you. Oh they might rat you out to the authorities, but they shouldn’t be trying to kill you.
Now if every magic item in the campaign had an evil aura that tainted you that makes a bit more sense. But then it wouldn’t the church claiming you’re evil and slapping an alignment change on you. It would the item’s fault doing it.

Although now I imagine an adventure like Rambo: First Blood. The PCs stroll into town, get harassed and picked on by the local church. They get pissed off and declare war on them destroying the local cathedral in the process.

Talakeal
2015-01-23, 05:52 PM
The DM described it as being hunted down and attacked on sight by all guards, military, churches, and guilds (including of course the mages guild) in the kingdom. He made no mentions of commoners.

goto124
2015-01-23, 08:36 PM
The DM's way is no good... but what if we tweak it to have it make more sense? Like the church and monarchy being LE? Or there being a black market? Etc?

HolyCouncilMagi
2015-03-04, 01:48 PM
I've seen some really great arguments on these boards for why the D&D alignment system is already arbitrary, and each alignment being described as "Good" or "Evil" is more in-setting propaganda than anything approaching real-world ethics. I wish I could find some to pull them up, but the main point is, I think that if the DM is taking one set of arbitrary values that goes by a particular name and changes it to another set of arbitrary values that goes by the original name, the worst thing you can accuse him of is being confusing. His defense that "that's how the book does it" is untrue to say the least, but Good and Evil aren't truly good and evil anyway, they're just a result of doing or feeling certain things that cause you to have a particular cosmic glow. (One thing I remember reading on these boards was somebody pointing out that the alignments being called Good and Evil in the first place probably only came about because most living beings would agree that one of those cosmic energies is more pleasant to live around and have in power than the other.)

What you have here is basically a super totalitarian setting with a cosmos that is extremely sensitive to things that don't support rigid societal rules. So you have the light yellow glow like everyone else when you support "society" and the dark red glow when you decide to run away with your magic items instead of turning them over. And people in these societies have been conditioned to believe that people with the dark red glow should be killed on sight; some even have the ability to hurt people more for having the dark red glow (Paladins).

The in-setting morality system centering around these alignments is still arbitrary, it's just enforced by a cosmic color-marker for particular actions and thoughts. What things go into setting off these cosmic color markers makes much less difference than whether or not they exist.

endur
2015-03-04, 02:01 PM
Do monarchs have the right to seize property arbitrarily? ?

In some fantasy and real world countries, yes.


Can a paladin attack someone because their church (who is allied with said king) has declared them a heretic or outlaw? ?

Yes. That doesn't mean that smite evil will actually work ... smite evil requires that the target be evil.


How about if you are wrongfully accused of a crime; can good characters smite away without risking their own alignment?

Police can arrest you, but they shouldn't engage in police brutality.


An interesting question ... are you evil for selfishly keeping a magic item that is supposed to belong to the kingdom.

Imagine this is a desert kingdom ... and you keep all the water for yourself... Does that make you evil?

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-04, 02:08 PM
His defense that "that's how the book does it" is untrue to say the least, but Good and Evil aren't truly good and evil anyway, they're just a result of doing or feeling certain things that cause you to have a particular cosmic glow. Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the author portray Law as the real Evil anyway?

Segev
2015-03-04, 02:23 PM
Imagine this is a desert kingdom ... and you keep all the water for yourself... Does that make you evil?

Given the title of this thread, it seems appropriate to ask: how did you come by having all of the water?

Are you the one who went out and found it and gathered it and brought it in? Then no, you're not evil for hoarding it and only sharing with those who'll recompense you in some fashion you deem worth while.

Did you take it by deceit, stealth, or force from those who had it before you monopolized it? Then yes, you're evil for so doing, let alone for then keeping it from them as they die of thirst.


The former situation, the water would not have been gathered and brought to the thirsty people if you hadn't done so. They would be no worse off if you did not share it, and are better off if you do (or even sell it).

The latter situation, you took action to cause their problem with thirst to begin with.

kaoskonfety
2015-03-04, 03:08 PM
Interestingly this has some parallel to Exalted.

The king of the gods can just declare you an enemy to the world - and now holy effects mess you up, hard. Literally nothing short of killing him can stop this. He is not really a killable thing though.

I can see myself expanding on the core idea - The Laws of the Land made by the King are sanctified by the holy church and are moral and ethical authority.

The Kings Alignment is Lawful Good - regardless of his behaviour, the fairness of his law, the justice of his edicts.

He empowers the church (or vice versa) to declare heretics and law breakers "evil" and "chaotic" (in alignment or actually giving them the sub type.... I'm liking subtype - you are not of evil alignment, it does nothing to your actual alignment - you are literally EVIL and subject to benefits and drawbacks of the dictated alignment, not your behavioural one...) and the church and its actions Lawful and Good

Paladin is no longer a PC class: replace it whole cloth with a potent NPC only class "Hand of the King" - detect wrong doer, smite rebellious and so on. This whole process has too many weird moving parts for "paladin" and no paladin worth their salt is touching this mess. That said I can see a space for a blackguard re-write into an avenger with a good behavioural alignment but an evil typed one from holy mother church... yes you can use posion and trickery and lies - when the king is wicked only the outlaws can bring justice. Smite Evil (actual ethical alignment), detect Evil (actual ethical alignment...) - so you can tell the honest cop from drug dealer in a uniform... yum.

Cosmicly I'm not 100% how I'd set it up - the king is the hand of the divine - but is this place a social experiment of the gods of neutrality, some devils entertainment full damned souls, a vast modron test to determine the nature of "good". Or is it just all divine right of kings up in the house? An obscure quarter in Sigil or some other pocket world...?

A domain in Ravenloft...
Yum...

Talakeal
2015-03-04, 03:22 PM
Imagine this is a desert kingdom ... and you keep all the water for yourself... Does that make you evil?

I would say yes, certainly. Same with food, medicine, or anything else which is necessary to support human life.

However there is a world of difference between water in the desert and a wand of fireballs in an agrarian kingdom.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-04, 03:39 PM
Did you take it by deceit, stealth, or force from those who had it before you monopolized it? Then yes, you're evil for so doing, let alone for then keeping it from them as they die of thirst. Worth noting people that if we're gunna use the water analogy, then the kingdom here is definitely not Good.

Milo v3
2015-03-04, 07:34 PM
Worth noting people that if we're gunna use the water analogy, then the kingdom here is definitely not Good.

"IF YOU HAVE A CUP OF WATER. YOU MUST GIVE IT TO THE KING OR DIE", yep totally something a paladin would say.

Kid Jake
2015-03-04, 07:51 PM
"IF YOU HAVE A CUP OF WATER. YOU MUST GIVE IT TO THE KING OR DIE", yep totally something a paladin would say.

"In Soviet Russia, thug smites you!"

Red Fel
2015-03-04, 08:01 PM
I would say yes, certainly. Same with food, medicine, or anything else which is necessary to support human life.

However there is a world of difference between water in the desert and a wand of fireballs in an agrarian kingdom.

