PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Advice: Keeping the Peace



DSCrankshaw
2007-06-15, 10:01 PM
Once again, our party has found itself in a sticky situation, and, as usual, I'm the cause of it. So I thought I'd ask for a bit of advice.

To start with, I'm playing a lawful good dwarf knight in a PbP campaign. It's pretty low level right now, so the party's 2nd/3rd level. My character's the official party leader, mainly because nobody else wants the position. The party consists of an elf wizard/cleric, an elf wizard/duskblade, an elf cleric, a dwarf cleric, and a human rogue. Although I'm not certain, I think the elves are mostly chaotic good (two of them are clerics of Corellon, so they're something close to that), the dwarf's lawful good, and the human's chaotic neutral.

So, the problem begins with the elf cleric, who's not completely sane (I believe we've psychoanalyzed her as being in a dissociative fugue state), and has a particular grudge against goblinoids of all stripes: the only good goblinoid is a dead one. So, of course, we have a run-in with a peaceful bugbear and his goblin cohorts. Now the bugbear's not a good guy (he's a cleric of Vecna, so at best he's true neutral), but he doesn't want to fight, and he offers to help us achieve our objective for a price. We couldn't reach an agreement, so he simply turns to leave, and the crazy elf shoots at him. Fighting ensues, the crazy elf's knocked out without doing too much damage, we kill a bunch of the cohorts, and ultimately the bugbear surrenders.

With the crazy elf unconscious and our other clerics lacking the spells to bring her to full consciousness, negotiations go much more smoothly. I promise neither I nor my companions will harm him as long as he cooperates, and no one (conscious) objects. So we ask him our questions, he answers politely, and the rogue begins stripping him of items. I point out, quite reasonably, I think, that we attacked him unprovoked, so maybe we shouldn't be robbing him as well, not being brigands and all that. As he has some juicy items, no one agrees. So I try to compromise: we know he's not a good guy, so we probably shouldn't trust him. So, even though it's not fair, reasonably we should confiscate those items that can be used offensively, and leave him only the items that're purely defensive: the ring of protection and the potion of cure light wounds. Since the ring's the one item everyone wants, no deal. Last try: I offer the duskblade/wizard, the one who's planning to claim the ring, the one magic item I've picked up, an energy assault augment crystal, if she lets the bugbear keep the ring. She takes the crystal, lets someone else claim the ring, then proposes we tie up the bugbear so the crazy elf can "deal with him" when she's restored to health in the morning. Meanwhile, the elf wizard/cleric sneaks the CLW potion to the unconscious crazy elf (rolled a 1 on the d8, so crazy elf is still out), apparently hoping to shorten the wait for "dealing with him."

So... what do I do? It seems like two of the players are trying to use a third PC to betray my deal. As they're chaotic, I can understand that they wouldn't view deals as strongly as my knight does, but they were awfully quick to take advantage of it and get the bugbear to answer their questions (he identified all the items we took from him, for example). But if they're good, shouldn't they have some qualms about killing a helpless prisoner, or at least about using their comrade to do it? And my knight's word obliges him to do what he can to stop it, not to mention that his in-game code does not allow him to attack defenseless prisoners. Allowing others to do it may not have in-game consequences, but it goes against the spirit of the code.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-06-15, 11:55 PM
Murderizing helpless creatures, even bad ones, is definatly not good. Now, the Elf may be able to be excused, as it seems she is somewhat of a racist, so she acts uncharacteristically nasty towards them. However, the others seem kind of scheming..

To be honest, there isn't much you can do. Maybe the DM will take it easy on you, because, otherwise, you have to confront the whole party.

Human Paragon 3
2007-06-16, 12:30 AM
I don't know exactly how you can ease your way out of this particular situation, but I do have some advice as to keeping the peace in general.

I played a campaign years back that was mixed alignment, even worse than yours. I was a L/G priest and the worst offender was a C/N or C/E thief/wizard. Gradually, through my roleplaying I converted the character to my religion and even shifted his alignment to C/G.

I did this in two ways. First, I showed disdain for his evil acts. Selfishness, hatred, wrath, greed etc. It seems like you've got this down. But honestly, I didn't do that for very long. Once I showed my initial disapproval I moved on to phase 2.

I praised him for his acts of good. I explained to other people (good priests, knights, paladins etc. who disapproved of our parties actions, particularly his) about all the good things he'd done. That he was one of the bravest men I knew, that he turned and faced the orc hordes when he didn't have to, etc. etc. etc. Eventually this praise rubbed off on him and became a self fulfilling prophecy. It seems that your situation is a little worse than mine is since you have a whole group of greedy characters (players?), but I think you can help things a little bit by using this tactic.

Diggorian
2007-06-16, 01:08 AM
Had a similar sticky wicket when a PC wizard was doing dark deeds my ranger couldnt stomach. Solution: knocked him out.

But you wanna keep the peace ... I think Gaurd's tactic could work over time, and is worth a shot. Definately should get ya some roleplaying XP.

For the current situation, I say fall back to foundation of authority: the threat of violence.

Make sure the dwarf cleric has your back. He's LG like you, shouldnt be hard. Have the crazy elf revived while you stand blocking the way to the prisoner. Dont offer, explain, suggest, or advise; Tell the elf anything they do to your prisoner will be visited upon them. Elfy, likely low on HP, isnt likely to take it to ya -- but may rant about it.

For extra leverage, during the ensuing arguement, have your dwarf brother cut a deal with the rogue: a bigger loot share if he assists in protecting the bugbear.

Worse comes to worse, ya got four vs three odds.

TwistedCable
2007-06-16, 07:33 AM
Sounds like poor roleplaying on their part. Maybe not for the crazy goblinoid hating one, if thats there character but I'd be getting the DM to put the other elf up for an alignment shift at the least - advocating torture/murder against a defenceless and, as far as you know, innocent creature for no apparent reason is NOT good, no matter how it's spun. In character, however, I think as a lawful good knight, you've got to stand for your beliefs, even if it does come to conflict.

dragonwings
2007-06-16, 08:53 AM
If you can, take watch by yourself at night with with the LG dwarf, cut the ties on the bugbear, and get him out of there. The rest of your party seems Abyss-bent on stabbing and looting, your promise was to keep him safe and, in my opinion, you should uphold that promise. Perhaps the bugbear could help you from a distance. Maybe he could leave clues for you or send a messenger (preferably not a goblin) with instructions, notes, and other things. Before he goes, though, make sure he knows this request for assistance is a personal favor for you, not the rest of the party. Personally, I wouldn't help those that tried to stab me and killed my followers, but I'd be willing to do a little extra for the noble knight who let me run off at night and escape harm. Besides, there's nothing that says LG Knight can't be just the tiniest bit sneaky when it comes to making sure no innocents are harmed.

And I must say, excellent work by Gaurd Juris. I would have liked to see that in action over time.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-16, 09:37 AM
You never should have talked with the bugbear. That way you wouldn't have had qualms with killing him. As it is, you effectively betrayed your friend and ally for a stranger that MIGHT not be evil.

SoulCatcher78
2007-06-16, 10:18 AM
Sounds like the DM needs to take a bit of tighter rein on the alignment consequences for the other PCs. If they were evil, no problem (other than with you) cutting his throat. Being good, it seems that they're missing the point of having an alignment and therefore role playing in general. Since you offered your protection and the only option would be violence against the other party members (implied/threatened/take against), it only seems logical that you would set him free or to give him a fighting chance against the creepy elves. I vote for set him free and then lecture the Elves about the importance of being good rather than evil (since they're being no better than the goblinoids they apparently are ready to kill/torture). Might does not make right and all that.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-06-16, 10:20 AM
It looks like there's no way to keep the peace without compromising your morals. The other guys look pretty intent on killing the bugbear. If you don't want that to happen, you're going to have to be clear that you don't want them to do that, and probably make a very clear threat that they'll have to go through you first if they want to attack the helpless and innocent (as in, he isn't doing anything to provoke them and doesn't seem likely to) prisoner. Continue to drum in that killing the prisoner is wrong, as well, maybe someone will eventually get it.

If they fail to respect this, and contenue to scheme to have this bugbear murdered... I don't see any good results coming from that, and you ca probably forget keeping the peace.


That still leaves the nutjob, but the nutjob can be dealt with differantly than sane PCs.

Yogi
2007-06-16, 10:48 AM
Since you're the leader, just inform them of your decision to let the bugbear go, then let him go. There really is no need to negotiate. Plus, one of your PCs violated a deal that you made. Demand the crystal back, and if she refuses, declare that she ( and the person who had the ring now) have initiated player versus player conflict by stealing the ring, and attack them to get it back. Also, where is the DM among all of this? He should be warning them about evil alignments, which is obviously the case for your companions.

Unfortunately, I think that the other players have a case of the Chaotic Stupids. How long have you been playing together, and are there other people you can play with?

Neon Knight
2007-06-16, 10:56 AM
Personally, I felt you handled the situation wrong. If one of my party members randomly attack someone, I'd knock the party member out and apologise. I think by fighting and killing the Bugbear's cohorts, you have sanctioned (to a degree) the crazy elf racist's actions. (Unless you tried to tell them (Bugbear and friends) to stop and they continued assaulting you anyway. Then I'd say it was self defense. If this was the case, ignore the above.)

My advice: Let the Bugbear go, and if they try to harm him, stop them by any means necessary. Don't sacrifice your character's morals for party peace. If you submit here, they are going to Chaotic Stupid their way through the campaign. Draw the line here and now, and don't let them cross it. Death before dishonor!

Valdyr
2007-06-16, 11:40 AM
First of all, the bugbear is evil if he's a cleric of Vecna. Clerics can't be neutral unless their deity is neutral with respect to good and evil. So, by the RAW, he has to be LE, NE, or CE.

That's of little actual importance though. And in fact probably hurts your side since they can argue that killing a Evil cleric is a Good thing.

I'd start making friends. I think the Dwarven Cleric is a good bet, but you can also get the Rogue on your side as well. In order to be an effective party leader you need to have some agreement within the party, or at the very least a bunch of folk who recognize your authority (or authoriTAY). Building coalitions is hard, especially in a group of people (not characters) who tend towards chaos. Get at least a majority of them to agree that you are the leader and that for the most part you speak for the party. You can do this through convincing them with words, or possibly offering monetary rewards. Deals you make with NPCs have no meaning if you can't make the rest of your party abide by them.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-16, 11:55 AM
Well, right now I'm trying to defuse the situation out-of-character: give everyone a chance to explain their character's actions and make sure they all see where things are heading. I'd rather do it in character, but some out-of-character talking is better than in-character fighting.

