PDA

View Full Version : have any of you killed a pc because



Pages : 1 [2]

Malifice
2015-12-30, 03:19 AM
So it does. Thats really weird. I guess the logic is you have to have something in common with your deity? Like a LG is cool with either law or good, but a NG god doesnt have the law chaos axis to bind them?

Although iirc that ix a 3eism, I dont think other editions have that limitation.

See above. The church of nerull requires you to murder a family member just to get in, and then a random person once per month.

Thats... evil.

Talakeal
2015-12-30, 03:38 AM
See above. The church of nerull requires you to murder a family member just to get in, and then a random person once per month.

Thats... evil.

Agreed. It totally makes sense for Nerull.

The weird thing is that a CE or LE god who is every bit as evil and has similar requirements* would be totally cool with a LN / CN priest.

*where are you getting those requirements from? I just read a rather long entry on him and didnt see anything of the sort. Lots of evil stuff, yes, but nothing about having a kill quota.

Malifice
2015-12-30, 03:50 AM
Agreed. It totally makes sense for Nerull.

The weird thing is that a CE or LE god who is every bit as evil and has similar requirements* would be totally cool with a LN / CN priest.

*where are you getting those requirements from? I just read a rather long entry on him and didnt see anything of the sort. Lots of evil stuff, yes, but nothing about having a kill quota.

Its in the link Bro.

I could imagine a LN cleric of Hextor or Bane for example. A Judge Dredd type; focussed more on the fascist law and order elements of the religion, and who doesnt partake (or even personally agree with) the evil bits. Or a CN cleric of a CE deity who avoids the more depraved elements of the religion, and focuses more on the C elements of it. It would be difficult though, and I would expect a doctrinal challenge (See Cyric as a Faerun example of a god of trickery and murder who is CE instead of NE).

Its not like Nerull has a neutral element to his religion. Youre either a murderous monster, or youre not a cleric.

I guess going back to Faerun, I could more readily see a CN cleric of CE Cyric (who focuses on the gods madness and individuality instead of the darker side). Think - a cleric of Loki in Norse religion. Still - hed probably be CN(E tendencies) and would be channeling negative energy, and pinging as 'evil' from 1st level.

That said, Bhaal is LE in alignment (something I have never understood) and his clerics are required to murder someone every tenday (two killings for every one missed due to imprisonment).

Meaning you could have a LN cleric of Bhaal who is required to murder someone every ten days (something Ted Bundy would struggle to acomplish). I always though Bhaal would be better as NE, but maybe thats just me.

Anyone know the reason he isnt, yet Nerull is?

Esprit15
2015-12-30, 06:38 AM
Structure. Does Bhaal promote more than barely discriminant slaughter, or is it simply a killing every ten days in his honor? And I could totally see a LN character who regularly goes bandit hunting, only stopping long enough to get bandaged up and go cut up some more. Not a Good fellow by many senses, but hard to call him Evil for keeping traders and travelers safe from attack. Certainly such a character would fall into the southern portion of Neutral.

And you're unable to put aside differences for a greater danger? Not to mention changing someone doesn't happen overnight. It requires time, long talks at the campfire trying to understand why someone would join such a faith in the first place. If Good doesn't ever bother to understand Evil (and still disagree with it), then they have no real hope of squashing it. The problem with Good and Evil is that frequently, Evil knows what Good stands for and knows how to lure someone away from, pointing out the flaws in idealistic, sentimentality and altruism. Good meanwhile more frequently ignorant to what ideas would detract from those same ideals that frequently seem unquestionable to them. "He worships Nerull, no way I can confer that." As tired as the example is, even a Succubus can be redeemed into a Paladin. It just depends on circumstance and how hard one is willing to work.

denthor
2015-12-30, 09:02 AM
True Neutral is within one step of Neutral Evil.

Thus, Neutral Evil Nerull can accept True Neutral Clerics.

Thus, he can accept Neutral Clerics.

No rules state in 3.5 that if the god is G or E your priest must have one of those in the alignment if the god true N then I can be any of the 5 points LN, NG, NE, CN or true N

Talakeal
2015-12-30, 03:52 PM
Its in the link Bro.

Sorry, missed the link the first time through.


No rules state in 3.5 that if the god is G or E your priest must have one of those in the alignment if the god true N then I can be any of the 5 points LN, NG, NE, CN or true N

It appears as is only true neutral is forbidden to clerics. a LG, CG, LE, or CE god can have a neutral priest.

EvilestWeevil
2015-12-30, 04:46 PM
Meh, who cares its all fantasy and magic and mumbo jumbo. Let people play the game anyway they wish, the point is to have fun. If I want to have a god of 8 foot penis' in my game I can do it, and you should too. Why so serious?

Blackhawk748
2015-12-30, 05:42 PM
Meh, who cares its all fantasy and magic and mumbo jumbo. Let people play the game anyway they wish, the point is to have fun. If I want to have a god of 8 foot penis' in my game I can do it, and you should too. Why so serious?

*falls off of couch laughing*

CantigThimble
2015-12-30, 06:11 PM
Meh, who cares its all fantasy and magic and mumbo jumbo. Let people play the game anyway they wish, the point is to have fun. If I want to have a god of 8 foot penis' in my game I can do it, and you should too. Why so serious?

You are correct, internal consistency matters just as much as you want it too in your game. You evidently don't want it to matter at all in yours.

denthor
2015-12-30, 06:28 PM
Sorry, missed the link the first time through.



It appears as is only true neutral is forbidden to clerics. a LG, CG, LE, or CE god can have a neutral priest.

If the god is capital N then the cleric can be capital N. If the god has a capital G or a capital E or a capital C or a capital L in their alignment that is the overriding factor think of it this way if you are a god of cooking with a firE domain. Worshipers invite you to their home. The first one serve you roast beef over a flame. The second one gives you cereal and milk the second one cooked but had nothing to do with your domains. Which one would you show more favor to

Talakeal
2015-12-30, 07:01 PM
If the god is capital N then the cleric can be capital N. If the god has a capital G or a capital E or a capital C or a capital L in their alignment that is the overriding factor think of it this way if you are a god of cooking with a firE domain. Worshipers invite you to their home. The first one serve you roast beef over a flame. The second one gives you cereal and milk the second one cooked but had nothing to do with your domains. Which one would you show more favor to

Isn't that basically what I said earlier?