I wouldn't say "yes, Evil," automatically. Being ruthlessly self-interested could just as easily be Neutral as Evil. For example, if you're in a desert kingdom, and discover an underground spring, and refuse to share? Selfish, yes. Heartless, yes. Ruthless, certainly. Evil? Not technically. Refusing to give to those in need, even refusing to sell, isn't an Evil act, just a non-Good one. If, however, you wrongfully took it from others, I'd agree that it goes from Neutral to Evil pretty darn quickly.

Similarly, owning a wand of fireballs in an agrarian kingdom - the mere act of owning the thing - isn't Evil. Taking it from the owners? Sure, Evil. Using it to burn farms? Evil. But simply having it in your possession? There is a potential for Evil, sure, but that's true of almost anything. You could kill someone with farming tools. You could use your house as a meeting place for criminals. You could sell your children into slavery. Could. Generally, punishing people for a possible, hypothetical future crime isn't something Good takes pride in doing.

goto124
2015-03-04, 08:09 PM
The king of the gods can just declare you an enemy to the world - and now holy effects mess you up, hard. Literally nothing short of killing him can stop this. He is not really a killable thing though.
(snipped for brevity)
He empowers the church (or vice versa) to declare heretics and law breakers "evil" and "chaotic" (in alignment or actually giving them the sub type.... I'm liking subtype - you are not of evil alignment, it does nothing to your actual alignment - you are literally EVIL and subject to benefits and drawbacks of the dictated alignment, not your behavioural one...) and the church and its actions Lawful and Good.

At this point, I would scrap cosmic alignment altogether. It's really very hard to escape jail, execution, etc when Detect Evil is all it takes to sort you out. The premise is nice otherwise.

The King could also PRETEND cosmic alignment exists. Detect Evil doesn't actually exist, all it does is cast light on the target, and the 'paladin' calls her whatever 'alignment' he thinks she is. Smite Evil is actually just Smite Anything. It'll be funny when the players figure it out.

kaoskonfety
2015-03-04, 08:40 PM
-What do you guys think about this from an ethical standpoint?
D&D ethics? is a mess. the actions outlined are not "good" or even particularly "lawful". The church comes across as some flavour of evil - likely lawful or neutral, the kings alignment aside from "a despot" is unclear - probably not any flavour of good, but there have been well intentioned but stupid kings over the years in most settings.

-Do monarchs have the right to seize property arbitrarily?
Hells yes - I've imposed similar restrictions from the throne on magical loot ranging for very heavy taxes to "if you found it in our lands it belongs to the throne", just less drastically enforced. With an absolute monarch the king can walk into your house and take your daughters, you can't stop him, hes the king. His word is literally the law. If he does it too much or to the wrong people he will have problems, decent and whatnot, but the occasional utter violation of your rights as a non-noble? No one with enough clout or numbers to matter will care.

- Can a paladin attack someone because their church (who is allied with said king) has declared them a heretic or outlaw?
Attack: yes, they are to be lawfully arrested. Slay or bring back for obvious immediate execution: much less clear. Not being able to morally follow your liege lords orders is one of those things that leads paladins to living in the woods, tearing out their hair and going mad with inner turmoil. Read up on the knights of the round table. Some of them had a bad time.

- How about if you are wrongfully accused of a crime; can good characters smite away without risking their own alignment?
Nothing stops the paladin using the class feature to smite their foes on whatever - 3rd ed smite evil only works on valid targets. Since the church has made the criminal a valid target with their ill defined "you are evil now" magic - It works. This would be no more or less a code or alignment violation than just stabbing the guy. Meaning if you know he has been wrongfully accused and you are out trying to kill or capture them anyway? You are not doing good. You are at best a Lawful Neutral bounty hunter type. That said if the church and crown have literal moral authority and can declare whatever they want to be good or evil? The paladin will lose his powers exactly when they say he does.

As other have pointed out - walking into a bar, identifying everyone with an evil alignment and then butchering them to the man is not what the good guys do. This is much closer to Lawful Neutral styled pre-emptive striking the criminal element diving fast into Lawful to chaotic evil taking out the competition... which is really what this whole outlawing magic items is feeling like...


EDIT...

At this point, I would scrap cosmic alignment altogether. It's really very hard to escape jail, execution, etc when Detect Evil is all it takes to sort you out. The premise is nice otherwise.

The King could also PRETEND cosmic alignment exists. Detect Evil doesn't actually exist, all it does is cast light on the target, and the 'paladin' calls her whatever 'alignment' he thinks she is. Smite Evil is actually just Smite Anything. It'll be funny when the players figure it out.

This is why i'm feeling the Ravenloft thing - that setting has already ditched all the detect good and evil styled powers for the gothic horror never knowing where your enemies or friends are thing. The alignment declaring king make a solid darklord - the evils of self-righteousness and paranoia seem central, he just needs some backstory and bang, new dread realm with some nifty mechanics to muddy the players understanding of the alignment system MORE.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-04, 08:50 PM
So is this actually intended to be "here play in Ayn Rand's dystopia, reflavored fantasy"?

Because it's total worth pointing out that the applying the book to a setting paints the King and the Church as the antagonists. Cuz they're the bad guys in the story, not the good guys.

kaoskonfety
2015-03-05, 01:40 PM
So is this actually intended to be "here play in Ayn Rand's dystopia, reflavored fantasy"?

Because it's total worth pointing out that the applying the book to a setting paints the King and the Church as the antagonists. Cuz they're the bad guys in the story, not the good guys.

Ya, I saw the whole "you cannot have what you earned with the sweat of your brow" thing... corrupt lazy government yada yada yada

Time for the PC to leave the lands of Tyranny of Kings and Church behind and go start Rapture under the vast uncaring sea.
D&D - Bioshock Edition.

Flickerdart
2015-03-05, 01:50 PM
Time for the PC to leave the lands of Tyranny of Kings and Church behind and go start Rapture under the vast uncaring sea.
D&D - Bioshock Edition.
It's not even that bad a parallel - if all the casters ditch the kingdom, someone showing up in NotRapture for the first time would be shocked to find out that people can shoot fire and lightning and crows from their fingers. You wouldn't even need society to collapse due to economic pressures or whatever, because every single caster will just hole up in their own lab, produce terrifying owlbears, and then toss them out into the hallway for someone else to deal with. Since most casters can procure their own food and teleport between labs when they need a chat, everything outside of these safe zones would become a nightmarish death zone, perfect for adventurers to cleave through.

kaoskonfety
2015-03-05, 02:11 PM
It's not even that bad a parallel - if all the casters ditch the kingdom, someone showing up in NotRapture for the first time would be shocked to find out that people can shoot fire and lightning and crows from their fingers. You wouldn't even need society to collapse due to economic pressures or whatever, because every single caster will just hole up in their own lab, produce terrifying owlbears, and then toss them out into the hallway for someone else to deal with. Since most casters can procure their own food and teleport between labs when they need a chat, everything outside of these safe zones would become a nightmarish death zone, perfect for adventurers to cleave through.