The DM for this game is really good, and he likes throwing ethically challenging situations at us. Most of our encounters in this dungeon crawl have involved talking first, and we've been offered deals pretty often. Most of the time we have to say no, since the price is unacceptable, but this is a talk first, fight later game nevertheless. He's pretty lenient on alignments, but he has said that while no single action is likely to change alignment, patterns of behavior will have alignment consequences.

The situation got out of hand pretty quickly, so once the fight started it was hard to just stop. The bugbear had cast hold person on the crazy elf and the goblins were filling her full of crossbow bolts by the end of the first round.

I did overlook the exact alignment restriction of the cleric, but I'm not sure it'd change the situation. No one had identified him as a cleric of Vecna before the deal was made, and even so, I'm not sure my character could refuse a surrender no matter what his alignment.

The crazy elf has plenty of reason to hate goblinoids, as she was captured and badly mistreated in-game by a separate tribe, so we've allowed her some lee-way. However, I'm probably going to have to start pointing out that if she continues this way, she risks losing the favor of her god. Clerics are particularly vulnerable to alignment restrictions.

I'm not sure that anything aside from divine intervention will change her behavior, though. Her player has already said that the elf will challenge my character's leadership position once she discovers I let the bugbear go. It really doesn't make any difference whether my knight's the group leader or not, though: he still can't allow the party to kill unarmed prisoners.

SoulCatcher78
2007-06-16, 12:11 PM
Makes you realize why most knights just have a squire and a horse. Other baggage just makes keeping your honor intact more difficult. If they are determined to run the game in that way, you'll either need to make adjustments to your character or seperate from the group. If he DM has planned this to bring some of these tendencies to a head, I hope he has a plan to pull this out of the fire before the game disolves into finger pointing and hard feelings.

I_Got_This_Name
2007-06-16, 01:01 PM
Let the bugbear free in the night, and demand your crystal back from whoever stole it from you.

Yes, stole. If they're taking what you offer as part of a deal and betraying the deal, that's theft.

Also, if you're the only one on watch, you can return the bugbear's stuff, or alternative stuff of equal or greater value. This might be a bit chaotic, though.

Yes, he's an evil cleric. But, more importantly, he has surrendered to you, and deserves to be treated with all of the respect due a high-status prisoner. His minions are unimportant (if you're the only person of status in the party, the other PCs are unimportant too); goblins are replaceable, but he is important, and should be treated as such. If you can't keep him alive for ransom, then you have to let him go. Otherwise you'll get a reputation for killing your prisoners, and that shames you. More practically, if you later get captured, you'll likely be treated according to your reputation; same if your noncombatant family members find themselves captured. You want a reputation for humane conduct toward prisoners. If this means letting him go this time, then so be it.

Besides, you never caught him doing any evil. If you let him go, you can catch him doing something, and then fight him honorably.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-16, 01:44 PM
Bugbears are reputed to be evil... It is the BUGBEAR's responsibility to prove that it is NOT evil and is in fact ACTIVELY trying to be a good being. Insane or not, the elf and anyone else can assume the bugbear is evil and thus justify their cause for attacking it.

The problem isn't so much that it was evil to do so but more about being a loose cannon. As soon as anyone attacks, that's pretty much it. Negotiations are over, it will end in somebody's death. Then its just a question of who side you join. Remaining neutral just pisses off everyone.

After the battle, and everyone is safe back at town, that is when you resolve the loose cannon problem. Pull that character aside and let them know that you don't approve and than they endangered the group. As such you can't allow them to stay with the team. Either get anger management sessions or they are out.

There seems to be some unspoken rule that you can be a total [pick your own expletive] and it will be ok because you're part of the party. But that just isn't how things work. In the field when lives are on the line, you stick to the party. Once you're safe, that's when you hold courts martial.

PnP Fan
2007-06-16, 02:30 PM
hmmm. . . clerics of "good" deities not exactly behaving in a "good" fashion? Yeah, never heard that one before.
I'd start asking the cleric what his religion says about slaying helpless prisoners. That puts his behaviour in the hands of the DM. Your DM should back you up at least in terms of "good things don't kill helpless prisoners". And, if your clerics either fail their Knowledge:Religion check, or decide to wilfully go against their deity, then they should start losing clerical abilities.

Good luck, and try not to make it personal between you and the players.

Brother_Franklin
2007-06-16, 03:06 PM
Sounds to me like an upity human getting a way of some elves genetic puporse: to keep the wilds clear of orks and other uglies.

Diggorian
2007-06-16, 03:46 PM
Well, right now I'm trying to defuse the situation out-of-character: give everyone a chance to explain their character's actions and make sure they all see where things are heading. I'd rather do it in character, but some out-of-character talking is better than in-character fighting.

Both in and out of character the elf cleric really has no argument to justify their actions. If she's chaotic neutral, her killing an unarmed prisoner dips into chaotic evil. CG Corellon should'nt abide evil acts from his clerics, even upon evil creatures.

Your knight has both the moral high ground out of game and the support of your class' nature to back up your actions in game.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-16, 04:24 PM
Both in and out of character the elf cleric really has no argument to justify their actions. If she's chaotic neutral, her killing an unarmed prisoner dips into chaotic evil. CG Corellon should'nt abide evil acts from his clerics, even upon evil creatures.

Every bit of that is questionable logic.
Elves don't like goblinoids and vice versa
Having a strong racist tendancy makes those actions perfectly justify the act, at least for the person with those tendancies
It's debatable as wo whether a cleric/bugbear can truly be unarmed
Killing unarmed prisoners is the standard law abiding profession of executioners
It's debatable whether the act is evil, let alone going against the nature of Corellon's faith

That being said, I don't support the elf's actions as it endangered the party.

Diggorian
2007-06-16, 04:51 PM
The elf cleric's racism explains her actions, but doesnt justify them.

What justifies legal execution is evidence that the prisoner is an ongoing threat. The bugbear hasnt done anything from Crankshaw's recounting to warrant execution. Unwarranted killing is evil. Good deities dont condone evil actions from their followers.

Atleast thats the argument I would make from the knights point of view.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-16, 05:02 PM
Notably, your probably CG clerics can maintain their powers quite adequately as CN, which can forgive an awful lot of this sort of behavior. So the only question powers-wise is whether they're grossly violating their deity's rules.

Character-wise, though, the real question is 'would your character obviously defy a partymate's ethics this way? And would they really mistreat a prisoner like this?' And the answer might be yes...it is certainly possible for the characters as described so far to be acting entirely in their natures.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-16, 05:10 PM
This isn't an IC problem, it's an OOC problem. You and the other players have different ideas about how the world works.

Sit down with the other players and your DM and say something like this (sorry if this puts words into your mouth):

"Look I want to make sure we're all on the same page here. As far as I'm concerned a D&D race is much like a real-world race. Every member is an individual, you can't make generalisations, and killing somebody because they're a member of a particular race is out-and-out evil. I'm not comfortable playing a Lawful Good character who associates with people who he believes are evil, so I'd like to check whether I'm misunderstanding something, or whether I should think about changing my character."

The GM will then hopefully respond in one of two ways. He'll either say:

"Actually, you're misinterpreting the way race works in this campaign world. Bugbears, like Sauron's Orcs, are twisted creatures with an irredeemably evil nature, and they *will* kill, despoil, and destroy given the chance. Now it's okay for your character to be uncomfortable with killing helpless victims, but a basic assumption of the world is that killing a member of an evil race is always justifiable."

or he'll say

"Actually, you're right. [Elf Dude's Player], you should be aware that you'll essentially be committing an evil act. Now if that's the path you want to take your character down, I'm cool with that, but it's going to cause friction in the group, and we're going to have to deal with that."

If you're unlucky he'll just say "hey, what's up man. He's just playing his character. That's why it's called a role-playing game. Duh."

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-16, 05:13 PM
The elf cleric's racism explains her actions, but doesnt justify them.

What justifies legal execution is evidence that the prisoner is an ongoing threat. The bugbear hasnt done anything from Crankshaw's recounting to warrant execution. Unwarranted killing is evil. Good deities dont condone evil actions from their followers.

Atleast thats the argument I would make from the knights point of view.

The problem is that it's not necessarily "racism." It's possible that, within the confines of game-reality, Bugbears are all evil creatures that delight in slaughter and bloodshed, and that letting this creature live *will* doom innocents to death.

Diggorian
2007-06-16, 05:50 PM
I agree with your post before the last, Dan. That's the type of argument I'd make.

Crankshaw's DM doesnt seem to running bugbears that way though.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-16, 05:54 PM
I agree with your post before the last, Dan. That's the type of argument I'd make.

Crankshaw's DM doesnt seem to running bugbears that way though.

It's difficult to tell. The OP does carry the implication that the Bugbear *is* "evil"


So I try to compromise: we know he's not a good guy, so we probably shouldn't trust him.

Plus the DM didn't seem to object to the elf going all psycho, so it's probably worth clearing something up.

Setra
2007-06-16, 06:26 PM
Declare them evil.

Then smite!

Just kidding.

Seriously though, I agree with whomever brought up the idea of confronting the cleric(s?) about his(their?) religion, and its dealings with helpless captives.

Nebnezz
2007-06-16, 07:06 PM
The way i see it you have two major hurtles, your own promise of non-violence, and keeping the bugbear with you. You can't really guarentee his future behavior will be as nice and non-evil as he is right now in your "care" and any promise he makes to not be a baddy will, predictably, be cancerous lies. He has co-opporated so far, so questioning him has been plenty lawful ("dont attack me and i wont kill you" sounds like a good deal to me!) But what to do with him now is another matter. He is obviously evil, For all you know Clerics of Vecna have "slaughter innocents" checked before "breakfast" on most daily planners. Letting him go will probably result in more gratuitous violence on school children, prisons wont take him, the guards would just kill him and look at you google-eyed for not doing it yourself. You most likely dont want to keep him around as he will most liely end up stabbing you in the back when the DM thinks its best to inconvenience you in the worst way. And appearantly killing someone who surrendered is against your moral code.

There is a way i see you can end the problem, keep your ethics justified, keep your promise, kill the fiend, make your friends happy, and win the hearts of million of blissfully ignorant school children everywhere.

Im hoping at least one of your many clerics is third level. If so, they should have standard, Phb 2nd lvl Spell Zone of Truth, that way you know he isnt full of Horrible, Cancerous, Deceit. And then things get a little more gray-area. The best way would be if one of your associate Wizards had 1st lvl Charm person (which works on humanoids, and seeing as goblinoid is a subclass humanoid, it should work.) Casting both of those should allow you to talk to him about just about anything he has done in the past, and make sure he's honest about it. If you dont have charm person, try regular old Diplomacy or, if you can make the ethical strech, Bluff. If under the ZOT spell, intimidate wouldnt make him tell you whatever you want to hear, but intimidating a helpless surrendered prisoner sounds mighty not-so-good-or-lawful. If these skills rest in someone else, try a good cop, bad cop routine. Let the liar or meany of the party be the bad cop and you be the good cop.