I guess the logic is you have to have something in common with your deity? Like a LG is cool with either law or good, but a NG god doesnt have the law chaos axis to unite them?

EvilestWeevil
2015-12-30, 08:32 PM
You are correct, internal consistency matters just as much as you want it too in your game. You evidently don't want it to matter at all in yours.

If consistency is worth more than fun to you, then enjoy.

CantigThimble
2015-12-30, 08:40 PM
If consistency is worth more than fun to you, then enjoy.

Consistency IS fun! The fact that a fantastic world in which the rules of reality are bent, twisted or ignored makes sense within itself makes me happy. I enjoy clever solutions to weird problems more than nonsensical silliness. (at least most of the time, I do enjoy a good Terry Pratchett book every once and a while but 3/4 times I'd rather have Brandon Sanderson)

Keltest
2015-12-30, 09:15 PM
And you're unable to put aside differences for a greater danger? Not to mention changing someone doesn't happen overnight. It requires time, long talks at the campfire trying to understand why someone would join such a faith in the first place. If Good doesn't ever bother to understand Evil (and still disagree with it), then they have no real hope of squashing it. The problem with Good and Evil is that frequently, Evil knows what Good stands for and knows how to lure someone away from, pointing out the flaws in idealistic, sentimentality and altruism. Good meanwhile more frequently ignorant to what ideas would detract from those same ideals that frequently seem unquestionable to them. "He worships Nerull, no way I can confer that." As tired as the example is, even a Succubus can be redeemed into a Paladin. It just depends on circumstance and how hard one is willing to work.

When that difference is "is a voluntary member of a murder cult based around betraying those close to you" then yes, I am totally unwilling to work with this person. If I am ever stuck in a scenario where working with this person is the only possible way to stave off some impending doom, ill incapacitate them and drag them around with me.

CantigThimble
2015-12-30, 09:24 PM
When that difference is "is a voluntary member of a murder cult based around betraying those close to you" then yes, I am totally unwilling to work with this person. If I am ever stuck in a scenario where working with this person is the only possible way to stave off some impending doom, ill incapacitate them and drag them around with me.

It's a matter of risk as well, a reasonably smart paladin will only try the 'redeem the succubus' plan if he's sure he can prevent all the damage the succubus could cause in the time between his first opportunity to destroy it and it's possible eventual redemption.

The Fury
2015-12-30, 11:53 PM
I'm pretty sure that post was a joke. I mean, I laughed at it.

Yes, it was. Also, I'm glad you got a laugh out of that.


Obviously it was his fault for not providing an infinite supply of space-suits, thus causing a constant drain on party resources as the necromancer struggled to properly equip his space-skelly army of past Furies.


Incorrect, actually. As the campaign started on the moon and involved planet-hopping by forcing our will on the universe, I equipped all of my characters with space suits as part of their starting equipment. While I know that verisimilitude was explicitly kicked to the curb in the first session, and further that this meant that any character I made could survive in space without a space suit it just seemed weird to not have one. Kind of like going out in a the rain without a raincoat, y'know? You can do it but it's just so undignified.


When that difference is "is a voluntary member of a murder cult based around betraying those close to you" then yes, I am totally unwilling to work with this person. If I am ever stuck in a scenario where working with this person is the only possible way to stave off some impending doom, ill incapacitate them and drag them around with me.

Well, yeah. If you're going to work together there should probably be at least some assurance that nobody in the group murders each other. Normally that's not a very high bar, but when there's a cultist of murder and betrayal... yeah.

Malifice
2015-12-31, 05:34 AM
Sorry, missed the link the first time through.



It appears as is only true neutral is forbidden to clerics. a LG, CG, LE, or CE god can have a neutral priest.

NG, CN, LN, and NE respectively.

Talakeal
2015-12-31, 02:21 PM
NG, CN, LN, and NE respectively.

Not quite, you can be one step away from your god in either the law / chaos or good / evil axis, as long as that doesnt make you true neutral.

Git777
2016-01-03, 10:08 PM
When I was GM a game designed for 4 players and we had 11! I explained we would have to split the group and have 2 games. well for 2 weeks no one volunteered to start a second game so I just started killing them off. I explained there was a no reroll policy and dead was dead, the last 4 alive are the players the rest leave the table. They turned on each other near the end. . . IT WAS GLORIOUS!

Quertus
2016-01-03, 10:12 PM
When I was GM a game designed for 4 players and we had 11! I explained we would have to split the group and have 2 games. well for 2 weeks no one volunteered to start a second game so I just started killing them off. I explained there was a no reroll policy and dead was dead, the last 4 alive are the players the rest leave the table. They turned on each other near the end. . . IT WAS GLORIOUS!

So... they initiated PvP... using OOC information regarding party size... and that was the group you kept?

goto124
2016-01-04, 02:06 AM
IT WAS GLORIOUS!

You can't just leave us hanging like that!

Marlowe
2016-01-04, 02:16 AM
http://i.imgur.com/sOtEu3S.jpg

Git777
2016-01-04, 07:47 AM
Ok well you ask!

So the game was Quadrant a game of my own design.

the party was power armoured (the stuff is very modular and customisable) mercs on a selvage mission.

The mission was to find a drifting small transport ship (big enough to be carrying about 8 normal shipping containers clamped on to the belly.) called the Babushka was previously transporting sensitive goods for a rival corporation and the party had to retrieve the black box to find a copy of the manifest.