Ya, but society breaking down is funnier, there are a handfull of truly potent craftsmen left, nearly all the hangers on and low level technicians and janitors have been devoured by various flavour of HORROR. And the best of the best are locked behind staggered, regenerating, lethal wards, auto-fabricated mobile weapon platforms, massive drill hand golems and other GOD AWFUL examples of why the king and country so strictly control magic item creation. Make it bad enough and the old place won't seem so bad... "For the Greater Good" Yes its a bad system, but now you have seen the alternative.

Hilarious.

Talakeal
2015-03-05, 02:12 PM
So is this actually intended to be "here play in Ayn Rand's dystopia, reflavored fantasy"?

Because it's total worth pointing out that the applying the book to a setting paints the King and the Church as the antagonists. Cuz they're the bad guys in the story, not the good guys.

I rather thought so to.


It's not even that bad a parallel - if all the casters ditch the kingdom, someone showing up in NotRapture for the first time would be shocked to find out that people can shoot fire and lightning and crows from their fingers. You wouldn't even need society to collapse due to economic pressures or whatever, because every single caster will just hole up in their own lab, produce terrifying owlbears, and then toss them out into the hallway for someone else to deal with. Since most casters can procure their own food and teleport between labs when they need a chat, everything outside of these safe zones would become a nightmarish death zone, perfect for adventurers to cleave through.

Ah, but you see this only applies to freelance adventurers (i.e. PCs). Those characters who tow the line and respect the kings authority and enforce his will actually have more magic items, those that they confiscated from the PCs.

Segev
2015-03-05, 02:14 PM
Those characters who tow the line and respect the kings authority and enforce his will actually have more magic items.

Is there something preventing you from playing a character who tows the line, respects the king's authority, and abuses his power only over underlings who can be painted as not respecting the king's authority?

kaoskonfety
2015-03-05, 02:23 PM
so wait... what do the adventurers who follow this kings rules do? The same stuff but with better gear? Or are they on perpetual "beat up non-union adventurers and take their stuff" duty? Cause thats the awful combination of both very dull and very dangerous.

"Sign up for the king and get sweet lootz, don't and we take your stuff" will have a large majority of "classed" characters towing the line as hard as they can for free reign poaching other teams gear either way.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-05, 02:58 PM
Ya, but society breaking down is funnier, there are a handfull of truly potent craftsmen left, nearly all the hangers on and low level technicians and janitors have been devoured by various flavour of HORROR. And the best of the best are locked behind staggered, regenerating, lethal wards, auto-fabricated mobile weapon platforms, massive drill hand golems and other GOD AWFUL examples of why the king and country so strictly control magic item creation. Make it bad enough and the old place won't seem so bad... "For the Greater Good" Yes its a bad system, but now you have seen the alternative.

Hilarious. Or, you know, it would turn out like any other high magic fantasy kingdom and be absolutely nothing like that.

*Ahem* Eberron *Ahem*

kaoskonfety
2015-03-05, 03:16 PM
Or, you know, it would turn out like any other high magic fantasy kingdom and be absolutely nothing like that.


I've already discarded this possibility as "boring". Besides, pretending the default high fantasy world looks much like standard D&D "mostly medieval" after all the chips have fallen require a bit of disbelief suspension.



*Ahem* Eberron *Ahem*

Seems legit.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-05, 03:28 PM
Besides, pretending the default high fantasy world looks much like standard D&D "mostly medieval" after all the chips have fallen require a bit of disbelief suspension You don't say? Fantasy requires the suspension of disbelief?

kaoskonfety
2015-03-05, 03:43 PM
You don't say? Fantasy requires the suspension of disbelief?

... sigh...

I'm not getting into a chat about how walled castles would not exist, standing armies would follow more modern military non-formation tactics and all the other stuff fireball, invisibility and fly alone do to a world where they are possible.

I'm not... not again... I'll stick with:

Besides, pretending the default high fantasy world looks much like standard D&D "mostly medieval" after all the chips have fallen require a bit of disbelief suspension.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-05, 03:51 PM
Clearly. Because fireball, invisibility, and fly don't already require suspension of disbelief.

Anyway, it seems to me that they players should just become enemies of the state, go on the lam, and fight this elitist, self-righteous king and his church.

Segev
2015-03-05, 04:05 PM
Clearly. Because fireball, invisibility, and fly don't already require suspension of disbelief.

The problem is that you're missing his point.

That said, it only matters if you're digging deeply into world-building. Which is, I think, related to your point.

Mr Beer
2015-03-05, 05:44 PM
Clearly. Because fireball, invisibility, and fly don't already require suspension of disbelief.

Different forms of suspension of disbelief though, one is to do with realism and the other verisimilitude.

Telok
2015-03-05, 06:03 PM
You know what I think I'd do, play the game my way by his rules.

Find some low level magic user who's really cheesed by the magic item laws, bonus points if he's slightly mentally unhinged. Disguise up and hassle the poor guy as various officals and lawmen, do it every couple of days for a month or so. Disguise up as some magic user that you have a beef with, or maybe you want his girlfriend or something, anything will do. In this disguise befriend you mark, agree with him, warn him of a police raid on his place, help him. Then slip him a wand or fireballs, or undead summoning, something really destructive. Convinve (or dominate) the mark to go on a rampage, massive public destruction with hundreds or thousands of casualties is the goal here. Then kill him. You just happen to be in the area and you save some people, it's best if they're wealthy and politically connected, and while you're saving them you kill the mark. Hand over what's left of the wand like a good little mage and don't forget to mask your alignment aura.

Now you're a hero. Make it happen a second time, but this time have an alibi and don't save the day. Make it happen a third time and off the guy early in the rampage, make sure to have lost of witnesses. Double check that your alignment aura is well masked. The proper response to this series of attacks is for the politicians to panic and make the laws even more draconic and restrictive while allowing the enforcers even more freedom to hunt down anyone with magic. This is where you, the hero, and your patron suggest that a special task force or agency be set up to hunt down unlicensed magic use. Of course you're either the perfect person to lead this force or you should be the first agent of the force. Obviously you need magic items to counter the magic items that the 'enemy' has.

Now you have access to pretty much the entire magic item arsenal, license to hunt and kill any other adventurers, and by planting evidence on the dead bodies of your political enemies there's a conspiracy of magic item crafters and users out to destroy the kingdom that only you can stop.

Solaris
2015-03-05, 06:05 PM
Different forms of suspension of disbelief though, one is to do with realism and the other verisimilitude.

Beat me to it.

Spellcasting is alright in the context of the game on account of it being an intrinsic part of the game. It functions by the rules laid out for it, and thus only requires that we suspend disbelief on something that doesn't happen in the real world (like turning invisible or lobbing fireballs).

Building castles with walls, while realistic, breaks verisimilitude by ignoring the fact that even relatively low-level casters can get around them pretty easily. It's natural for us to build walls because they're good against medieval armies - but medieval armies didn't have clerics and wizards. They wouldn't be useless, as they'd work against mundanes pretty well, but castles are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to building a setting that really takes D&D 3.5e spellcasting into account.