The goal here is two fold; make him confess to previous evils (talk about how you were fighting some large number of "Enemies" and were victorious over your foes, then ask your new friend, if under the spell, about his life long escapades) ---AND--- *special emphasis intented* Tell him that to remain co-opporative he must agree to never be evil or do anything evil again. You can make this as specific as you want to; never hurt little human children, never steal from the collection plate, etc. Then test it (again, thanks to the ZOT Spell) by offering a hypothetical situation, like an old, weak, helpless human carrying a bag of gold, ask the bugbear what he would do. If at any point durring the friendly chat he clams up, he is being un-coopporative and your promise of non-violence in exchange for co-opporation is fulfilled; Now you can hurt him without breaking your promise. If, like a total fool, he tells you the truth, that he would gut the old man and take his valuables, he has broken the promise to be non-evil from here on (evil intent and ability to carry out said evil would spark the preventative goodliness in your knight), and if he refused to make such a promise, same effect. Ultimately, your no longer bound to not hurt him as he is openly defying you. The part about his past was to justify an execution.

If in the unlikely event that under both spells he actually promises to be good and means it, as well as having no overt and willful evil in his past, you may have another Drizzt Do'Urden on your hands (albeit a severely underpowered and unintellegent one). At that point raising arms against your allys in his favor would be almost manditory in most knightly lawful codes of honor.

The only reason to do this instead of simply saying that he has to co-opporate or die, deciding that his participation in Vecna worship is evil enough to deserve death and not agreeing to be good counting as the deal breaker (this being the non-spell option) is so that your DM wont have any whacky loose ends to gut you with, testing the limits of your patience/sanity as well as your leadership/problem solving skills. This also serves as proof that you, the LG knight, did what you could do, within reason, to stop evil, uphold good and righteousness, punish evildoers, never break your promises, protect defenseless school children, and even attempt to convert (well...sorta) a Cleric of an evil deity. Its not your fault evil will be evil, and its not your job to endanger your group and the general public by not smiting evil where ever it may be found.

Sorry this is so long, i know i suck at being concise.

Nebnezz
2007-06-16, 07:13 PM
Oops, almost forgot. The only other issue i see is your own teammate, the guy who shot the bugbear in the first place. This was his misstep, he shouldnt have done it, and when crap like this happens, some sort of leader-like arbitration needs to take place. Maybe he could forfit some treasure (not all, else he would just attack you now, or leave, or turn your friends against you or something) As this is an obviously emotional issue, i would handle it with care, as people are fully capable of being good people and having some kind of sever hang up that makes them act like that elf did. I agree with Diggorian, it explains but does not justify. As a lawful character, if for nothing else, you made the decision not to attack, and the elf did. Your the leader, elf should listen. If they want a new leader proceed from there, but a member of the party that flouts leadership is a hazard no matter who leads, and no matter the reasons they find to justify their actions. Sounds like something the whole group can agree to.

Diggorian
2007-06-16, 07:16 PM
It's difficult to tell. The OP does carry the implication that the Bugbear *is* "evil"

True.

The knight could question the bugbear. If the bugbear admits he serves Vecna and would do evil things, the knight can conscientiously revoke his protection and allow the prisoner to be executed.

I see nothing in the knight's code that prevents this.

Querzis
2007-06-16, 07:18 PM
All the people from all race can be good or evil, bugbear included. The only things that are inherently evil are fiends and undead but even thats not always true in all fantasy settings.

Anyway, your friends (and especially the elf) are definitly the bad guys on that one. Even if he is evil, someone attacking an evil guy that isnt a threat to anyone is definitly at the very least neutral. Now your CN elf probably doesnt have a problem with that but you should definitly just ask the other cleric how his god would react to how he is acting right now. As someone already said, praise the good act they did before and explain to them how doing this is definitly not good and that they are worth better then this. «You are worth better then this» work 90% of the time with a good guys who is currently trying to do something evil.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-16, 07:33 PM
Right off, there's this:

I promise neither I nor my companions will harm him as long as he cooperates, and no one (conscious) objects.
Except under the most evil-lawyerish distortion of this agreement, there's no way this allows turning around and butchering him for not converting to your philosophy...

But also, there seems to be some confusion about the idea of surrender. The standard concept is not "now you do what we want, and maybe we'll decide not to gut you for the fun of it" (well, a bad unconditional surrender maybe). More of a "you don't cause us any more trouble (in certain ways) and we let you go/maintain you as a prisoner/[sell you into slavery] without harming you". It's a two-way thing, and while there's no way for the surrendered to force the other party to do their part, neither side, in honor, can just declare the agreement void.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-16, 08:04 PM
Oh the Paladin is rightly and totally hoisted by his own petard for making that deal. It amounts to betraying the elf. So either the paladin goes or the elf goes, the party cannot stay whole after that deal. Add in the desire to keep the treasure, and the rest of the party is going to side with the elf.

Whether or not the elf was right with what she did is not the point. Siding AGAINST the party is where the paladin went wrong.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-16, 08:14 PM
Note, from OP, this is not actually a paladin in question.

I don't see anything wrong with 'betraying the elf'. Party members can have interests the rest of the party doesn't share...in this case, killing all goblinoids in sight. If you feel the need to back them to the hilt every time, have fun when one of them tries to assassinate the king or something...

Also, if principles only count when they don't conflict with any of your allies interests, you probably shouldn't be thinking about Lawful alignments. Or Good ones.

Neon Knight
2007-06-16, 08:24 PM
Note, from OP, this is not actually a paladin in question.

I don't see anything wrong with 'betraying the elf'. Party members can have interests the rest of the party doesn't share...in this case, killing all goblinoids in sight. If you feel the need to back them to the hilt every time, have fun when one of them tries to assassinate the king or something...

Also, if principles only count when they don't conflict with any of your allies interests, you probably shouldn't be thinking about Lawful alignments. Or Good ones.

Basically said everything I wanted to but couldn't find the words for. Well put.

Nebnezz
2007-06-16, 09:12 PM
While i, too, blame the elf for starting this little fiasco, The dwarf knight is appearantly being looked to to end it. er...well...sorta. With all his cohorts planning and plotting behind his back, i cant say they see him as much of a leader here. But this is where we run into that little promise he made, to which i would say is always a bad idea for a lawful good character to make. Promises for a lawful good character will put you in a situation you wont like, just wait and it will go sour. Especially with the DM's i play with.

Tell you what. If that elf wants to start some crap and take it on himself to ignore leadership and endanger the whole party with stupidity and possibly a little unmitigated hatred, let this elf take on the bugbear all by his lonesome. If he wins, dead bugbear = safer world + happy elf. If he loses, well, he brought it on his own head.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-16, 09:23 PM
Ahah! I have the solution. The lawful good knight disowns the party and leaves. Neither HE nor his (current) companions (of which he has none) will harm the bugbear.

Neon Knight
2007-06-16, 09:25 PM
That does not seem to be a good resolution, seeing as how it would split the party. I was under the impression he wanted to stay with the party.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-16, 09:42 PM
Oh that party is already split. There are irreconcilable differences between the LG knight and the C(N?) elf with severe racism... someone has to go.

Maybe later, back at the tavern they can work through their issues. But its a question of honour for the knight.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-16, 09:44 PM
Staying with the party, and coming to some sort of resolution, is definitely one of my goals here. So I proposed a solution which it currently looks like my companions are ready to accept: the elf wizard/duskblade returns the augment crystal. The knight claims it as his share of the treasure, so that we deduct it from his part of the total when we do the formal split later. He gives the crystal to the bugbear as some small recompense for the party's actions, and the bugbear goes free. Bottom line is that everyone gets the same share he'd get as though we'd stripped the bugbear of everything, except for the knight, but he's as happy as he's going to get in this situation.

The crazy elf is still unconscious, so she doesn't get a say in this deal. Remember: we're out of spells, and the potion we stole wasn't enough to get her above -1. She'll be spitting mad once she wakes up, but we'll deal with it when we get there.

(Although I like the zone of truth idea--it had potential, although there were some flaws--only the crazy elf has enough levels of cleric to cast it, and we can't wake her up quickly and if we could we'd probably still have to fight her to keep her from killing the bugbear.)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-17, 03:30 AM
All the people from all race can be good or evil, bugbear included. The only things that are inherently evil are fiends and undead but even thats not always true in all fantasy settings.

Neither of those statements are true in all fantasy settings. Tolkein's Orcs, for example, are genuinely, one hundred percent irredeemable evil. They're like the Reavers from Firefly: bloodthirsty killing machines, tormented and suffering and driven mad to the point at which they lash out at the world.

Querzis
2007-06-17, 03:55 AM
Neither of those statements are true in all fantasy settings. Tolkein's Orcs, for example, are genuinely, one hundred percent irredeemable evil. They're like the Reavers from Firefly: bloodthirsty killing machines, tormented and suffering and driven mad to the point at which they lash out at the world.

You do realize I was talking about D&D right? Sorry but no race are inherently evil in D&D except fiends and undead (and even thats a grey area since there is nothing preventing some undead with will to become at least neutral). I personnaly heard about lots of good demons or devils in many fantasy settings but whatever you say. And about Tolkien orc, maybe, I just watched the movies, but I know at least that they are tortured elf and saying that all those elves who were tortured became inherently evil sounds pretty diminutive, after all since orcs are tortured elves, that means any creatures totured like orcs would become evil. But maybe thats really how Tolkien wrote it, dunno and dont really care. In D&D bugbears are still not inherently evil just as all the races except fiends and undead (does they even count as race anyway?).

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-17, 04:13 AM
You do realize I was talking about D&D right?

Yes. And D&D is a kit game. It has different assumptions depending on who's playing it.

It makes no sense to say "no race is intrinsically evil in D&D" and at the same time to have races with the words "usually Chaotic Evil" written in their description.

Callix
2007-06-17, 04:55 AM
It makes no sense to say "no race is intrinsically evil in D&D" and at the same time to have races with the words "usually Chaotic Evil" written in their description.

Note "usually". Not "always". There is an "always" descriptor. It's used on outsiders, and a number of other creatures. Bugbears are not inherently evil. We cannot act on the assumption that any bugbear is evil and so should be slaughtered. Furthermore, not all creatures with an evil alignment are so evil that killing them on sight is a lesser evil. An innkeeper who gouges his clients and only refrains from robbing and killing because of the police is evil. But killing him is not good. He is not an active threat. This captured bugbear is an active threat to no-one. He is alone and unarmed. You have promised that he will not be harmed. The only way to guarantee this is to let him go. You must let him go. The psychotic elf needs a stern talking to, if not treatment. They are not just racist. A racist character would complain, whine and threaten. If they attack against the wishes of the leader, there should be consequences.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-17, 05:36 AM
Note "usually". Not "always". There is an "always" descriptor. It's used on outsiders, and a number of other creatures. Bugbears are not inherently evil. We cannot act on the assumption that any bugbear is evil and so should be slaughtered.