The party find the ship using it's last coordinates and a lot of luck, they dock with it, all the lights are out. they cut through the airlock door, and hack the inner door. the hacker- Ross sees some weird stuff on his visor screen for a spit second but thinks nothing of it. They seal up the outer door with breach foam open the inner door and enter the ship.

they are first in a loading area with a folded up rap, the next door opens and they get the lights on. the first container (twice the size of a normal one) is full of crates of gas canisters. they make for a ladder leading to the helm on the floor above. the hatch is welded shut from this side with a warning in Japanese sprayed on it. Ross keeps seeing these flashes of a gory hell-like scene appear on his visor screen, it's happening too fast and randomly to make out what it really is but it has began to damage his calm. The party opt to move through the containers and head up the stairs at the back of the ship near the engines. They left 2 crew on their ship (the avenger 3) they left the 2 idiot fighter types (there are no classes in this system) to watch the hatch and door in the first container and the other 7 pressed on.

Container 2 was converted in to what looked to be a dojo but had someone's personal stuff stashed at one end. Among the items was a chest, a set of 3 swords and a street racing jet bike. the party looked over the stuff and decided to steel it on the way back. The door in closed behind them. they began to move on.

The 2 idiots in the first door (Alistair and Jamie) started to hear hissing, they quickly figure out that the gas canisters are turning their valves and flooding the room with gas. Breathing not being an issue and them not knowing how to stop it they opt to ignore it. Jamie made a comment about it being due to the pressure change.
Then a celling conduit fell off and some wires fell out and began to gently spark. The 2 sprang in to mad panic and ran after the others! in to the dojo they went but the door took a while to shut.

Mean while the rest of our party where already in the 3rd room. This is when stuff started to get proper spooky for the party. they found what looked to be the crew of the ship dead, in the dark in a room with the G turned off. Totally un-phased the party began looting corpses! however they found that the various augments found in people from the Draco system had all been destroyed some how. For some unthinkable reason the conclusion to which they leaped was disease. . . ? 2 of the party opted to stay behind and cut up the bodies for their augment parts, the other 5 moved on to the last container.

Container 4 is full of smoke. this is an issue as it is had to see and they need to head to the back of the container where there is a door to the stair well. Ross has a visor that allows him to see on various wave lengths including infra-red. he lead the group through the room. but as he is doing so looks up. he sees what looks like a badly burnt corpse melted to the ceiling. This aggravates the groups "NOPE" allergy and they run for the stairs. . . Apart from young Jordan who shoots at it. . . and then stands their waiting (he can barely see for the smoke)

At the top of the stairs there is a long narrow low corridor that runs the length of the ship right to the helm. Ross, Fin, Rachael, and Dave head down the the passage. no sooner they start moving an arm falls out of the rafters from behind the wires. Dave shoots the thing off and moves on.

Back to our 2 idiots they are in the dojo, the door has now closed. then the lights go out. . . then the jet bike turns it's self on and revs at them, Alistair quickly turns and SHOOTS HIS GRENADE LAUNCHER AT THE DOOR AT POINT BLANK RANGE!?! He is killed instantly, the gas in the dojo then also explodes killing Jamie also! this melts seals and sets off the gas in the first room which explodes dramatically, taking out a good chunk of the ship.

In this moment of panic as the ship is violently shaken. the crew on the avenger find that they cannot disengage from the Babushka!

The bodies in container 3 become animated and begin attacking the 2 corpse looters.

the corpse on the ceiling peals it's self of and launches it's self at Jordan in room 4.

the chaos is enough to make the guys upstairs sprint to the helm door and force it open. Dave sees a person in the driver seat and shoots it in the head. But the thing in the seat makes no move as dave walks around he sees it's "head" was just the back of it's skull, the body is withered and dry.

Ross's visions have become stronger and Ross has an break down shaking and drooling in the corner. Rachael attacks the helm computer and gets the Black box.

the 2 Crew back on the ship point out that they are stuck.

one of the guys in room 3 is killed by a "Zombie?"

Jordan is crippled by the burnt corpse man and it walks away.

At this point EVERYONE is panicking!

Davy starts shooting out the front window of the helm to take the fast route back to their ship. the bullets bounce off and one hits fin in the leg.

Rachael finds a plasma cutter and cuts open the hatch that used to lead to room 1.

Ross continues to have a mental episode and leaps up and releases the containers to space, effectively killing Jordan and river (the last guy with the zombies)

The four left on the Babushka make their way out of the ship in to space. Fin finds out that shot in the leg means that his space suit is less effective! after floundering foe a few rounds and Rachael trying to help he dies. As this is happening they see the burnt man casually walking up the out side of the Avenger 3.

Burnt man effortlessly opens both airlock doors with a wave of his hand, which sucks Sweyn out of the avenger in to space. he was wearing ballistic power armour not a space suit. (dead)

Thomas locks him self in the helm of the avenger and tries to break free of the Babushka. The rest of the crew make it on board only to have a stand off with the burnt man. The Burnt man looks at them sees Rachael with the black box, smiles and turns in to dust and disappears.

one session, 11 players in 4 came out!( with ptsd)
It was an AI using Nanites from the augments of the crew.

Git777
2016-01-04, 07:53 AM
So... they initiated PvP... using OOC information regarding party size... and that was the group you kept?

well the only PVP bit was when Ross dropped them in to space to drift with only zombies for company. It was in character and in context of the game. I dont think he did it because he thought I'd stop killing them when there was only 4 left. I think he did it because he was playing a selfish coward who was terrified. and wanted the monsters to go away!

kraftcheese
2016-01-04, 10:00 PM
Ok well you ask!

So the game was Quadrant a game of my own design.

the party was power armoured (the stuff is very modular and customisable) mercs on a selvage mission.

The mission was to find a drifting small transport ship (big enough to be carrying about 8 normal shipping containers clamped on to the belly.) called the Babushka was previously transporting sensitive goods for a rival corporation and the party had to retrieve the black box to find a copy of the manifest.