That setting, by the way, is called the Tippyverse. Anything less, really, is unrealistic given the rules of the game.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-05, 06:39 PM
The problem is that you're missing his point.
His point is high magic fantasy with medieval feudal trappings is unrealistic.

My point is so is high magic fantasy.


Different forms of suspension of disbelief though, one is to do with realism and the other verisimilitude. Verisimilitude is a choice. And for every verisimilitude you justify, there's ten other equally reasonable ones you don't. Arguments over which ones are superior abound, but they boil down to preference.

Once disbelief has been suspended to predicate the existence of fantasy, arguments that one form of further suspension is superior to the other are themselves quit absurd. You've already taken a leap, now it's a matter of what leaps you choose not to take. It's not realism vs. verisimilitude, it's just silly.

The line between those two is only in the eyes of the beholder. What disbelief is suspended and what is not if solely in the mind of the players and world builders.

Therefore I felt the argument that one suspension of disbelief was more reasonable than another suspension was disingenuous. There's more than one way to paint the illusion of reality. A fact I think OP's DM illustrates with their choices in the setting.

Mr Beer
2015-03-06, 12:47 AM
It's fine to layer further and different types of suspension of disbelief on top of each other, it doesn't mean it's not a thing though.

Deciding that superpowers exist and you now have super-strong people is one thing, deciding that multi-story office buildings can therefore be picked up and used as melee weapons is a different one.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-06, 01:07 AM
The difference between the two, however, boils down to whether you prefer the one over the other. There is no objective value on such preference. Only subjective values.

Segev
2015-03-06, 09:47 AM
One thing that doesn't tend to be held to, but was originally a trapping of most D&D settings, is the idea that spellcasters are rare. I mean, big cities have hundreds of rumors about ONE being nearby...somewhere...but he's always the next city over, at least.

Kings are more common.

Apprentice spellcasters are likely not even level 1, or are at most level 1 Adept-equivalents. They perform rituals and workings which may or may not have actual effect, and if they do, the effects are highly localized or subtle unless performed under really highly specific circumstances (i.e. "plot events").

The party wizard or sorcerer and the party cleric? They're exceptional to the point that you don't FIND them in armies. A noble who has a loyal 1st-level caster is going to guard him as a state secret, or find him too much trouble to keep. Because if his spells aren't game-changing, then he's not really worth the costs his rarity entail.

Castles and other medieval trappings exist because they work most of the time. An invading army just isn't going to have people who can cast Levitate, let alone Fly. Even having somebody with a Climb check that allows them to scale the wall without rope is going to be somewhat rare (takes a few levels to get to the point that can be done reliably).


Now, this doesn't tend to happen for a number of reasons, not the least being that there becomes a break-down in verisimilitude when the party loses its wizard and picks up a new one, or when two or three spellcasters gather in a single party. It also makes the whole "why does Bob get to play one of the super-rare people in the world while I'm a dime-a-dozen rogue?" question grate.

It could be solved by trying to make all the PC classes similarly rare, but you'd have to go the route of elevating most of the classes to T2 or T1 to really make it believable.

The approach more typically taken is to make magic not so rare. It's high fantasy, so every major city has a mage guild and several temples with clerics up to at least 5th level. Most villages have at least access to one local low-level spellcaster, even if he's a bit expensive and a day's journey away. Everybody's seen a magic item, even if they can't afford one and certainly haven't touched one.

And THAT is what makes the medieval trappings break down. The fact that magic becomes so common that it's effectively expensive technology.


Another way to restore them would be to more carefully examine restrictions. Castles with walls become sensible again if, for instance, one borrows the "threshold" concept from Dresden Files: magics cannot cross the metaphysical barrier posed by walls unless they do so through a metaphysical (and often physical) breach. Try to fly over a castle wall and you just...can't, for example. Not until the wall is breached.

Or maybe it takes special effort to do, but most castles are built with wards in the walls and towers which repel magically-enhanced things. With magic so common, it's cheaper to have the wards than it is to build physical domes. In fact, a typical farmer might pay a hedge wizard to ward his property fenceline to keep flying monsters out.

Of course, things that fly by mundane means still pose a problem. But internal archery towers would go a long way, there. Few flying mount-type things can really drop more than a small number inside, and if the monsters are hard to train and expensive, it still makes sense to have walls to keep out the infantry and land-based cavalry.

It could even explain the fantasy "really high tower" archetype: it's where you put the mystical wards and the platforms for anti-air artillary (ballistae and the like) to keep them from doing flyovers and dropping alchemical bombs. Those wards might even deflect downward-falling objects to the exterior of the walls, if properly maintained.


The trappings can be restored and even justified in ways they never were if one puts magics in place which utilize them to counteract the magics which would negate their effectiveness.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-06, 12:47 PM
^This.

That has been an issue which has always annoyed me. In D&D even a 1st level Fighter is supposed to be rare. That is why NPC classes exist. Because PCs are in a class of their own.

And in a world of magic, anything is possible. Which really means magic can provide many of the answers to the very problems is supposedly creates.

Arbane
2015-03-06, 03:01 PM
One thing that doesn't tend to be held to, but was originally a trapping of most D&D settings, is the idea that spellcasters are rare. I mean, big cities have hundreds of rumors about ONE being nearby...somewhere...but he's always the next city over, at least.


Which ones? Definitely not Forgotten Realms.

Or Mystara.

Or even Dark Sun, for the elements' sake. (Yes, everyone hates the Sorcerer-Kings, but everyone also knows where they ARE.)

Edit: Okay, MAYBE Ravenloft.

Talakeal
2015-03-06, 04:45 PM
I have never understood the argument that if one element of a story is "unrealistic" than nothing needs to me.

No fiction will ever be 100% true to life, that doesn't mean that you have to abandon any sense of consistency in the scenario. Saying "In a world where fireball exists why do you have to worry about logical economies," is to me no more reasonable an argument than if I said "If I had gone out to dinner last night instead of eating at home I would probably have developed super powers."

TheCountAlucard
2015-03-06, 05:18 PM
It's not your fault you didn't know the restaurant was filled with radioactive spiders - their pamphlet was highly inaccurate!

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-06, 05:48 PM
No fiction will ever be 100% true to life, that doesn't mean that you have to abandon any sense of consistency in the scenario. Saying "In a world where fireball exists why do you have to worry about logical economies," is to me no more reasonable an argument than if I said "If I had gone out to dinner last night instead of eating at home I would probably have developed super powers." But both are not any less reasonable than "In a world with fireballs, you don't have to worry about logical economies." Given that you have already chosen to disregard a reality, you are no longer bound to any regards for "newer" realities. Once you've abandoned one, it is no breach of consistency to abandon others.

In short, verisimilitudes only differ in value by whether the DM and players are willing to accept them or not.


Which ones? Definitely not Forgotten Realms.

Or Mystara.

Or even Dark Sun, for the elements' sake. (Yes, everyone hates the Sorcerer-Kings, but everyone also knows where they ARE.) In all those settings magic is high profile. It is not, however, common. A fact that the very pricing of magic items illustrates.