"Usually" is a cop-out. Either you have a world where creatures can be evil by nature, or you do not have a world where creatures can be evil by nature.

If the former is true, then more than fifty percent of bugbears are evil just because they are bugbears. It is an intrinsic part of their nature that they delight in hurting and killing innocent people. Even if the other fifty percent aren't like that, it's worth wiping them all out, because you can't tell them apart.

If the latter is true, then even the "non-racist" adventurers become genocidal bastards who willfully march into the homes of other races and then butcher them when they try to defend their territory.

Either you have a world where Orcs are a race with a culture and a right to exist, who are capable of co-existing peacefully with humans, in which case killing Orcs is always wrong unless they're actually invading your territory, or you live in a world in which Orcs are murderous savages who will kill and maim just because they can, in which case killing Orcs is always right. There is no middle ground here.


Furthermore, not all creatures with an evil alignment are so evil that killing them on sight is a lesser evil. An innkeeper who gouges his clients and only refrains from robbing and killing because of the police is evil. But killing him is not good. He is not an active threat. This captured bugbear is an active threat to no-one. He is alone and unarmed. You have promised that he will not be harmed. The only way to guarantee this is to let him go. You must let him go. The psychotic elf needs a stern talking to, if not treatment. They are not just racist. A racist character would complain, whine and threaten. If they attack against the wishes of the leader, there should be consequences.

Somebody who is only restrained from murder by fear of the courts is a *sociopath* and needs to be got rid of.

Kioran
2007-06-17, 06:20 AM
Oh the Paladin is rightly and totally hoisted by his own petard for making that deal. It amounts to betraying the elf. So either the paladin goes or the elf goes, the party cannot stay whole after that deal. Add in the desire to keep the treasure, and the rest of the party is going to side with the elf.

Whether or not the elf was right with what she did is not the point. Siding AGAINST the party is where the paladin went wrong.

No. Siding against a bunch of disloyal, psychotic, dealbreaking backstabing Mo*********** is not wrong. In fact, they betrayed their leader, after he made a stand. I recognize where you come from - military thinking. Presenting a unified front to the enemy so there´s no weakness to be exploited. Fact is, the elf shattered this front. Restoring it would require the leader backing up his insubordinate subordinate. That´s what you propose with "staying with the Party, there´s time for court martials afterward".

This won´t work in the long term. You might look better aginast that Bugbear, but then, your internal Leadership is seriously damaged. They now know they can get away with atrocities and actually force you to comply with them, so in a crisis, for all practical purposes, you are no longer their leader. If things turn bad, your just their scapegoat, taking the blame for their crimes.
If you have friendly ties ingame, you might accept this. Otherwise, I would(And I consider myself quite lawful with good tendencies) wager on my chances of killing one of them. The Duskblades and the Crazy Elf have betrayed you and your promises and weakened the good aspect of your party. What is the fight against evil worth if you turn evil yourself? A short but decisive bit of slaughter seems the best solution here.
This doesn´t sound to "good", I know. But consider this: Why do European Armies hang thieves in times of war?

Not because it is a great crime, but because it undermines camraderie, trust and cohesion. in Order to keep the party a force of good, you need to draw the line clearly.

Esclados
2007-06-17, 09:42 AM
Most of the party sounds like they're being greedy jerks, but...

Nevermind that he's a Usually Evil race; holy crap, it's an Evil cleric of VECNA. His portfolio includes secrets, evil, and destruction! You can't really trust a word he says and killing him right promptly strikes me as a Good Idea.

But there's that whole promise thing. I'd go with Nebnezz's ZoT interrogation solution, which offers a convenient guarantee that he'll either turn over a new leaf (uuunlikely) or die. If you explain the "die" clause to the elf immediately when she wakes up, you might get her to agree to the plan. Throw in some racist rhetoric (It's not like you like goblinoids either! You're a dwarf! You have a +1 to hit them because you hate them so much! raaah!) about having to honor surrender, but this will make sure the greater good is served.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-17, 10:05 AM
Note "usually". Not "always". There is an "always" descriptor. It's used on outsiders, and a number of other creatures. Bugbears are not inherently evil. We cannot act on the assumption that any bugbear is evil...
Yes we can. Its called presumption of Guilt. In the USA, you are presumed innocent until convicted. Once convicted you are presumed Guilty until your appeal clears you.

In this case, bugbears, by being usually chaotic evil, and clerics of Vecna, being usually evil, has caused the court of public opinion to rule against the bugbear. Thus we deem him evil until such time as he can appeal the decision. This means that, until a bugbear actively does something good and protests the accusation of being evil, and otherwise proves himself to be a good person, he's fair game for smiting.

There were mistakes made throughout the party. They shouldn't have talked with the bugbear in the first place, its going to lie and try to mislead you. The elf shouldn't have been a loose cannon. The dwarf shouldn't have made the deal. The rest of the party shouldn't be robbing their prisoner. Its a horrible mess and someone is going to be unhappy.

Jorkens
2007-06-17, 10:10 AM
In this case, bugbears, by being usually chaotic evil, and clerics of Vecna, being usually evil, has caused the court of public opinion to rule against the bugbear. Thus we deem him evil until such time as he can appeal the decision. This means that, until a bugbear actively does something good and protests the accusation of being evil, and otherwise proves himself to be a good person, he's fair game for smiting.
You are Miko and I claim my five pounds.

Rad
2007-06-17, 10:19 AM
As many pointed out already, the party is already split up, and if you somehow patch it together it will fall apart again, and again, and again, untill you form a party of somehow compatible alignments. I do not know what in game reason those characters had to stay together, but it better be good as it seems there is nothing else keeping them so.

As for party leadership, it needs to be accepted by the other players to exist. Not every group has a leader and yours seems to be one of those that lack one, since everybody is just doing whatever they want (paladin included: was the elf agreeing when you made that promise?)

I also smell the danger that you might have different playing styles, or rather that you seek different things from the game and would thus keep pulling the campaign in opposite directions and ruin it.
For some players having a LG character in the party is a real pain, as much as for others is having a CN one; it looks like you have one of each. I really advise you to talk with the other players and find if this is the case in your group; then act accordingly. Characters might be at odds, but players need to agree on what they play if they want to have fun.

If you (as players) find a common ground about what you want to play, your current characters can act accordingly. This can be change alignments, retire from the party or just stay there and have arguments all day if that is what you like to play (I was under the impression this was not what you wanted though).

Hope this helps

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-17, 10:50 AM
It looks like you all are taking it more personally than I did, and I was furious at first. I've calmed down a bit since then.

For the record, I don't think any of the savage races are inherently evil in this campaign. Inherently evil would mean that even if you adopted them as infants and raised them in the best of conditions, they would still, just about all the time, turn out evil. Instead, 'usually' refers to the dominant culture of the race, not to the genetics. So, it's more of a nurture thing than a nature thing. At least that's my understanding of what the DM's said.

I am, however, having serious doubts about the compatibility of this party. The adventure is almost over, and when it ends, I'll have to see whether I can continue on to the next one, at least with this character.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-17, 11:09 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with the 'maybe leave' idea. After you divide up the treasure, ask all the party to come back the next day (same session, but at the end of the session). Then express your concerns about adventuring with them. In character, tell them that you don't want to leave them in a lurch and you'll be spending some time finding a replacement, and maybe some of them may want to do the same thing (or go to an anger management group). Then everyone return after one week (the next session) with resumes for applicants (new character sheets, maybe more than one). Spend the session conducting interviews. That's a very Lawful thing to do and good in so much as you're trying to be loyal to the group.

As an added benefit, it provides easy access logical replacements if one of the characters dies.

Murongo
2007-06-17, 11:21 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with the 'maybe leave' idea. After you divide up the treasure, ask all the party to come back the next day (same session, but at the end of the session). Then express your concerns about adventuring with them. In character, tell them that you don't want to leave them in a lurch and you'll be spending some time finding a replacement, and maybe some of them may want to do the same thing (or go to an anger management group). Then everyone return after one week (the next session) with resumes for applicants (new character sheets, maybe more than one). Spend the session conducting interviews. That's a very Lawful thing to do and good in so much as you're trying to be loyal to the group.

As an added benefit, it provides easy access logical replacements if one of the characters dies.

I agree with that course of action entirely given the circumstances.

Yogi
2007-06-17, 12:08 PM
There's no reason to think that "Usually *Insert Alignment*" means that the alignment is inherent in their genetic makeup. It could very well be from the culture they're from. What if it was a human who was from a country that is known to be evil. Would he be fair game to be slaughtered, despite the fact that there is no evidence he has done anything evil at all?

Neon Knight
2007-06-17, 12:16 PM
I don't think you should just throw in the towel and claim you can't work with this group. I'm willing to bet you could work something out with them. Don't think that just because the characters have a slight conflict of interest here that the entire journey together will be paved with inter party bickering.

Even if it is, inter party conflict isn't as bad as it is made out to be. I've played games were the entire focus is inter party conflict. It can actually be quite enjoyable. Not every party is going to be the best friends forever club.

The players and DM you are with seem quite reasonable. I'm sure you could work something out. Bring up your concerns, and see if they are willing to compromise a bit. After all, they're the chaotic ones. Compromise is their game.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-17, 12:16 PM
That depends... is there a war going on? Ref. Japanese during the WWII invasion, concentration camps, etc.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-17, 12:18 PM
Just a quick note: this is a PbP game, so there're no sessions, and no real downtime.

That said, I've floated the Zone of Truth idea, with the following caveats:

1. Dwarf Knight and Crazy Elf must reach an agreement on what constitutes sufficient reason to let the bugbear go vs. killing him. The Dwarf Knight can only allow killing him if the bugbear breached the deal of the original surrender, which included truthfully answering the party's questions and not interfering with the party's mission. It'll be a stretch finding terms in which Crazy Elf will allow him to go.

2. Even if it's reached, there'll be some in between ground, where neither Dwarf's nor Elf's conditions are satisfied. It may be that the bugbear has committed many hideous crimes and will do so again in the future. This will not violate the terms of surrender, but it will mean that letting him go loose is as much a crime as a summary execution. In this case, the bugbear is escorted to the nearest town (half a day's march away) in order to stand trial. Thus, the dwarf has kept his part of the deal (which never included letting him go free), without letting loose a terrible evil on the world.

We'll see whether this works.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-17, 12:21 PM
The players and DM you are with seem quite reasonable. I'm sure you could work something out. Bring up your concerns, and see if they are willing to compromise a bit. After all, they're the chaotic ones. Compromise is their game.