The party find the ship using it's last coordinates and a lot of luck, they dock with it, all the lights are out. they cut through the airlock door, and hack the inner door. the hacker- Ross sees some weird stuff on his visor screen for a spit second but thinks nothing of it. They seal up the outer door with breach foam open the inner door and enter the ship.

they are first in a loading area with a folded up rap, the next door opens and they get the lights on. the first container (twice the size of a normal one) is full of crates of gas canisters. they make for a ladder leading to the helm on the floor above. the hatch is welded shut from this side with a warning in Japanese sprayed on it. Ross keeps seeing these flashes of a gory hell-like scene appear on his visor screen, it's happening too fast and randomly to make out what it really is but it has began to damage his calm. The party opt to move through the containers and head up the stairs at the back of the ship near the engines. They left 2 crew on their ship (the avenger 3) they left the 2 idiot fighter types (there are no classes in this system) to watch the hatch and door in the first container and the other 7 pressed on.

Container 2 was converted in to what looked to be a dojo but had someone's personal stuff stashed at one end. Among the items was a chest, a set of 3 swords and a street racing jet bike. the party looked over the stuff and decided to steel it on the way back. The door in closed behind them. they began to move on.

The 2 idiots in the first door (Alistair and Jamie) started to hear hissing, they quickly figure out that the gas canisters are turning their valves and flooding the room with gas. Breathing not being an issue and them not knowing how to stop it they opt to ignore it. Jamie made a comment about it being due to the pressure change.
Then a celling conduit fell off and some wires fell out and began to gently spark. The 2 sprang in to mad panic and ran after the others! in to the dojo they went but the door took a while to shut.

Mean while the rest of our party where already in the 3rd room. This is when stuff started to get proper spooky for the party. they found what looked to be the crew of the ship dead, in the dark in a room with the G turned off. Totally un-phased the party began looting corpses! however they found that the various augments found in people from the Draco system had all been destroyed some how. For some unthinkable reason the conclusion to which they leaped was disease. . . ? 2 of the party opted to stay behind and cut up the bodies for their augment parts, the other 5 moved on to the last container.

Container 4 is full of smoke. this is an issue as it is had to see and they need to head to the back of the container where there is a door to the stair well. Ross has a visor that allows him to see on various wave lengths including infra-red. he lead the group through the room. but as he is doing so looks up. he sees what looks like a badly burnt corpse melted to the ceiling. This aggravates the groups "NOPE" allergy and they run for the stairs. . . Apart from young Jordan who shoots at it. . . and then stands their waiting (he can barely see for the smoke)

At the top of the stairs there is a long narrow low corridor that runs the length of the ship right to the helm. Ross, Fin, Rachael, and Dave head down the the passage. no sooner they start moving an arm falls out of the rafters from behind the wires. Dave shoots the thing off and moves on.

Back to our 2 idiots they are in the dojo, the door has now closed. then the lights go out. . . then the jet bike turns it's self on and revs at them, Alistair quickly turns and SHOOTS HIS GRENADE LAUNCHER AT THE DOOR AT POINT BLANK RANGE!?! He is killed instantly, the gas in the dojo then also explodes killing Jamie also! this melts seals and sets off the gas in the first room which explodes dramatically, taking out a good chunk of the ship.

In this moment of panic as the ship is violently shaken. the crew on the avenger find that they cannot disengage from the Babushka!

The bodies in container 3 become animated and begin attacking the 2 corpse looters.

the corpse on the ceiling peals it's self of and launches it's self at Jordan in room 4.

the chaos is enough to make the guys upstairs sprint to the helm door and force it open. Dave sees a person in the driver seat and shoots it in the head. But the thing in the seat makes no move as dave walks around he sees it's "head" was just the back of it's skull, the body is withered and dry.

Ross's visions have become stronger and Ross has an break down shaking and drooling in the corner. Rachael attacks the helm computer and gets the Black box.

the 2 Crew back on the ship point out that they are stuck.

one of the guys in room 3 is killed by a "Zombie?"

Jordan is crippled by the burnt corpse man and it walks away.

At this point EVERYONE is panicking!

Davy starts shooting out the front window of the helm to take the fast route back to their ship. the bullets bounce off and one hits fin in the leg.

Rachael finds a plasma cutter and cuts open the hatch that used to lead to room 1.

Ross continues to have a mental episode and leaps up and releases the containers to space, effectively killing Jordan and river (the last guy with the zombies)

The four left on the Babushka make their way out of the ship in to space. Fin finds out that shot in the leg means that his space suit is less effective! after floundering foe a few rounds and Rachael trying to help he dies. As this is happening they see the burnt man casually walking up the out side of the Avenger 3.

Burnt man effortlessly opens both airlock doors with a wave of his hand, which sucks Sweyn out of the avenger in to space. he was wearing ballistic power armour not a space suit. (dead)

Thomas locks him self in the helm of the avenger and tries to break free of the Babushka. The rest of the crew make it on board only to have a stand off with the burnt man. The Burnt man looks at them sees Rachael with the black box, smiles and turns in to dust and disappears.

one session, 11 players in 4 came out!( with ptsd)
It was an AI using Nanites from the augments of the crew.

Were Ross and Rachael the characters birth names, or names they got from holovid reruns of a certain ancient Earth sitcom?

nedz
2016-01-05, 02:12 PM
When I was GM a game designed for 4 players and we had 11! I explained we would have to split the group and have 2 games. well for 2 weeks no one volunteered to start a second game so I just started killing them off. I explained there was a no reroll policy and dead was dead, the last 4 alive are the players the rest leave the table. They turned on each other near the end. . . IT WAS GLORIOUS!

So you kept the four players who were most into PvP, and it ended in, ..., PvP :smallsigh:

Well, as long as you had fun.

Git777
2016-01-05, 05:45 PM
So you kept the four players who were most into PvP, and it ended in, ..., PvP :smallsigh:

Well, as long as you had fun.

No, no read the third post, or the story.

Also Ross and Rachael are the birth names of the players.

Raimun
2016-01-05, 11:07 PM
Just because? Never.