Sith_Happens
2015-03-07, 04:41 AM
So it seems for the umpteenth time that I am compelled to ask:

Where. Do. You. Find. All. These. People!?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FFr_CL_FHPk/SdRMwfoyE_I/AAAAAAAAJ6M/2ombWgPHUtM/s400/souleater51-00044.jpg

NichG
2015-03-08, 02:08 AM
But both are not any less reasonable than "In a world with fireballs, you don't have to worry about logical economies." Given that you have already chosen to disregard a reality, you are no longer bound to any regards for "newer" realities. Once you've abandoned one, it is no breach of consistency to abandon others.

This doesn't follow, because it ignores the idea of internal consistency.

A world in which everyone can make an arbitrary number of gold coins appear out of thin air by trivial magic is different than the real world, but it still can have internal consistency. That internal consistency requires that you follow through with the logical consequences of everyone having that kind of magic - e.g. gold coins are worthless as money, you might find a lot of objects made of gold because it's a metal which requires almost no labor to produce, and if the magic lets you produce them but not destroy them then likely you'd occasionally see piles of 'waste' coins heaped up everywhere like soil around a construction site (you've gotta do something with the bad quality coins produced by apprentices), etc.

Its the connections between things which allow players to reason out how the world works, what makes sense, etc. That has a direct impact on how smoothly players can evaluate choices available to them, plan ahead, etc.

While that may be something which interacts with preferences (e.g. 'I prefer to play a game that makes sense' versus 'I don't care if the game makes sense, I just want to roll dice'), its wrong to conclude that there isn't anything there which can be understood and which is relevant to overall design principles of games. A game in which the DM reads random sentences from an online poetry generator in response to every action the players declare is distinguishable from a game which tries to present a consistent picture which the players can interact with using their intuition, reasoning, and imaginations. We don't need to try the former case just to see if maybe actually people would prefer that, because preferences aren't just random arbitrary things.

That lack of complete arbitrariness is what allows us to assign relative values to different proposals. We may not be able to assign values with 100% certainty, and a simple scalar is not going to cut it since there are different types of players, different goals served by play, etc. But having an imperfect ability to evaluate things is not the same as having no ability to evaluate things.

Deophaun
2015-03-08, 03:00 AM
So, going back to the OP, I have to ask: have you tried magic aura? It seems that, in this setting, that spell would be incredibly powerful, as now your +5 Kingsbane greatsword just looks like a masterwork killing stick and not a magical smite attractor.

The Glyphstone
2015-03-08, 03:00 AM
So it seems for the umpteenth time that I am compelled to ask:

Where. Do. You. Find. All. These. People!?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FFr_CL_FHPk/SdRMwfoyE_I/AAAAAAAAJ6M/2ombWgPHUtM/s400/souleater51-00044.jpg

Talakeal posts though a time-space rift from Bizarro World.

BWR
2015-03-08, 04:16 AM
In all those settings magic is high profile. It is not, however, common. A fact that the very pricing of magic items illustrates.

What are you talking about? First off, just because something is expensive doesn't mean it isn't common. It may not be common in the sense that everybody and his mother has one, but that doesn't mean it's rare.
Secondly, at least in Mystara, magic is common. It's all over the place. Every single elf can cast magic, by the rules of the original system. A bit fewer if you convert to others, most likely. 20% of the population of the Alphatian continent can cast spells, a reduction from its original 99%. The council of the empire consists of 1000 36th level casters and the books says that not every 36th level caster can find a spot on the council.
Sure, Alphatia kind of upsets the numbers, but then you have Glantri, another country consisting primarily of spellcasters, has entire platoons of casters in their armies. Alfheim is a powerful country of elves (most/all casters). Monrothad's merchant-princes are pretty much all casters (so basically one per ship). Powerful casters are at least ten times more common than rulers (and in many cases the two jobs overlap), and casters in general a several orders of magnitude more common than rulers.
Magic is ubiquitous and obvious in the Known World (+ Alphatia, Savage Coast, Heldann, Norwold, Hule, etc. etc.).

I'm less familiar with FR but I suspect that a similar situation exists there. One need merely consider places like Thay or Halruua.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-08, 06:42 PM
But having an imperfect ability to evaluate things is not the same as having no ability to evaluate things. All of which has nothing to do with my point, which is that any values attributed to variations of "imperfect abilities to evaluate things" are subjective, since they are derived from fantasy.

NichG
2015-03-08, 08:27 PM
All of which has nothing to do with my point, which is that any values attributed to variations of "imperfect abilities to evaluate things" are subjective, since they are derived from fantasy.

It has a lot to do with your point. 'Subjective' and 'objective' are two extremes of a spectrum, but there are also the things in the middle. In fact, almost everything worth talking about lives in that middle, having both subjective and objective components. Just because something has subjective components does not mean that all statements about it are equally valid.

SiuiS
2015-03-09, 02:23 AM
Which ones? Definitely not Forgotten Realms.

Or Mystara.

Or even Dark Sun, for the elements' sake. (Yes, everyone hates the Sorcerer-Kings, but everyone also knows where they ARE.)

Edit: Okay, MAYBE Ravenloft.

The rarity example is about magnitude. Spell caters are well known but not everyone can be one or have access to one. Magic is plentiful in the sense that medicine is plentiful; it exists but there are arbitrary limits on the availability based on potency and use. Saying "everyone can freeze their food, ice ray is a cantrip" does not extrapolate out to "why aren't we in a post scarcity wish based society yet?".


I have never understood the argument that if one element of a story is "unrealistic" than nothing needs to me.

No fiction will ever be 100% true to life, that doesn't mean that you have to abandon any sense of consistency in the scenario. Saying "In a world where fireball exists why do you have to worry about logical economies," is to me no more reasonable an argument than if I said "If I had gone out to dinner last night instead of eating at home I would probably have developed super powers."

It points out that the seeming issue is a conflict with your assumptions rather than a conflict with logic. The economy may seem illogical but you'd need a lot of data before you could say it truly was. It may simply operate in a consistent but strange way that you would find ridiculous not having grown up in a world with it's eccentricities.


What are you talking about? First off, just because something is expensive doesn't mean it isn't common. It may not be common in the sense that everybody and his mother has one, but that doesn't mean it's rare.
Secondly, at least in Mystara, magic is common. It's all over the place. Every single elf can cast magic, by the rules of the original system. A bit fewer if you convert to others, most likely. 20% of the population of the Alphatian continent can cast spells, a reduction from its original 99%. The council of the empire consists of 1000 36th level casters and the books says that not every 36th level caster can find a spot on the council.
Sure, Alphatia kind of upsets the numbers, but then you have Glantri, another country consisting primarily of spellcasters, has entire platoons of casters in their armies. Alfheim is a powerful country of elves (most/all casters). Monrothad's merchant-princes are pretty much all casters (so basically one per ship). Powerful casters are at least ten times more common than rulers (and in many cases the two jobs overlap), and casters in general a several orders of magnitude more common than rulers.
Magic is ubiquitous and obvious in the Known World (+ Alphatia, Savage Coast, Heldann, Norwold, Hule, etc. etc.).