That's kinda the point of the after session meeting and the interview session. I'm not saying that you have to agree with everything, but THIS is a very big rift between two (or more) ideals. It amounts to saying, "Look I'm not going to take this kind of behaviour from you any more. And if it means one of us leaving, then so be it." Then back up your words with some alternate characters.

Yogi
2007-06-17, 12:24 PM
That depends... is there a war going on? Ref. Japanese during the WWII invasion, concentration camps, etc.You know what? Say there IS a war going on. Say you're fighting against Nazi Germany, a very Lawful Evil country. You're rolling through France, and stumble upon a German civilian who is on the side of the road trying to fix his car. Justification for blowing him away?

Citizen Joe
2007-06-17, 12:42 PM
You know what? Say there IS a war going on. Say you're fighting against Nazi Germany, a very Lawful Evil country. You're rolling through France, and stumble upon a German civilian who is on the side of the road trying to fix his car. Justification for blowing him away?


He's a spy? Is it OCCUPIED France? If yes, toast him. Its him or your whole squad gets compromised. The actual problem is you can't recognize him as german without some interaction so it really depends on what he does when he sees you.

EDIT:
Actually, many soldiers had these sorts of morality problems. Some had to just consider the enemy as uniforms and not the people inside them. And vehicles or buildings rather than the people inside. War is hell. Especially when you're behind enemy lines.

Diggorian
2007-06-17, 02:40 PM
Wow. I go to sleep and all this jumps off. :smallamused:

Cranshaw, your last post illustrates a plan that makes the best of your bad situation IMHO.

Got a link to this PbP game? I'd like to see how this came about in detail.

Rad
2007-06-17, 05:07 PM
Even if it is, inter party conflict isn't as bad as it is made out to be. I've played games were the entire focus is inter party conflict. It can actually be quite enjoyable. Not every party is going to be the best friends forever club.

This is true... but only when you seek it. Some like it and some don't. D&D has much to offer to both, but not if they want to do it together.
There is no right way to play DnD, but a group should pick one.

Bassetking
2007-06-17, 06:07 PM
Sounds to me like an upity human getting a way of some elves genetic puporse: to keep the wilds clear of orks and other uglies.

Oh, there will be a day of reckoning for you, Pointy Ears.

A totalling of sums and a snapping of necks, and on that day?

You will count yourself among the damned.

Orc Pride!

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-18, 07:10 AM
There's no reason to think that "Usually *Insert Alignment*" means that the alignment is inherent in their genetic makeup. It could very well be from the culture they're from.

What culture do Red Dragons come from? or Chaotic Evil deities? The "culture" argument just plain makes no sense.


What if it was a human who was from a country that is known to be evil. Would he be fair game to be slaughtered, despite the fact that there is no evidence he has done anything evil at all?

It depends, what do you mean by "a country known to be evil"?

Citizen Joe
2007-06-18, 07:14 AM
Let's ignore for the moment that someone may not be evil. Instead, lets assume they ARE evil. What right do adventurers have to break into the evil guy's home and kill him?

Yogi
2007-06-18, 07:23 AM
What culture do Red Dragons come from? or Chaotic Evil deities? The "culture" argument just plain makes no sense.Chaotic Evil deities are ALWAYS Chaotic Evil, not USUALLY Chaotic Evil. Bugbears are USUALLY evil.

It depends, what do you mean by "a country known to be evil"?Exactly that, a country where a majority of its inhabitants are evil.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-18, 09:01 AM
Chaotic Evil deities are ALWAYS Chaotic Evil, not USUALLY Chaotic Evil. Bugbears are USUALLY evil.

But what about dragons?


Exactly that, a country where a majority of its inhabitants are evil.

Then yes, if you have a country where the majority of its inhabitants would kill you as soon as look at you, when when you meet somebody from that country, you're better off killing them first, before they get the chance.

I_Got_This_Name
2007-06-18, 11:32 AM
But what about dragons?

Then yes, if you have a country where the majority of its inhabitants would kill you as soon as look at you, when when you meet somebody from that country, you're better off killing them first, before they get the chance.

Dragons have the Always tag on their alignments. The Always tag means its genetic; anything else means its cultural.

As for the country, "evil" does not mean kill-on-sight. There are degrees of evil; the corrupt merchant who gouges both ends only because it's safer than banditry is evil, as mentioned above in a slightly different example, as is the local loan shark (most likely), a playground bully, and so on. A country of majority-evil will not necessarily kill you the moment you walk over the boarder, and, in a vast majority of cases, they aren't immediate threats; harming them unprovoked is a greater evil than letting them go.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-18, 12:39 PM
Dragons have the Always tag on their alignments. The Always tag means its genetic; anything else means its cultural.

I'm really sorry to play this card but: can you point me at anything in the rules as written which actually says that? Certainly I don't remember seeing the word "genetic" anywhere in the rulebook.

The point, however, is academic, since this is a creature they met in the wilderness, not something they raised from a child. Nature versus nurture isn't the issue here.


As for the country, "evil" does not mean kill-on-sight. There are degrees of evil; the corrupt merchant who gouges both ends only because it's safer than banditry is evil, as mentioned above in a slightly different example, as is the local loan shark (most likely), a playground bully, and so on. A country of majority-evil will not necessarily kill you the moment you walk over the boarder, and, in a vast majority of cases, they aren't immediate threats; harming them unprovoked is a greater evil than letting them go.

I hate doing this as well.


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

That's what Evil creatures are like in D&D. Note that the word "kill" appears three times in three sentences.

You're quite right that there are levels of evil in D&D. The bottom level is creatures who "simply have no compassion for others, and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient" while the top level is "actively pursuing evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

A merchant who gouges both ends because it's safer than banditr|"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

"Evil" does not mean "*******", it does not mean "enemy" it means really, seriously evil. In the real world, almost *nobody* has the level of contempt for the lives of others which a D&D Evil person does.

Back with the bugbear. Bugbears are "usually chaotic evil." That means that whenever you meet a bugbear, there is a better than fifty percent chance that he:

"...does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse."

I don't care that bugbears are only "usually" chaotic evil and not "always". People who are convicted of murder in a court of law are only "usually" murderers. Somebody who has a better than fifty percent chance of killing you for the fun of it does not get the benefit of the doubt.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-18, 01:13 PM
Back with the bugbear. Bugbears are "usually chaotic evil." That means that whenever you meet a bugbear, there is a better than fifty percent chance that he:

"...does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse."
Well, in a vacuum there would be, maybe. In practice, the evidence strongly suggests that while very likely (or even mechanically certainly) Evil, the bugbear is hardly acting anything like that. Just about everything the Bugbear has done is contrary to that description.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-18, 01:29 PM
Well, in a vacuum there would be, maybe. In practice, the evidence strongly suggests that while very likely (or even mechanically certainly) Evil, the bugbear is hardly acting anything like that. Just about everything the Bugbear has done is contrary to that description.

Contrary only in the sense that it has, for the ten minutes that it has been on screen, refrained from murdering anybody.

By this logic, Good-Aligned characters should just duck out of adventuring altogether. If you're going to respect the rights of evil creatures to go about their evil lives of slaughter and mayhem, you're not going to be able to do that much questing.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-18, 01:52 PM
Only in the sense that he's been more rational, cooperative, and generally well-meaning than the party members, despite extreme provocation. Someone actually meeting the description of Chaotic Evil you ran would surely have flipped out somewhere around the 'stripping him of his possessions just because we can' stage...

No one seems to have suggested Evil creatures have the right to cause slaughter and mayhem. The right to exist, when they haven't done anything you can point to, is another matter. And the right to have promises to them by Lawful characters kept, if they keep their own side. If they had decided to begin with to kill the Bugbear rather than deal with it, that would be one thing. Dealing with it and then backing out, and claiming 'deals with evil don't count', is grossly Chaotic.

Laying into a Bugbear cleric of Vecna, just for being a cleric of Vecna (or perhaps even just for being a Bugbear with a goblin warband in someone else's territory) could be acceptable behavior for a good character. After verifying that he doesn't pose a present threat to anyone, things are different.

If you assume adventuring involves assaulting orcs guarding chests in 10x10 rooms because it's an orc guarding a chest, then it really isn't a Good occupation. Of course, that isn't the only way to adventure.

Diggorian
2007-06-18, 01:58 PM
I'm really sorry to play this card but: can you point me at anything in the rules as written which actually says that? Certainly I don't remember seeing the word "genetic" anywhere in the rulebook.

Actually, MM pg 305 does indicate that the alignments of creatures qualified with 'Always' may have a hereditary predisposition towards it. :smallbiggrin:

I_Got_This_Name
2007-06-18, 02:05 PM
Alright, yes, the rules don't explicitly call out the Always tag as being genetic. (edit: except for Diggorian's quote. Thanks)

However, ~99% of dragons have a given alignment. Whatever the source is, its something either natural or supernatural that compels them to have a given alignment. The end result is the same as genetics, and genetics vs culture was the argument at hand; saying that it was genetic was simply a shorthand. The point was that dragons, and other things with the Always tag, don't need a culture to get their alignment.

The Bugbear has Usually on its alignment. This means that it is fully possible for a Bugbear to have whatever alignment it wants. Note that a significant portion of the PC races have Usually alignment tags, too; a Bugbear is no more predisposed toward being Chaotic Evil than a Gnome is to being Neutral Good.

This bugbear is evil, I'll give you that; Cleric of Vecna has a prerequisite of Alignment: any evil; otherwise Vecna doesn't let you become (or stay) a cleric. It has nothing to do with being a Bugbear. This debate shouldn't even be about whether or not it was evil, though; it surrendered and was taken under the knight's protection.

Now, as for the degrees of evil: Yes, evil implies "hurting, oppressing, or killing others," and the two sentences after that both focus on the last of the three. However, the former two are still important; one can hurt others without the application of the least bit of violence. If you're interpreting the alignment definitions as requiring bloodshed for evil, then, yes, killing something for showing up as evil is justified. I've never seen an alignment debate for that sort of game (admittedly anecdotal evidence), though; since this game has produced one, I can say that it probably isn't being played that way.

Here, let me introduce a character for the sake of example. This is Bob. He does what he wants, and will take what he wants, even pulling it out of its rightful owner's hands, even if it necessitates violence. He will catch and torture anything he can get his hands on, and delights in pulling limbs off those smaller than him. He will attack those who try to take anything that is rightfully his out of anger and hatred. Once he starts an attack, he will not stop even if it means tearing into his enemy with his teeth. The only comfort those whom he overpowers can take is that he doesn't plan well and is easily distracted (except when enraged), and that, while he occasionally has some others like him working with him, they last only until they get what they want (and start fighting), or two of them decide that they both want to be leader.