I don't like PvP in tabletop RPGs but sometimes it just had to be that way. Sometimes I just had to make my character kill someone else's character. There was always a perfectly valid in character-reason. With that, I certainly don't mean: "Alarik the Thief took my +1 Longsword and had to die!", more like "Duel of fates, after philosophical disagreement".

I don't do PvP for petty reasons*, only for suitably dramatic reasons, preferably at the end of the story, after a bit of foreshadowing.

*Though I could try a game of Paranoia some day...

Segev
2016-01-06, 10:35 AM
Just because? Never.

I don't like PvP in tabletop RPGs but sometimes it just had to be that way. Sometimes I just had to make my character kill someone else's character. There was always a perfectly valid in character-reason. With that, I certainly don't mean: "Alarik the Thief took my +1 Longsword and had to die!", more like "Duel of fates, after philosophical disagreement".

I don't do PvP for petty reasons*, only for suitably dramatic reasons, preferably at the end of the story, after a bit of foreshadowing.

*Though I could try a game of Paranoia some day...

Thing is, if "Alarik the Thief took my +1 Longsword" isn't reason to PvP, you're simply inviting PvP to be performed on you without you having any retaliatory measures you can take. "PvP" doesn't ONLY mean "to the death." It means intra-party conflict that leads to using mechanics against each other.

Alarik, in that example, has already PvP'd you, and unless you can get him to stop - OOC or IC - will likely keep doing so. (Best solution, if you don't want PvP, is to ask his player to cut it out. Hopefully, he will do so out of respect for your desire not to engage in PvP. If he won't...then you probably should PvP him right back; in-game actions have in-game consequences.)

Alex12
2016-01-06, 11:56 PM
I killed a fellow PC once, but it was for RP reasons.
I was playing a Lawful character who followed his own code, and said code was, to him, ironclad (except stronger than that- he knew Mountain Hammer, he could punch through iron).
One of the core tenets of this code was essentially similar to the rules of war. If a foe surrenders, and his surrender is accepted, then he is entitled to a certain degree of appropriate treatment in exchange for his not attempting to, for example, murder us in our sleep. If we don't accept the surrender (because the terms of surrender are unacceptable, or because the one surrendering is too dangerous to allow to live, for example) then we tell that person and allow a reasonable time to pick up any gear they discarded to show that they were trying to surrender.
We tracked down a guy running a group of bandits who were using a magic item to drain a town reservoir- if anyone cares, the DM was running the Dry Spell module for us. We beat the crap out of the bandits, and, after confronting the leader and demonstrating that yes, we could take him, handily, he surrendered. We accepted, and basically gave him two options. One: we take him back to town to face justice, in whatever form that took, or two: we take all his stuff, give him a weapon (not the +1 weapon he had) and a small supply of food, and release him in the wilderness essentially on parole with the warning that if we ever hear about him doing more stuff like banditry, or if we ever end up fighting him again, he dies. He took option 2. Note that the entire party said this was fine.
As he was leaving, one of the party attacked him again. He fled and managed to escape, and I, heavy-hearted, killed the PC.

Raimun
2016-01-06, 11:58 PM
Thing is, if "Alarik the Thief took my +1 Longsword" isn't reason to PvP, you're simply inviting PvP to be performed on you without you having any retaliatory measures you can take. "PvP" doesn't ONLY mean "to the death." It means intra-party conflict that leads to using mechanics against each other.

Alarik, in that example, has already PvP'd you, and unless you can get him to stop - OOC or IC - will likely keep doing so. (Best solution, if you don't want PvP, is to ask his player to cut it out. Hopefully, he will do so out of respect for your desire not to engage in PvP. If he won't...then you probably should PvP him right back; in-game actions have in-game consequences.)

Fair point. Actions should have consequences. However, two things:

1) PvP doesn't happen that often with people I play with.

2) I understood PvP as outright violent combat, as per the original topic. And violent combat gets deadly pretty quickly, especially when everyone is armed.

So, "Alarik the Thief" won't be usually (if ever) pick pocketing his brothers in arms (bad tactics) and if he was? I would rather retaliate with something equally non-lethal. Here's a few examples of how I handled some PvP-situations:

- Skimming from the top. I have 0 ranks in Perception. Result: This is usually known as a perfect crime. If one must really play the greedy thief, this is the smart way to do it, both in and out of character.
- Two (or three?) counts of assassinations(?) of my NPC-followers. Some of the direct/indirect suspects include fellow player characters. Result: Darth Vader-style intimidation tactics and wild disregard of the well being of the suspects.
- Hit on the head with a non-lethal attack, after an insignificant argument. Result: Activate immediately a lethal retributive damage field.
- Templar warrior knights can't decide how to complete a quest. I demand we proceed as planned, since we gave our oath. Colleague wants a more practical solution. Result: Trial by combat. Because it was desperate times for me, I accidentally slayed the other warrior.

Segev
2016-01-07, 12:04 PM
Yeah, "PvP" just means "player vs. player." The loosest definition includes at-table arguments, but generally it doesn't "count" in most circles until it reaches "taking in-game actions to oppose each other."

You can't really have a game if you're never allowed to even have OOC disagreements that you hash out. But you can have your social contract about PvP vary to any degree of permissible behavior in terms of using game mechanics and actions against each other. It's usually a bad idea to have those be anything but one of the two extremes, though, except on spot case-by-case bases, because otherwise it invites abuse.

Consider the thief vs. the barbarian: the thief can harass, steal from, prank, and otherwise inconvenience the barbarian to the point of leaving him humiliated and with such inferior gear and so low on hp (due to failure to properly tell him about upcoming hazards) that he's not really even able to play the game. The barbarian's only real retaliatory mechanics amount to hit point damage and other forms of direct physical violence.

I've seen tables where the thief's level was "okay" but going to violence was not. Which meant that the barbarian player would be the "evil bad player" for resorting to unacceptable PvP if he retaliated in any even moderately effective way to the thief's behavior. The thief, therefore, was able to get away with bullying.