I'm less familiar with FR but I suspect that a similar situation exists there. One need merely consider places like Thay or Halruua.

Huh. So Mystara functions how people say D&D should but doesn't? Ha!

Segev
2015-03-09, 07:58 AM
In general, if you are writing with language which means something in the real world, it is assumed that what you write about is the same as in the real world except where otherwise stated. Assuming otherwise leads to such asinine assumptions as, "Obviously, because they didn't say otherwise and there are magic martial arts which don't exist in the real world, the poles are actually quite hot, and ice is formed when water rises to extreme temperatures. Those coats the water tribe wears are to keep cool!"

Or, "Clearly, because magic is being performed in the scene in The Sword of Truth wherein Darken Rahl is feeding a child whom he's burried up to his neck in the floor, and they don't say otherwise, it's actually normal to eat in that setting through your hands. But magic is making the kid eat through his mouth. Also, the whole thing takes place under water, because it doesn't say otherwise. 'Air' is just another word for 'water,' and 'wind' another word for 'current,' in that setting."


If the story mentions "humans" or "men" or "people," and doesn't go out of its way to describe them as being inhuman, then it is safe to assume they're like humans in the real world, with similar drives and capabilities (again, except where otherwise noted). Economies, for example, derive from human nature and the nature of the scarcity of necessities and luxuries. So unless we are dealing with non-human creatures, we can analyze the economics of a setting based on what is and is not scarce and desirable.

This is, again, because we assume that only those things we're told are different...are different.

The reason this leads to complaints about lack of internal consistency, then, is when we're explicitly told something is one way, but we cannot see a cause for it and, in fact, see those things which ARE stated as being different leading to naturally contradictory results.

It is possible that there ARE additional things different, which are as-yet unmentioned by the author(s), but it is not a safe assumption, especially if the things which are inconsistent appear to be thing derived from failure to examine how other explicit changes from the real world would impact the setting.

Intersting things can arise from attempting to introduce/deduce the other changes to the setting which could restore these conditions, but it's not always feasible and it certainly should not be assumed if it isn't going a LONG way towards making things make more sense, rather than adding to confusion.

Sometimes, inconsistency is just a mistake on the part of the author.

Battlebooze
2015-03-10, 07:12 PM
I have one word to describe this campaign world.

MADNESS!

Seriously, that GM better be 100% awesome sauce in every other way to overcome one of the most annoying campaign concepts I've ever read.
Now if your GM said, "Here is the world I've made. Here is your chance to break it and make it better."
That would be fun to play..

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-11, 03:26 AM
It has a lot to do with your point. 'Subjective' and 'objective' are two extremes of a spectrum, but there are also the things in the middle. In fact, almost everything worth talking about lives in that middle, having both subjective and objective components. Just because something has subjective components does not mean that all statements about it are equally valid. Unless you have a functioning real world example of a high magic fantasy world hidden in your wardrobe, I find any claims of "objective" truths related to a high magic fantasy world a bit on the sketchy side.

I find claims of "objective" value judgements of real, tangible things sketchy enough as it is.

NichG
2015-03-11, 04:28 AM
Unless you have a functioning real world example of a high magic fantasy world hidden in your wardrobe, I find any claims of "objective" truths related to a high magic fantasy world a bit on the sketchy side.

I find claims of "objective" value judgements of real, tangible things sketchy enough as it is.

I don't have a functioning real high magic fantasy world hidden in my wardrobe, but I have plenty of functioning real human players (not in my wardrobe though, I don't think).

If I run a game with a lot of mind-control powers which are used against the players, I know that generally speaking that will make for a bad game because players like to actually play the game rather than have their characters taken away and watch them commit atrocities. If I run a game where a player has a spell which 'sets fire to things' that their character learned 20 years ago and has been using since, but actually when they try to use it on flammable things instead porpoises rain from the sky and the moon goes away, I know that generally speaking that will make for a bad game because the players will not be able to make sense of why things happen in the game world and so their actions might as well be randomly chosen because the consequences certainly will be.

Self-consistent worlds simply make for better gaming than ones with no consistency. That isn't a function of the imaginary physics of that imaginary world, its a function of the real psychology of the real players.

goto124
2015-03-11, 10:58 PM
What would the king do, if the magic item is also cursed-bound to its owner?

'Hand that sword over!'
'I can't, it's cursed!'

Battlebooze
2015-03-11, 11:43 PM
What would the king do, if the magic item is also cursed-bound to its owner?

'Hand that sword over!'
'I can't, it's cursed!'

"OK. Kill the heretic."

"Nice sword."

Frowns.

"Damn it."

Twice
2015-03-12, 03:52 AM
At risk of being a redundant devil's advocate, but Vow of Poverty likely would excel in this campaign.

Battlebooze
2015-03-12, 04:02 AM
At risk of being a redundant devil's advocate, but Vow of Poverty likely would excel in this campaign.

Oh hell yes! I think you've hit upon a plan!

Talakeal
2015-03-12, 02:09 PM
At risk of being a redundant devil's advocate, but Vow of Poverty likely would excel in this campaign.

Vow of poverty is banned so hard in this campaign that the DM went on a profane rant about it and the power gamers who would ever even consider it the one time I brought it up.

denthor
2015-03-12, 03:17 PM
ok four away around this and a question.

1. Join a lord and get mixed up in politics

2. stash your magic outside city limits

3. Use skills like local knowledge, pay a thieves guild to stash weapons

Question does this include potions that scrolls that are one shot items?

scroll of shield is only 12.5 gp to make very low cost and one shot.

4 Proclaim yourself a lord and carve out a territory for yourselves and defend it from all comers. Very Atlas Shrugged answer A is A or in the movie Atlantis in the mountains

Battlebooze
2015-03-12, 03:20 PM
Vow of poverty is banned so hard in this campaign that the DM went on a profane rant about it and the power gamers who would ever even consider it the one time I brought it up.

Lol. I can hear the GM screaming.

THAT WOULD KEEP ME FROM TAKING YOUR TOYS! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Flickerdart
2015-03-12, 03:40 PM
Vow of poverty is banned so hard in this campaign that the DM went on a profane rant about it and the power gamers who would ever even consider it the one time I brought it up.

Really? You mean he didn't let you take it and then immediately strip you of Exalted status from letting a butterfly die halfway across the world?

MReav
2015-03-12, 03:41 PM
What do you guys think about this from an ethical standpoint?

To answer each of the questions:


Do monarchs have the right to seize property arbitrarily?

Yes. This has always been the case. You can argue it's not good, but the law of the land empowers this individual.


Can a paladin attack someone because their church (who is allied with said king) has declared them a heretic or outlaw?