Got a good mental picture? Good. I think I've touched upon everything in the alignment description of Chaotic Evil, except for those dedicated to the spread of evil (which isn't a requirement anyway). Click the spoiler for my idea of him:
Bob is five. He torments animals and pulls the wings off flies, pulls toys out of the other kids' hands, pushes the other kids around, bites, and shouts "I hate you!" at his parents (and, at the moment he says it, means it) when they take away his toys. I'll grant that Bob isn't evil now, because five-year-olds can't contemplate the morality of an act; if he continued to act this way into adulthood, though, he'd be evil.

An evil alignment, as defined in the rules has no required murder, and does not require that it be ready to kill you the moment you let your guard down. The definition may place the most emphasis on killing, but that isn't the only part.

Now, as for this particular bugbear:
We know it's evil, because it's a cleric of Vecna. Its alignment does not matter, though. You (OP) made a deal with it when you accepted its surrender. You are now responsible for its well-being, no matter what kind of a person it is. If you stand idly by while your teammates slaughter it, you are breaking your word just as much as if you did so yourself (if you try with your actual utmost effort and fail, you've just failed, though. Doesn't make things more likely to surrender to you in the future, though).

(edit: Ulzgoroth said everything much better than I did)

Jannex
2007-06-18, 02:07 PM
Contrary only in the sense that it has, for the ten minutes that it has been on screen, refrained from murdering anybody.

By this logic, Good-Aligned characters should just duck out of adventuring altogether. If you're going to respect the rights of evil creatures to go about their evil lives of slaughter and mayhem, you're not going to be able to do that much questing.

There is a staggeringly huge difference between "allowing evil creatures to go about their evil lives of slaughter and mayhem"--in other words, knowing for certain that a being has committed specific acts of murder and destruction, or observing him attempt to do the same, and not intervening--and simply knowing (or, in the case of the OP, strongly suspecting) that a being has a strong predisposition to disregard the rights of others and to enjoy their suffering. Alignment is a predisposition to certain thought patterns and behaviors, NOT sufficient evidence to support an execution.

A person who is diagnosed as a sociopath (disclaimer: I don't have a psychology text in front of me, so I'm approximating) does not consider the feelings, rights, or lives of other people to have value. He doesn't care about anything but his own enjoyment and freedom from unpleasant consequences. However, if you find out that a person is a sociopath, you don't have the right to kill him. Knowing his predispositions does not give you any knowledge of his past actions. You don't know that he's killed anyone. You don't even know that he's been exceptionally rude to anyone. His fear of punishment may have kept his antisocial tendencies in check. Killing him, without more information, would be Evil (in D&D terms).

This is precisely the case described in the OP. The PCs have reason to suspect that the bugbear is predisposed toward Evil acts, but they have no evidence that he has actually committed any. Killing him for what he might do or what he might have done would be an alignment-imperilling act in any game I DMed.


I don't care that bugbears are only "usually" chaotic evil and not "always". People who are convicted of murder in a court of law are only "usually" murderers. Somebody who has a better than fifty percent chance of killing you for the fun of it does not get the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe it's because I enjoy playing the "exception to the rule" (my last D&D character was a Neutral Good minotaur), but that kind of logic wouldn't fly in any game I ran. There's a huge difference between "not dropping your guard around someone" because they're a member of a Usually Chaotic Evil race, and "killing them on sight" for the same reason. The first is just plain good sense; the second is tending toward Evil yourself.

Kioran
2007-06-18, 02:41 PM
Anyone, unless proven guilty, should be awarded the benefit off the doubt as long as he is not threatening you. Self defense against a likely thread is very different from Inquisition slaying the Infidels

Let me recount: The Bugbear, though very probably evil, came to parley, was set upon by a mentally unstable elf but surrendered in the ensuing fight while still able to fight and cause bloodshed. The Surrenders were accepted. After that:

- Party members robbing him

Not necessesarily evil, but at least CN + it´s breaking the Knights oath, putting your freinds at disadvantage for your own gain. Now throw in

- the Duskblade getting offered a magic item to desist from the robbery, cheating the Knight on a technicallity by letting others rob the Bugbear

That one? Overtly screwing over your allies at a vast expense to their honour and wealth? NE or CE. This, repeatedly done, is worth an alignment change and worse than anything the Bugbear has done to this point. It´s also undermining the party leader. I would have, at that point, in Character, threatened the Duskblade with death and would have pulled it through if called on the Bluff.

- conspiring to kill the helpless prisoner

That does it. Were I a human I´d have slaughtered the ringleader and beaten the rest of the Party senseless. Good cannot claim to be good if it does not hold itself to the same standards as the Evil side. Seriously, this kind of casual Evil(that´s what it is) should be battled lest it sets in and transforms the Party into a force of Evil.
Same with the fugitive-princess-pursued-by-daddy story: Of course they´ll send townguards or militiamen after the group. However, armed attacks against these people who are just doing their job is not chaotic, it´s chaotic evil since it´s free of compassion and moral.
You´re not automatically good just because you´re a Character. I can´t quite see how people can condemn Miko(who was much more civilized and restrained) but condone this. Honestly, the compromise the Knight found at high personal cost is likely poisonous. Make sure the others understand that there will be no repetition of this. Make it clear you won´t tolerate this.

And make an example of the next one stepping over the line with a broad grin. Paladins and knights have the right to battle Evil because they bring justice. Justice applies to their own as well.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-18, 03:16 PM
A person who is diagnosed as a sociopath (disclaimer: I don't have a psychology text in front of me, so I'm approximating) does not consider the feelings, rights, or lives of other people to have value. He doesn't care about anything but his own enjoyment and freedom from unpleasant consequences. However, if you find out that a person is a sociopath, you don't have the right to kill him. Knowing his predispositions does not give you any knowledge of his past actions. You don't know that he's killed anyone. You don't even know that he's been exceptionally rude to anyone. His fear of punishment may have kept his antisocial tendencies in check. Killing him, without more information, would be Evil (in D&D terms).


In the real world, the mere fact that somebody is a sociopath does not give you the right to kill them.

In the real world, the mere fact that somebody is attacking you with deadly force does not give you the right to kill them.

D&D works differently. D&D characters kill constantly. They live in a world where the expected reaction to a threat is to kill whatever's causing it. Evil Overlord threatening the land? Send some people to kill him.

Ogres kidnapped your daughter? Send some adventurers to kill them.

Orcs trying to take back the land your people stole from them? Send some adventurers to kill them.

Just because an encounter didn't begin with the words "roll initiative" that doesn't mean that killing your interlocutor before they can do further evil in the world is not *absolutely* the right thing to do.

Jannex
2007-06-18, 05:25 PM
In the real world, the mere fact that somebody is a sociopath does not give you the right to kill them.

In the real world, the mere fact that somebody is attacking you with deadly force does not give you the right to kill them.

D&D works differently. D&D characters kill constantly. They live in a world where the expected reaction to a threat is to kill whatever's causing it. Evil Overlord threatening the land? Send some people to kill him.

Ogres kidnapped your daughter? Send some adventurers to kill them.

Orcs trying to take back the land your people stole from them? Send some adventurers to kill them.

Just because an encounter didn't begin with the words "roll initiative" that doesn't mean that killing your interlocutor before they can do further evil in the world is not *absolutely* the right thing to do.

It doesn't mean it is the right thing to do, either.

You're talking about a very different sort of game than I, the OP, and several others here, are. Meeting every obstacle and aversary that you encounter in the game with deadly force, without any risk of alignment shift toward Evil, is certainly one way to play D&D, and if you have fun playing that way, more power to you. But it's not the only way the game can be played, nor is it the only way supported by the source material or the genre.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-18, 08:07 PM
Well, the Crazy Elf's player and I have reached an accord. With that settled, I think the other PCs will play along. This is largely due to the advice I've received here, and an indication from the Crazy Elf's player that there might be some possibility of her not trying to kill the bugbear on sight if we can set things up just right. Oh, and I remembered that we'd found an old prison cell a little while back.

Mainly, I was thinking about the debate here, and what you do during a war. That led to the idea of treating the bugbear as a POW. Now, not really bothering to look up the specific provisions of the Geneva conventions, but just thinking over the general rules of behavior they're supposed to codify, I arrive at the following:

1. A surrendered prisoner is confined and all his property is confiscated for the duration of the conflict, but he is treated with respect and provided all necessities.

a. However, if a prisoner violates the terms of his surrender, he is dealt with appropriately.

2. At the end of the conflict, the prisoner is released and his property is restored (this is actually a little bit flexible, as some property can be confiscated and not restored).

a. However, if the prisoner is guilty of war crimes (not just being on the other side, but of actually violating the rules of war), he can be punished, but only after receiving a fair trial.

So, consider the bugbear a POW. He may not be guilty of actual crimes, but he is arguably on the other side. Since we can't really trust him, it makes sense to imprison him for the duration of the conflict. The conflict in this example is the adventure, which is pretty close to the end: I reckon three or four days (game time--likely to be a few weeks in real time) until we finish up. At the end of the conflict, we release him and return as much of his property as the knight can wrangle from the other PCs, on two conditions: the bugbear keeps the terms of his surrender (cooperation and truthfully answering our questions), and no evidence has turned up indicating that the bugbear should be tried on war crime charges. Okay, we're not technically talking war crimes, but evidence of truly evil actions (defined narrowly by the knight as sufficient harm to innocents so as to warrant execution, since if we define it too broadly, it kind of rigs things), as opposed to evil inclinations. If there is sufficient evidence of such crimes, we will find someone who can give him a fair trial.

The knight keeps his word (no harm to the bugbear by him or his companions) and ensures justice is served (you could argue that turning the bugbear over to legitimate authorities is 'harm,' but I actually think that's stretching it).

The Crazy Elf is presented this as a done deal, and although she isn't happy, the knight explains to her that if she's so certain that the bugbear deserves death, then all she has to do is find evidence of such and we'll see that he is tried. But as it's going to be a fair trial, she needs to make sure it's good evidence. This gives her less reason to complain and some motivation to do some careful investigation.

The other players go along, because the main conflict of interest is resolved. The duskblade returns the crystal, and in return, the knight pretends the duskblade didn't understand the deal she violated. (I thought it was pretty clear, but it's just possible the player really didn't. Just... the player has yet to try to explain that action.)

So thanks for your help. Hopefully we can get on with things now.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-19, 03:01 AM
It doesn't mean it is the right thing to do, either.

You're talking about a very different sort of game than I, the OP, and several others here, are. Meeting every obstacle and aversary that you encounter in the game with deadly force, without any risk of alignment shift toward Evil, is certainly one way to play D&D, and if you have fun playing that way, more power to you. But it's not the only way the game can be played, nor is it the only way supported by the source material or the genre.

I don't think I'm talking about *that* different a sort of game, actually.