This actually happens in real life, too; bullying of a more subtle sort can be "allowed" in schools because it's hard to catch or enforce, and those who have no real means of fighting back on that level often wind up seeing the school authority system used against them as part of the bullying becomes making it look like they're engaging in violent, unacceptable behavior just for trying to defend themselves.


Which is why you want to make sure you fairly apply your rules, whether they're "no PvP" or "PvP allowed." Don't set your bar such that only PvP that one kind of character can pull off is acceptable.

goto124
2016-01-08, 02:00 AM
Consider the thief vs. the barbarian: the thief can harass, steal from, prank, and otherwise inconvenience the barbarian to the point of leaving him humiliated and with such inferior gear and so low on hp (due to failure to properly tell him about upcoming hazards) that he's not really even able to play the game.

The barbarian's only real retaliatory mechanics amount to hit point damage and other forms of direct physical violence.

That's interesting - that different characters have different means of retaliation, and that allowing one kind of retaliation but disallowing another kind can lead to one-sided unpleasant PvP.

Apricot
2016-01-08, 03:49 AM
This actually happens in real life, too; bullying of a more subtle sort can be "allowed" in schools because it's hard to catch or enforce, and those who have no real means of fighting back on that level often wind up seeing the school authority system used against them as part of the bullying becomes making it look like they're engaging in violent, unacceptable behavior just for trying to defend themselves.


I'm going to piggyback on this: it doesn't just happen as something childish at schools, but even at the most socially sophisticated levels. Consider a corrupt legal system (which occurs in many places in the world: I'm remaining vague because any specific example will raise unproductive controversy). Someone with power in that system, often formed by money or connections, can easily target and harm people who lack that same power. This is thought of as being in poor taste, but little is done to punish those actions more than that. Sometimes the people without power get together and riot, with violence being one of the few things in their power to perform, and their rioting is harshly criticized and actively punished. I don't mean to say that rioting is always productive, or that it is morally justified, but just as you pointed out, one method of harming another is permitted while the other is impermissible. There's a fairly straightforward reason for it, but all the same, it's not one of the bright points of society.

For a slightly less dangerous example, it's possible to put someone out of work in the primary education field by making completely unsubstantiated accusations of child abuse and experience no legal repercussions whatsoever (as this can be done without perjury or filing false claims, and unemployed schoolteachers tend to be incapable of suing for slander), while chopping off the offending individual's hands so that they can never work again is astronomically unlikely to escape punishment. Even if the analogy is imperfect, there's definitely the same sort of double standard for harm done to others.

Raimun
2016-01-08, 10:43 AM
Yeah, "PvP" just means "player vs. player." The loosest definition includes at-table arguments, but generally it doesn't "count" in most circles until it reaches "taking in-game actions to oppose each other."

You can't really have a game if you're never allowed to even have OOC disagreements that you hash out. But you can have your social contract about PvP vary to any degree of permissible behavior in terms of using game mechanics and actions against each other. It's usually a bad idea to have those be anything but one of the two extremes, though, except on spot case-by-case bases, because otherwise it invites abuse.

Consider the thief vs. the barbarian: the thief can harass, steal from, prank, and otherwise inconvenience the barbarian to the point of leaving him humiliated and with such inferior gear and so low on hp (due to failure to properly tell him about upcoming hazards) that he's not really even able to play the game. The barbarian's only real retaliatory mechanics amount to hit point damage and other forms of direct physical violence.

I've seen tables where the thief's level was "okay" but going to violence was not. Which meant that the barbarian player would be the "evil bad player" for resorting to unacceptable PvP if he retaliated in any even moderately effective way to the thief's behavior. The thief, therefore, was able to get away with bullying.

This actually happens in real life, too; bullying of a more subtle sort can be "allowed" in schools because it's hard to catch or enforce, and those who have no real means of fighting back on that level often wind up seeing the school authority system used against them as part of the bullying becomes making it look like they're engaging in violent, unacceptable behavior just for trying to defend themselves.


Which is why you want to make sure you fairly apply your rules, whether they're "no PvP" or "PvP allowed." Don't set your bar such that only PvP that one kind of character can pull off is acceptable.

Heh, perhaps Conan got certain things right about civilization.

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." -Conan the Barbarian

Segev
2016-01-08, 11:48 AM
Sociologically speaking, it's why morals-based societies tend to STUN shame-based societies in terms of how genuine the former's members are. Morals are internal; members of morals-based societies internalize the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" and actually are taught that "what you are in the dark" is important. Not because you'll be caught or reprimanded, but because it's RIGHT.

Shame-based societies teach that it's what you present to the world that matters. "Shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" are rules for what you can and must be seen doing, and what you must not be seen doing. Appearance is everything, and SHOWING failure is worse than owning up to it. Hypocrisy is just fine, as long as the behavior is kept out of the public eye, and revealing another's bad behavior makes YOU as guilty as THEM (if not moreso) because YOU have brought the shame upon the group. It doesn't matter what you are in the dark, as long as you keep it in the dark.

Emphasis on form over function tends to take precedence.

This is true in "civilized" and "barbaric" societies; where violence is abhorred, a morals-based society still will internalize the strictures, and if you're revealed doing something, it's your fault, not the revelator's. Moreover, you're still taught to internalize the civilized manners; you do them because they're RIGHT, and not because they're "expected." You're never "caught" by them because they're part of you, and thus you know why they're important and, even, when they can be...adapted. Where violence is accepted, the morals-based culture teaches when and how to use violence, and internalizes behavioral norms so that the threat of violence is there to stand up for what you believe, not to cover up its (or your) flaws by preventing others from investigating.

In a violence-abhorring shame-based culture, the politeness will be IMPECCABLE on the surface. Being caught with one word out of place is horrific. Violence will be avoided in public because it's shameful, but it's perfectly okay as long as you don't get caught. In fact, it's a useful tool for silencing those who would shame you by airing any activities you should not let others see. In a violence-embracing shame-based culture, it's all about the fašade you can put up. You can do anything you like as long as nobody dares point it out, and violence is a perfectly acceptable means of threatening people to silence, even in public. "You DARE say that? Take it back lest I smite you!"