I'd say if the paladin is a duly appointed law-enforcer, then yes, albeit with reasonable force, but outright killing said person if they're not evil is wrong, unless there's some sort of cosmic principle at risk. I'm talking thanks to some massive screw up in the past, the god of kings opted to sacrifice himself to serve as a fix for the damaged universe, and he is empowered by the divine right of kings, so anyone who goes against this concept is undermining him and thus imperils the universe as a whole.


How about if you are wrongfully accused of a crime; can good characters smite away without risking their own alignment?

In 3rd Ed, Smiting only works on evil people, so unless the powers that grant smiting are as fallible as the people who use it, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Though if it is, then if your paladin is a proper paladin, then he's supposed to value Good over Law, and so should be looking to fix this obviously broken system.

Zyzzyva
2015-03-12, 04:56 PM
Vow of poverty is banned so hard in this campaign that the DM went on a profane rant about it and the power gamers who would ever even consider it the one time I brought it up.

Take one anyways. :smallyuk: Sure, you won't be able to get the mechanical advantages, but at this point you really need to be pulling a Ghandi-esque campaign of resistance anyways. IC and OOC.

kaoskonfety
2015-03-12, 05:55 PM
Take one anyways. :smallyuk: Sure, you won't be able to get the mechanical advantages, but at this point you really need to be pulling a Ghandi-esque campaign of resistance anyways. IC and OOC.

see... I'd build a craftsman. Write down Lawful Good.

Maybe even write down "Paladin"

And give everything I make and find to the crown.

Immediately.

Every.
Last.
Thing.

"Oh heavens no, I can't go on an adventure, I making holy avengers and scrolls and wands and enchanted armor for his highness." "oh no, we cannot keep the +1 sword and armor, it belongs to his highness and the church! surely they know best and can put it to better use with proper adventurers!"
and when they DO talk you into it you are levels too low, drastically under equiped and die like a beggar and get to write up a say wizard crafter while you wait, and then a cleric, maybe a druid/ranger/bard (or you totally rock the joint and show clever play beats the tar out of shiny objects? doesn't sound like it with this DM but you never know...)

Talakeal
2015-03-12, 06:01 PM
To answer each of the questions:



Yes. This has always been the case. You can argue it's not good, but the law of the land empowers this individual.



I'd say if the paladin is a duly appointed law-enforcer, then yes, albeit with reasonable force, but outright killing said person if they're not evil is wrong, unless there's some sort of cosmic principle at risk. I'm talking thanks to some massive screw up in the past, the god of kings opted to sacrifice himself to serve as a fix for the damaged universe, and he is empowered by the divine right of kings, so anyone who goes against this concept is undermining him and thus imperils the universe as a whole.



In 3rd Ed, Smiting only works on evil people, so unless the powers that grant smiting are as fallible as the people who use it, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Though if it is, then if your paladin is a proper paladin, then he's supposed to value Good over Law, and so should be looking to fix this obviously broken system.

Well, when you apply a "might makes right" attitude this kind of takes it to a deeper level. So, for example, if a party of level 20 PCs don't give into the king, they are in the "wrong", but if they then snap, kill the king, and enslave the kingdom, they are now "right", at least until a bigger fish comes along and takes it from them.

As for the smite thing, the DM explicitly said that outlaws always count as evil and thus smite works on them and paladins can do anything they want to them without losing their powers.

Loxagn
2015-03-12, 06:04 PM
Out of curiosity, Talakeal, what are the other players' thoughts on the DM's position? Sorry if that's already been said, I just didn't see it.

veti
2015-03-12, 06:39 PM
Out of curiosity, Talakeal, what are the other players' thoughts on the DM's position? Sorry if that's already been said, I just didn't see it.

Well, this thread started two months ago. If the campaign is still going, somebody must be enjoying it.

I still say, the DM can make whatever house rules he wants. That's his prerogative - heck, that's his job. Yours is to decide whether or not you want to play in this particular setting.

Talakeal
2015-03-12, 06:40 PM
Out of curiosity, Talakeal, what are the other players' thoughts on the DM's position? Sorry if that's already been said, I just didn't see it.

Other than me they are all new players. He doesn't give out loot and they haven't actually tried to craft anything on their own so it never comes up. Honestly it wouldn't have come up with me either except I was trying to explain to him why certain builds (such as the VoP Monk) were a lot less broken than other builds (such as the DMM cleric).

Zyzzyva
2015-03-12, 06:40 PM
As for the smite thing, the DM explicitly said that outlaws always count as evil and thus smite works on them and paladins can do anything they want to them without losing their powers.

Out of curiosity, does he believe CG and LE even exist? :smallconfused:

Talakeal
2015-03-12, 06:57 PM
Out of curiosity, does he believe CG and LE even exist? :smallconfused:

I would imagine that these are people who have, for whatever reason, avoided pissing off the clergy. In his mind you only become CE when the church excommunicates you (which they will do at the behest of anyone who has enough political or financial clout to get favors out of them), not simply because you broke the law.

Zyzzyva
2015-03-12, 07:03 PM
I would imagine that these are people who have, for whatever reason, avoided pissing off the clergy. In his mind you only become CE when the church excommunicates you (which they will do at the behest of anyone who has enough political or financial clout to get favors out of them), not simply because you broke the law.

Yeah, but Robin Hood - pretty much Crown Exhibit A for Chaotic Good - could get smite evil'd right off, just by existing. Which seems odd.

Loxagn
2015-03-12, 07:16 PM
Hmm. Well, honestly the best advice I can give is to commune with the other players (out of earshot of the DM) and ask them honestly if they're enjoying the way he's handling this. If they're having fun, and the DM is having fun, and you're not, then, well. It'd be better for you to simply look elsewhere, since the game just isn't meshing with you. You don't have to be confrontational about it. Sometimes a sugar-coated lie is less harmful than simply being honest. Say your schedule is being uncooperative, or you're being asked to take on more responsibilities at home/work, and you just have to bow out of one of your games to be able to keep up.
He might respond more positively if he perceives that you don't really want to leave, but rather that you have to. Besides, you'll still be able to spend time with him in other games.

On the other hand, if the other players do feel the way you do, then you can easily reach a consensus. When everyone agrees on it, suddenly it's much easier to approach the DM outside of a game's context and have a heart-to-heart. Dull the sting a little bit by suggesting fun alternatives. A different system, maybe, which isn't so heavily based around magic, or simply does not have the issue that D&D has with magic items? Or suggesting in a casual conversation something to the effect of 'you know, if you ever get tired of DMing, I was actually thinking of maybe running a game, maybe something fun and high-fantasy...' Of course, all the misdirection and sugar-coating in the world may not work if he's simply being obtuse about it. When Diplomacy fails, all that's left is bare-faced, brutal honesty. Calmly explain that you, as a group, are not having fun, and would like to see the game move in a different direction. Perhaps hint that if he tries something new instead of simply doing what he's always done, he might even enjoy it.

Apologies if that seems underhanded. It's just a delicate situation, and it ought to be handled delicately, I think.

Arbane
2015-03-13, 03:01 AM
I would imagine that these are people who have, for whatever reason, avoided pissing off the clergy. In his mind you only become CE when the church excommunicates you (which they will do at the behest of anyone who has enough political or financial clout to get favors out of them), not simply because you broke the law.