The problem with this kind of situation, frequently, is that the GM switches horses halfway through.

I could be completely off base on this, but my guess is that in the games you and the OP are talking about, you use deadly force in response to roughly ninety percent of situations. Hell, in by-the-book D&D you're supposed to use deadly force four times a day. It is entirely disingenuous to then stand up and say "but killing should always be the last resort."

Diggorian
2007-06-19, 03:56 AM
Crankshaw, glad you got this problem handled without elficide. :smallbiggrin: You're playing your knight to the hilt, kudos. Good gaming.


I could be completely off base on this, but my guess is that in the games you and the OP are talking about, you use deadly force in response to roughly ninety percent of situations. Hell, in by-the-book D&D you're supposed to use deadly force four times a day. It is entirely disingenuous to then stand up and say "but killing should always be the last resort."

Actually Crankshaw (OP) mentioned that his DM does alot of moral ambiguity and many encounters are dealt with parley first.

Playing D&D as Good vs Evil, with each being respective teams in the eternal fight is very common to many games. Either side can be justified in whatever action weakens the other. Smite first, ponder esoterics later. This is fun for many, including myself on occasion, and is therefore achieving the ultimate goal of RPGs.

Another way is heroic fantasy, my preference, where the protagonists spread good by action and example. Neutrals, CN, and LN maybe anti-heroes, but goods have a moral high ground to maintain in this style:


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

Offering surrender is a free action that heroes would give that costs so little. Excepting surrender costs rope to bind prisoners and time to interrogate, which may yield helpful intel for future encounters. That evil foes likely wouldn't grant you same just reinforces the nobility of your acts.

The same XP is doled out for defeating an encounter if survivors are left and captives arrested. Experience per kill went out a while ago, although many still play this way.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-19, 04:06 AM
Actually Crankshaw (OP) mentioned that his DM does alot of moral ambiguity and many encounters are dealt with parley first.

But that's still not the same as running a game in which violence is always the last resort.


Playing D&D as Good vs Evil, with each being respective teams in the eternal fight is very common to many games. Either side can be justified in whatever action weakens the other. Smite first, ponder esoterics later. This is fun for many, including myself on occasion, and is therefore achieving the ultimate goal of RPGs.

Another way is heroic fantasy, my preference, where the protagonists spread good by action and example. Neutrals, CN, and LN maybe anti-heroes, but goods have a moral high ground to maintain in this style:

Umm... so your version of heroic fantasy is a world where people go around performing charitable works?


Offering surrender is a free action that heroes would give that costs so little. Excepting surrender costs rope to bind prisoners and time to interrogate, which may yield helpful intel for future encounters. That evil foes likely wouldn't grant you same just reinforces the nobility of your acts.

Accepting surrender involves having a long term way of dealing with the prisoners. Adventurers don't have that.


The same XP is doled out for defeating an encounter if survivors are left and captives arrested. Experience per kill went out a while ago, although many still play this way.

But in the majority of D&D games, combat is the assumption. It's hard wired into the game system. That's why everybody gets an increase in BAB.

If you expect people to avoid killing, you have to expect them to avoid killing *all the time*, not just when the NPCs have a name.

Jannex
2007-06-19, 03:19 PM
I don't think I'm talking about *that* different a sort of game, actually.

The problem with this kind of situation, frequently, is that the GM switches horses halfway through.

I could be completely off base on this, but my guess is that in the games you and the OP are talking about, you use deadly force in response to roughly ninety percent of situations. Hell, in by-the-book D&D you're supposed to use deadly force four times a day. It is entirely disingenuous to then stand up and say "but killing should always be the last resort."

You are talking about a different sort of game, in fact--at least from the way you're describing it. You're talking about the sort of game where enemies exist for the sole purpose of being messily slaughtered by the PCs in on their way to the loot.

And, you know what? In some cases, I don't think that's a problem. If the PC party is fighting hordes of mindless undead, ravening wild beasts, magical monstrosities, or fiends which are literally *made of evil*, then there's no moral problem with killing first and asking questions never. And yes, depending on the setting and plot of a game, these types of encounters will make up a majority of the combat the PCs see. However, when the enemy is a sapient being capable of free choice between good and evil, the PCs' moral responsibilities are different. Unless the style of game you're playing places a little XP tally above the head of each "monster" the PCs encounter, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the PCs to understand the difference and respond appropriately. There's certainly nothing "disingenuous" about it. Destroying a gelatinous cube simply doesn't have the same moral ramifications as killing a human rogue.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-19, 04:23 PM
You are talking about a different sort of game, in fact--at least from the way you're describing it. You're talking about the sort of game where enemies exist for the sole purpose of being messily slaughtered by the PCs in on their way to the loot.

Actually, what I'm talking about is the sort of game where enemies exist for the sole purpose of being mercilessly slaughtered by the PCs on their way to the loot seventy percent of the time, and you're expected to talk to them thirty percent of the time.


And, you know what? In some cases, I don't think that's a problem. If the PC party is fighting hordes of mindless undead, ravening wild beasts, magical monstrosities, or fiends which are literally *made of evil*, then there's no moral problem with killing first and asking questions never. And yes, depending on the setting and plot of a game, these types of encounters will make up a majority of the combat the PCs see. However, when the enemy is a sapient being capable of free choice between good and evil, the PCs' moral responsibilities are different. Unless the style of game you're playing places a little XP tally above the head of each "monster" the PCs encounter, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the PCs to understand the difference and respond appropriately. There's certainly nothing "disingenuous" about it. Destroying a gelatinous cube simply doesn't have the same moral ramifications as killing a human rogue.

So, in your games, do the PCs absolutely *always* strike for nonlethal damage when fighting sentient opponents? Or do they usually just fight as normal?

What I object to is the "Luke Skywalker" situation, where you can mow down stormtroopers and Gammoreans with impunity, but if you kill the Emperor you'll fall to the Dark Side.

I don't object to the sort of game in which you *don't* just kill things and take their stuff, where violence is a last resort, and where you think twice about hacking down sentient creatures that are objecting to your ransacking their living rooms, but in that case I'd expect a game in which combat was very, very rare.

What I don't want is to wade through fight after fight after fight, and then to get smacked because I react to the named Bugbear the same way I've reacted to the 247 unnamed bugbears.

Jannex
2007-06-19, 05:08 PM
Actually, what I'm talking about is the sort of game where enemies exist for the sole purpose of being mercilessly slaughtered by the PCs on their way to the loot seventy percent of the time, and you're expected to talk to them thirty percent of the time.

If that's the case, then we're talking about largely the same thing and there's no problem.


So, in your games, do the PCs absolutely *always* strike for nonlethal damage when fighting sentient opponents? Or do they usually just fight as normal?

What I object to is the "Luke Skywalker" situation, where you can mow down stormtroopers and Gammoreans with impunity, but if you kill the Emperor you'll fall to the Dark Side.

I don't object to the sort of game in which you *don't* just kill things and take their stuff, where violence is a last resort, and where you think twice about hacking down sentient creatures that are objecting to your ransacking their living rooms, but in that case I'd expect a game in which combat was very, very rare.

What I don't want is to wade through fight after fight after fight, and then to get smacked because I react to the named Bugbear the same way I've reacted to the 247 unnamed bugbears.

Here's the thing: I (and, from what I recall the OP saying, the OP) have no problem with the idea that "if someone tries to kill you, you try to kill 'im right back." If an enemy, sapient or otherwise, is capable of posing a real threat to your character's life and seems hell-bent on making good on that threat, and you cannot dissuade him peacefully without serious risk to yourself, you're morally-justified in responding with lethal force. That's just self-defense.

If, however, the sapient enemy isn't capable of being a genuine threat to a PC, or if the PC would be able to resolve the situation in a nonlethal manner without great risk of harm, and that PC decides to go ahead and kill the enemy anyway, then he's just killing for convenience or enjoyment, which is decidedly nonGood. As I read the OP, the elf PC started that fight. There was no imminent risk of harm evident. Hence the problem.

It's not "Luke Skywalker" syndrome. It's not because one particular bugbear has a name. And it wouldn't render combat "very, very rare" or nearly impossible in the game. It would simply mean that the PCs had to consider each situation on its own terms and determine whether lethal force was appropriate in each case. In many cases, the answer will likely be "yes." But in some cases it won't. It just requires PCs willing to consider each situation on an individual basis, and really, that isn't so hard.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-19, 05:31 PM
See, Dan, that's your game. In ours, we have never attacked first and asked questions later. In every first encounter with a sentient creature, we have started with an attempt to parlay. (Heck, my knight's been reluctant to attack the non-sentient animals without good reason.) Most of the time, they don't want to talk. Fine. They attack with lethal force, we respond with lethal force.

If we've had one run in with a particular group (for example, with a certain goblin tribe) and they attacked, then the next time we run into that tribe, we do feel free to attack. However, that only applies to that goblin tribe, not to all goblins everywhere. And should members of that goblin tribe surrender, we (generally) accept. Here's where things become a bit complicated, because the last goblin tribe had kidnapped two members of our party when we tried to stop them from slaughtering a tribe of kobolds (yes, this is the sort of thing this type of party gets itself involved in), and when we raided their lair in order to get our friends back, they forced us to retreat and ended up capturing a third whom we thought died in the fighting (one advantage of a PbP game is that it's easy to keep players in the dark about one another). But while we were recovering to make another go at it, they were committing heinous crimes against that one: that's how Crazy Elf became crazy, although she was never exactly stable.

When we returned and defeated that tribe, Crazy Elf insisted on the complete eradication of the tribe: not just combatants, but all of them. Based on her account, every adult member of the tribe shared responsibility for her treatment. Therein lay the dwarf knight's first real moral dilemma in dealing with that character (previously, she had been one of the strongest voices for mercy). Killing non-combatants is bad, but they were clearly guilty of terrible crimes. Even if they were not fighters, execution was an appropriate sentence. It was hardly the proper way to deliver justice, but as opposing Crazy Elf in this would have led to an interparty battle--with pretty much just the two lawful dwarves against the rest--and as what Crazy Elf wanted to do was just, if a very rough form of it, the knight only insisted that the children of the tribe be spared. Managing that was hard enough, as he only did it by placing himself, unarmed, between the elf and the goblin kids and say, "If you want to kill them, you'll have to kill me first."

The elf relented, and it all ended well. After the knight was able to find a home for eight goblin orphans, of course. And Crazy Elf still calls him goblin-lover.

Anyway, my point is that if you're going to play a game with players who really roleplay characters with strong moral convictions, it's going to involve difficult situations like the two I mentioned. But it's worth it.

(Interestingly, there was little to no interplayer (as opposed to interparty) conflict in the goblin children encounter. Everyone was very clear on what they wanted and did their best to find a solution that was faithful to all characters involved. In the bugbear encounter, there was more, mainly because I felt betrayed by two of the players... hopefully that's behind us now.)