"Politeness" in a shame-based culture is a mask, a lie, a fašade put up and adhered to and used as a weapon to try to trick or maneuver others into rudeness as an excuse to bully them.

Politeness in a morals-based culture is simply how one who has internalized the morals of that culture acts. Breeches are shocking, but not in and of themselves excuses to ostracise, because there might be more to it. And adjustments can be and are made for circumstances, because the goal is not to trick but to accommodate and BE proper (not merely behave as such).

In a sense, it's a matter of how much hypocrisy is tolerated, but in another, it's a matter of whether it is about who you are in the dark, or only matters if you get caught. And cultures really do inculcate one or the other, as a general rule; it centers around whether "why" matters, both in terms of keeping the polite behavior up, and in terms of when it is breeched.

Apricot
2016-01-08, 02:47 PM
Alternatively, one could very easily make the argument that moral-based societies are revoltingly intrusive, forcing an arbitrary code of morals onto absolutely everything one does to the point where a harmless revelation (for example, sexual orientation) can destroy someone's life when revealed because the moralistic society has no concept of privacy. Their lack of politeness isn't just discourteous, it's actively harmful, as they refuse to give any of their members space to live and develop independently, instead insisting on a unified code that invalidates any individuality within the society. Shame-based societies keep societal unity to a simple code of conduct in public settings, making sure that everyone plays nice with one another, and then grant freedom to their members in the privacy of their own homes. Moral-based societies never remove that Orwellian watchful eye.

I'm more on the side of moral-based (or as they're more commonly termed, guilt-based) societies myself, but it's important to seriously consider arguments for both sides. That's something difficult for us moralists, though.

AMFV
2016-01-08, 02:54 PM
Alternatively, one could very easily make the argument that moral-based societies are revoltingly intrusive, forcing an arbitrary code of morals onto absolutely everything one does to the point where a harmless revelation (for example, sexual orientation) can destroy someone's life when revealed because the moralistic society has no concept of privacy. Their lack of politeness isn't just discourteous, it's actively harmful, as they refuse to give any of their members space to live and develop independently, instead insisting on a unified code that invalidates any individuality within the society. Shame-based societies keep societal unity to a simple code of conduct in public settings, making sure that everyone plays nice with one another, and then grant freedom to their members in the privacy of their own homes. Moral-based societies never remove that Orwellian watchful eye.

I'm more on the side of moral-based (or as they're more commonly termed, guilt-based) societies myself, but it's important to seriously consider arguments for both sides. That's something difficult for us moralists, though.

Or it might be worth noting that usually it's not a strict dichotomy. There are few societies that are only shame based or that are only morality based. Typically it's by issue... There are certain issues where shame is the principle motivations in particular cultures, and others that are considered to be motivated by internal moral systems. A lot of this has to do with disgust, if the moral issue is one of disgust, it will be guilt or shame enforced, if it's viewed as a character failing it will be the other way.

For example in a fantasy Orc culture, Courage could be a virtue enforced by shame and guilt, ea. running away is okay, as long as nobody catches you doing it, and can accuse you of cowardice. Ruthlessness could be a morality virtue, ergo sparing somebody or being merciful is just as wrong even if it isn't observed. You have the same thing in Drow society, devotion to Lolth is appearance motivated, a Drow may lack all devotion in private, but in public they certainly don't. In contrast, Ambition is a morality virtue, a matter of character. A drow need only be publicly pious to be of good character, but he must be scheming and ambitious even in private.

Segev
2016-01-08, 03:17 PM
Actually, a moral-based society isn't necessarily intrusive. Again, it's not about whether or not you're caught. It's about what you are in the dark - that is, whether you, personally, internalize the moral code yourself, and practice it because you, yourself, believe it to be the right way to act.

Privacy is often more valued as a "right" in morals-centric societies, because, if people have internalized the code, it isn't anybody's business "what they are in the dark" under most circumstances. Moreover, if you have most people acting more-or-less in line with upright morals, you don't have to police them in their private moments.

It is a "privilege" in shame-centric societies, because it is assumed that privacy is where "the real you" comes out, and the more freedom you give somebody, the less freedom others will have, since shame-based societies assume that you're adhering to "good conduct" only when observed. There is far less trust. It is a mark of status and privilege to have the privacy to indulge in things that are not for public consumption.

Note that these are not universally true, but they are tendencies.

AMFV
2016-01-08, 03:43 PM
Actually, a moral-based society isn't necessarily intrusive. Again, it's not about whether or not you're caught. It's about what you are in the dark - that is, whether you, personally, internalize the moral code yourself, and practice it because you, yourself, believe it to be the right way to act.

Privacy is often more valued as a "right" in morals-centric societies, because, if people have internalized the code, it isn't anybody's business "what they are in the dark" under most circumstances. Moreover, if you have most people acting more-or-less in line with upright morals, you don't have to police them in their private moments.

It is a "privilege" in shame-centric societies, because it is assumed that privacy is where "the real you" comes out, and the more freedom you give somebody, the less freedom others will have, since shame-based societies assume that you're adhering to "good conduct" only when observed. There is far less trust. It is a mark of status and privilege to have the privacy to indulge in things that are not for public consumption.

Note that these are not universally true, but they are tendencies.

Again it's worth noting that shame vs. morality isn't really comprehensive for any one society. There are aspects in all societies with moral codes that fall to either end of the spectrum. For example in the Marines, acting like a boot and wearing moto-stuff is a shame based morality. It's fine if you do it in your hometown or whatever, just not fine is anybody sees you doing that. But screwing over your buddy and being a blue falcon is a morals-centric morality, wrong, even if you aren't caught. I don't think any society is going to break down that way in most cases.

I think you're going to see the divide between things that are rendered immoral because they are disgusting or unclean vs. things that are rendered immoral because they are perceived as sinful or wrong. Being a boot is disgusting, wearing 7.62 gear is gross. Screwing your buddy over is wrong. There's the same dichotomy in morals throughout societies. Not worshiping Lolth is disgusting, it's aberrant, but not necessarily wrong. Lacking proper Drowish ambition, now that's morally wrong.