Has anyone around had cybernetic implants? This is starting to remind me of Magna Verita from the TORG RPG.

Play a Tier One and break the game in half without any stinking magic items. Be sure and hand out Greater Magic Weapon spells to your allies.

....Or just find a better game, since you showing any possibility of competence will get you crushed like a bug by the Pudgy Hand of Ghod.

Battlebooze
2015-03-13, 03:11 AM
Hmm. Well, honestly the best advice I can give is to commune with the other players (out of earshot of the DM) and ask them honestly if they're enjoying the way he's handling this.
SNIP...
Apologies if that seems underhanded. It's just a delicate situation, and it ought to be handled delicately, I think.

What! A thought out and reasonable suggestion? YOU ARE HEARBY BANISHED FROM THIS REALM!

Wait, I can't do that. Ok, I guess you can stay.

goto124
2015-03-13, 03:12 AM
Sci-fi cybernetic implants in a medieval setting? :smallbiggrin:

Battlebooze
2015-03-13, 03:18 AM
Sci-fi cybernetic implants in a medieval setting? :smallbiggrin:

Torg is one of those odd games that never gelled in my mind. I think time travel is part of the game.

I do have a cool Torg d10 dice sitting around somewhere or another... I liked the dice at least. :D

Sith_Happens
2015-03-13, 01:23 PM
Vow of poverty is banned so hard in this campaign that the DM went on a profane rant about it and the power gamers who would ever even consider it the one time I brought it up.

...Well, at the very least you can't accuse him of inconsistently, seeing as he runs the one kind of campaign in which he's right about that.

Dare I even ask about Tome of Battle, though?

Actually, now that I think about it, if magic items are so tightly controlled, what about the, you know, spellcasters?


Other than me they are all new players. He doesn't give out loot and they haven't actually tried to craft anything on their own so it never comes up.

Are they actually aware that this campaign is extremely atypical of the game system in quite a few ways?

MReav
2015-03-13, 01:36 PM
So my DM has a rather odd house rule.

You know, if he's this anal retentive about it, why doesn't he just ban magical items outright? Say it's a low magical world and magical items don't exist.

If he wants to allow for the occasional use of them, then make magical items quasi-sentient artifacts, bestowed upon the kings of the realm for use in their armies, but any time they're taken from their assigned owners, they stop working and will magically sublimate back home eventually.

Otherwise, I'm kind of in with the people who say you should Mount and Blade it, and declare yourself a king.

Talakeal
2015-03-13, 01:53 PM
...Well, at the very least you can't accuse him of inconsistently, seeing as he runs the one kind of campaign in which he's right about that.

Dare I even ask about Tome of Battle, though?

Actually, now that I think about it, if magic items are so tightly controlled, what about the, you know, spellcasters?



Are they actually aware that this campaign is extremely atypical of the game system in quite a few ways?

I personally don't like ToB so I have never brought it up. However, he considers my single classed core only great weapon human fighter with his highest stats in CHA and WIS to be horribly OP, so I imagine he would not be a fan.

As for casters, he bans psionics (and has an even more profane rant about them) as well as the players who play them (he has a house rule that even asking to play a psionic character gets you kicked out of the group. Not even joking) and most of the direct damage spells. He believes that this has fixed the balance problems.

Sith_Happens
2015-03-13, 02:35 PM
Man, talk about a post I have no idea how to feel about. On one hand,


However, he considers my single classed core only great weapon human fighter with his highest stats in CHA and WIS to be horribly OP... As for casters, he bans psionics (and has an even more profane rant about them)... and most of the direct damage spells. He believes that this has fixed the balance problems.

-which makes me

http://new1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/4407531+_2b4c33486f223b97d0b5661c13e91627.jpg

...On the other hand,


as well as the players who play them (he has a house rule that even asking to play a psionic character gets you kicked out of the group. Not even joking)

-which makes me

http://2.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/73/42/19d2e08c01916176def64983bd75a485-espurr-has-seen-some-sht.jpg

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-13, 02:51 PM
I personally don't like ToB so I have never brought it up. However, he considers my single classed core only great weapon human fighter with his highest stats in CHA and WIS to be horribly OP, so I imagine he would not be a fan.

As for casters, he bans psionics (and has an even more profane rant about them) as well as the players who play them (he has a house rule that even asking to play a psionic character gets you kicked out of the group. Not even joking) and most of the direct damage spells.This whole thing has convinced me that your DM deserves a placque in the Worst DM Hall of Fame.

OP fighter? There is no such thing in 3.x. Not without ToB. But honestly, ToB isn't even broken. At least not compared to the ever present cloud that is caster supremacy.

Deophaun
2015-03-13, 03:44 PM
Be sure and hand out Greater Magic Weapon spells to your allies enemies.
Fixed it for you. Laugh as the mayor gets slaughtered by his paladin guards for having a +3 letter opener.

TheCountAlucard
2015-03-13, 04:19 PM
So you say the DM throws out players who want to play psionic characters?

Then for the love of Cthulhu, ask to play a psion! :smalltongue:

Arbane
2015-03-13, 08:08 PM
So you say the DM throws out players who want to play psionic characters?

Then for the love of Cthulhu, ask to play a psion! :smalltongue:

Yeah, this sounds like an easy solution to your problems. :smallsigh:

Segev
2015-03-16, 09:19 AM
Yeah, IF you want out without having your family guilt you for it, ask to play a psion and get kicked out.

If you actually want to play...

Why not play a wizard? He's not banned the things that actually break the game.

Play the god/batman-wizard. Play it even without intent to ruin the game. Don't craft items; temporarily enchant your party's gear. Buff them. Control the battlefield, since you don't have damaging spells anyway.

Prepare contingencies.

And use Planar Binding, but grossly underplay its utility unless you need to to turn a loss into a victory. Let the DM think he's got you on the ropes, and that you barely squeaked it out. Give the show of ramping up your power in increasing "desperation."

IF you want to play in his game without being frustrated, play along and pretend to be nearly-outclassed, especially when you know you aren't. Make YOUR game all about seeing how close to the line you can play it so the DM always thinks he's challenged you and that you and the party pulled it out by the skin of your teeth...even though you know you actually only looked challenged because you decided to only use your left hand while balanced on your right foot.

The Glyphstone
2015-03-16, 12:55 PM
This whole thing has convinced me that your DM deserves a placque in the Worst DM Hall of Fame.

OP fighter? There is no such thing in 3.x. Not without ToB. But honestly, ToB isn't even broken. At least not compared to the ever present cloud that is caster supremacy.

As mentioned upthread, Talakeal lives on Bizarro World and posts through a dimensional portal. I don't think he has ever even told a story that wasn't about an insane or psychotic DM/player/group, because his universe is the direct opposite of all that makes sense. It's a world where ToB, psionics, and two-handed weapon fighters with high mental stats are OP - in our universe, this DM would be in the Worst DM Hall of Fame, but for Talakeal it is just Tuesday, he has never known anything else...