KorvinStarmast
2016-01-08, 05:41 PM
Two of us killed a character in our group for an OOC reason about three decades ago. Not our greatest day ever, but our excuse is that the guy cheated with dice rolls.

IMO the DM should have been sterner when he caught him, which he did now and again, but it got very tiresome for the rest of us. Something just grates on me about people who cheat at D&D. Come on, man!

How it happened:

We engaged in an outdoors battle and he was in the front line. My fellow PC (Druid) just looked at me and winked. As this guy engaged the enemy, Druid cast "entangle" to include our dice cheater and all of the enemy.

I began shooting into melee with my long bow.

Note: Our DM was harsh as hell on shooting into Melee: he had a series of rolls he'd do to see who got hit. I'll never know if he saw the wink or not, but something happened that makes me think that he knew what we had decided to do. (Some weeks later I asked him point blank in private and I got a "you were the one shooting into melee" as an answer).

As I got two attacks per round, and I got on a modest hot streak with the dice, 5 of 6 shots hit. 4 of six hit him, one hit a bug bear.
Sadly for him, in the same round that my last two hit him two bug bears broke loose and hit him as well.

He was down to single digit hit points.
I drew my sword and charged into melee.

Druid did NOT cast a heal spell. (He had one prepared).
I killed a bug bear and two more hit our cheater, who died.

The rest of the fight was mopping up.

Our thief and mage had been unaware of how that all went down, but both of them gave me a case of vitriol for shooting into melee. My response was: he was outnumbered, I was trying to hit the ones he was fighting, and I hit a bad streak of luck, so I switched to one attack per round with the sword.

He had to sit out the rest of that evening's raid, which meant that his job was to roll the dice for all of the monsters attacking us as we hit the next few encounters. (Standard practice at the table to help the DM out).

We watched his rolls like a hawk, as did the DM.

Should we have done that?
No, probably not. Druid and I kept it between us, and the next week we had another adventure to try and find a cleric to raise this cheater.

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-01-08, 06:19 PM
Not worshiping Lolth is... not necessarily wrong.

The church of the Spider Queen, praised be Her dread name, finds your lenient attitude towards traitorous heathens disturbing. Report to the discipline chamber immediately.

Also, what's a `boot` in context? When I searched, I could only find things about boot camp or actual boots.

AMFV
2016-01-08, 06:28 PM
The church of the Spider Queen, praised be Her dread name, finds your lenient attitude towards traitorous heathens disturbing. Report to the discipline chamber immediately.


Well as a male Drow, there's probably at least some chance I'd be into that sort of thing.



Also, what's a `boot` in context? When I searched, I could only find things about boot camp or actual boots.

A Boot is somebody who has been through Boot Camp but hasn't done any deployments. They're easy to spot because they've always got backpacks (for some reason), they wear moto-gear (T-Shirts that say USMC, or "One Shot One Kill") or alternatively ridiculous ten gallon hats with enormous belt-buckles. They frequently have high and tight haircuts. It's a derogatory term for somebody that hasn't actually done anything worth doing in the Marines.

goto124
2016-01-08, 08:32 PM
In practice, would a moral-based society be that different from a shame-based society anyway?

AMFV
2016-01-08, 10:34 PM
In practice, would a moral-based society be that different from a shame-based society anyway?

Well I argue that no completely moral-based society or completely shame-based society exists. But yes, in a shame based society you would be allowed to do those things as long as you didn't get caught, you wouldn't feel guilt over the issue, because it's the social stigma that prohibits the action. Like I could listen to the Biebs in my room in our culture, without having any issue, but I would certainly be ridiculed if I did so in public. Whereas if I were to cheat on a significant other, that would be equally wrong (in my opinion) whether or not I was caught. Those aren't the same rules in every culture. But every culture has bits of shame based things and social rules and bits of morals.

Basically the shame based stuff is social stigma, the moral stuff is character.

Marlowe
2016-01-09, 08:08 PM
One excuse given for [A CERTAIN NATION] having not apologised for their actions during [A CERTAIN PERIOD OF HISTORY] unlike [ANOTHER CERTAIN NATION WHICH HAS DONE SO VERY PROFUSELY] is that the second is a guilt-based culture that is collectively capable of admitting fault while the first is a shame-based one that is unable to do so without devastating its national moral.

Other point out that this is a pretty feeble excuse.

Segev
2016-01-10, 12:48 PM
The primary difference I've seen in that can be easily observed between shame-based and moral-based cultural traits (whether you consider it universal to the culture or just case-by-case) is that a moral-based culture will, when a shameful act is revealed, heap derision on the one who performed it and will see the revelator as having done a service by exposing hypocrisy (or at least as having done nothing wrong). The guilt is on the one who did the deed, and it is considered a mark against his character. "You did this to yourself" will be said to the one exposed for his behavior as he is punished, and any efforts he makes to blame somebody else for having exposed him will ring hollow and only spark greater disgust.

In a shame-based culture, the one who performed the revelation is AT LEAST as guilty as the one who is revealed, unless the revelator has literally NO positive connection to the guilty party. Shame-based cultures tend to have a bit more group mentality, as well; the shame of one member extends to the others, and no amount of "we didn't know" or "we condemn it as well" will help, because they a) are expected to have known and helped cover it up, and b) are guilty for FAILING to successfully cover it up. And if the revelator is in any way connected to that group, he is doubly or triply guilty, because he, not the one who was revealed as guilty, is responsible for "bringing shame" onto the group and the one who actually was doing wrong.

TL;DR: In a shame-based culture, revealing an associate's shame makes you as guilty, if not moreso, for his crimes, because you "brought" the shame on them by revealing it. In a moral-based culture, the only person who "brought" shame is the one who did the shameful deed, and he's the only one who really is said to DESERVE to be shamed for it.