EDIT: Blah, changed this like ten times fixing typos. That's it, I'm done.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-19, 05:52 PM
Here's the thing: I (and, from what I recall the OP saying, the OP) have no problem with the idea that "if someone tries to kill you, you try to kill 'im right back." If an enemy, sapient or otherwise, is capable of posing a real threat to your character's life and seems hell-bent on making good on that threat, and you cannot dissuade him peacefully without serious risk to yourself, you're morally-justified in responding with lethal force. That's just self-defense.

You see, this is the bit that rings false with me.

Killing in self defense is all well and good, but killing in self-defense *regularly* makes no sense to me.

Assuming the enemies you're fighting are a level-appropriate encounter, you should be able to defeat them using only 20% of your resources. Defeating them without the use of lethal force might consume more of your resources, but it actually doesn't pose a serious threat to your life.

It's not self-defense, it's just protecting your assets. You've got the choice of killing your attackers, or having to use more of your mid-level spell slots.


If, however, the sapient enemy isn't capable of being a genuine threat to a PC, or if the PC would be able to resolve the situation in a nonlethal manner without great risk of harm, and that PC decides to go ahead and kill the enemy anyway, then he's just killing for convenience or enjoyment, which is decidedly nonGood. As I read the OP, the elf PC started that fight. There was no imminent risk of harm evident. Hence the problem.

To a D&D character there is very little which presents a real "imminent risk of harm". Losing hit points which you can trivially restore with magic is not "harm." Somebody attacking you with a sword actually *doesn't* pose much of a threat to your wellbeing.


It's not "Luke Skywalker" syndrome. It's not because one particular bugbear has a name. And it wouldn't render combat "very, very rare" or nearly impossible in the game. It would simply mean that the PCs had to consider each situation on its own terms and determine whether lethal force was appropriate in each case. In many cases, the answer will likely be "yes." But in some cases it won't. It just requires PCs willing to consider each situation on an individual basis, and really, that isn't so hard.

That's sort of my point though, it's not about considering each situation on an individual basis, it's about most situations involving enemies who will obligingly walk onto your swords.

D&D parties go into fights expecting to win. If you're expecting to win, you can't claim self defense. That's exactly the double standard that annoys me. If you're serious about the players considering the moral implications of their actions, they shouldn't be killing *anybody*. If people attack them they should surrender, rather than risk killing somebody. Otherwise you wind up with a situation where your players are like Uncle Jimbo from south park: they can kill whoever they want as long as they shout "it's coming right for us!" before they mercilessly hack them to pieces.

Jannex
2007-06-19, 06:16 PM
You see, this is the bit that rings false with me.

Killing in self defense is all well and good, but killing in self-defense *regularly* makes no sense to me.

Assuming the enemies you're fighting are a level-appropriate encounter, you should be able to defeat them using only 20% of your resources. Defeating them without the use of lethal force might consume more of your resources, but it actually doesn't pose a serious threat to your life.

It's not self-defense, it's just protecting your assets. You've got the choice of killing your attackers, or having to use more of your mid-level spell slots.

To a D&D character there is very little which presents a real "imminent risk of harm". Losing hit points which you can trivially restore with magic is not "harm." Somebody attacking you with a sword actually *doesn't* pose much of a threat to your wellbeing.

That's sort of my point though, it's not about considering each situation on an individual basis, it's about most situations involving enemies who will obligingly walk onto your swords.

D&D parties go into fights expecting to win. If you're expecting to win, you can't claim self defense. That's exactly the double standard that annoys me. If you're serious about the players considering the moral implications of their actions, they shouldn't be killing *anybody*. If people attack them they should surrender, rather than risk killing somebody. Otherwise you wind up with a situation where your players are like Uncle Jimbo from south park: they can kill whoever they want as long as they shout "it's coming right for us!" before they mercilessly hack them to pieces.

See, this is the bit that rings false to me. I don't think I've ever played a character that went into combats thinking that she wasn't at serious risk of harm. If you told any of them that "someone attacking you with a sword actually doesn't pose much of a threat to your well-being," they'd think you were mad. When you're in the thick of battle, with large angry beings swinging sharp pieces of metal at your squishy bits, you're not thinking about how easy it'll be for the cleric to heal you afterwards. You're thinking about surviving long enough to get to the cleric afterwards. Characters don't know they have "hit points." All they know is that there are people trying to KILL them. You, the *player*, might know that this combat encounter is designed to expend 20% of the party's resources, but the characters don't. They just know that someone is trying to paint the landscape with their blood.

Diggorian
2007-06-19, 07:32 PM
But that's still not the same as running a game in which violence is always the last resort.

Well as we see from Crankshaw's last post, they do actually save violence for last.


Umm... so your version of heroic fantasy is a world where people go around performing charitable works?

Not in my version, that's a staple of the heroic fiction genre.


Accepting surrender involves having a long term way of dealing with the prisoners. Adventurers don't have that.

False. Rope and manacles are for sale. There's a mechanic to sudue captives without killing. There are PrC's set up for live capture of foes, Bloodhound and Justicar come to mind first.


But in the majority of D&D games, combat is the assumption. It's hard wired into the game system. That's why everybody gets an increase in BAB.

If you expect people to avoid killing, you have to expect them to avoid killing *all the time*, not just when the NPCs have a name.

Agreed. Good heroes, where good is the paramount of morality as opposed to the rival team of evil, should avoid killing. And just because you avoid killing doesnt mean ya have to avoid combat.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-19, 08:05 PM
There appears to be some disagreement over the role of adventurers, or more precisely, the role of the good-aligned adventuring party, in the world. This varies depending on the players and the game, but let me explain how I see it. Dan seems to see the adventuring party as a commando team taking the fight to the enemy. The alternative he presents is a team of civilian explorers. Those are both valid ways to play the game (although the second is, as Dan notes, kind of hard to play). However, the way I view the adventuring party is similar to a team of marshals bringing frontier justice to the Old West. Our job, roughly speaking, is to catch the criminal and make sure justice is done. Now, this is most easily seen with those classes, such as clerics of lawful and/or good gods, paladins, and, yes, knights, who have the backing of gods or organizations whose goals they serve, but even the most chaotic good PC desires to right wrongs. We are often hired by the bastions of civilization and goodness in the area (the local town), to correct a wrong that was done to them. Since we usually act in the less civilized parts of the world, sometimes the justice we bring is rough, and some crimes warrant a field execution, but we still try to make it as just as possible. The ideal, however, is for the party to confront the criminal and call for his surrender, and, if he does so, bring him to whatever authority can give him a fair trial.

That's what I try to do with my knight.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-19, 08:15 PM
I think whether or not you ask questions first depends on why you went there in the first place. For example, if you're part of a military squad with orders to wipe out a goblinoid infestation, then kill away without any second guessing. If you're just exploring and stumble into the goblinoids, then probably best to avoid them entirely. If you don't have orders, instead you're adventuring in order to get money and experience, then basically it home invasion time... better that there are no witnesses. Maybe if you were delving deep you may need information from the goblinoids, then I could see taling to them. If you are working on a peace treaty, that might be good too.

Diggorian
2007-06-19, 08:33 PM
The problem is that Dan is saying his way is the way D&D is defaulted, which it isnt.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 05:11 AM
See, this is the bit that rings false to me. I don't think I've ever played a character that went into combats thinking that she wasn't at serious risk of harm. If you told any of them that "someone attacking you with a sword actually doesn't pose much of a threat to your well-being," they'd think you were mad. When you're in the thick of battle, with large angry beings swinging sharp pieces of metal at your squishy bits, you're not thinking about how easy it'll be for the cleric to heal you afterwards. You're thinking about surviving long enough to get to the cleric afterwards. Characters don't know they have "hit points." All they know is that there are people trying to KILL them. You, the *player*, might know that this combat encounter is designed to expend 20% of the party's resources, but the characters don't. They just know that someone is trying to paint the landscape with their blood.

You see, this I find disingenuous. Yes, you can argue that your characters don't literally know that they have hit points, but they *do* know how the last thirty fights they've been in went. It is completely disingenuous to say that decisions made in D&D combat are being made "in the thick of battle, with large angry beings swinging sharp bits of metal at your squishy bits." That isn't how combat works in D&D.

But let's ignore that for a second. Let's accept your interpretation of the IC/OOC knowledge divide. In that case, attacking Evil races on sight is *absolutely* the right thing to do. You don't want to give them the *chance* to attack you because if you do you might die. By your own logic, you don't know, in-character, that you can't be killed by a single arrow or sword thrust, so you can't take the risk of being wrong-footed by the enemy.

Whichever logic you use, though, characters who *really* try to avoid killing should not act like ordinary D&D characters (and by "ordinary D&D characters" I mean "characters which behave in the ways that other people on this thread have described characters as behaving").

Let me put it this way.

Your party: let's presume they're moderately high level, maybe eighth or ninth, is set upon by a group of bandits in the woods. They point crossbows at you, and demand that you hand over your gold, or they'll kill you.

You now have three options.

1) Hand over your gold.
2) Fight the bandits using lethal force.
3) Fight the bandits, but attempt to subdue them, not kill them.

Now by your logic, the PCs are in fear of their lives. They believe, in character, that a single shot from a crossbow could kill any one of them. So they should just hand over the money.

Alternatively, you can use "metagame" logic, and assume that the PCs understand enough about their own combat abilities to know that they *won't* die in a hail of crossbow bolts if they try something. In this case they should take option 3, and attempt to subdue the bandits by non-lethal means.

What I don't believe is supportable is option 2, in which the players are defiant enough to start a fight, but then all of a sudden are "in fear of their lives" and so are morally justified in killing the bandits. That's *exactly* the kind of doublethink I'm complaining about.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 05:12 AM
The problem is that Dan is saying his way is the way D&D is defaulted, which it isnt.

Except that it clearly is, because "my way" is *exactly* what everybody else keeps describing. Ninety percent of encounters are met with lethal force. What I'm arguing is that it's utterly disingenuous to kill 249 out of 250 Orcs you meet, and then claim to be somehow different to the people that kill number 250 as well.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 05:30 AM
Dan seems to see the adventuring party as a commando team taking the fight to the enemy. The alternative he presents is a team of civilian explorers. Those are both valid ways to play the game (although the second is, as Dan notes, kind of hard to play).

That's a reasonable summary of my position, but not a wholly accurate one.

Essentially I think that, regardless of the analogy you use, you have to view adventuring parties as either realistic people in a realistic world, in which case they should treat every armed opponent as if they were a potentially lethal threat before combat even starts, even at twentieth level. Alternatively you view them as larger than life people in a larger than life world.

In either case, if you posit that "violence is a last resort", you should wind up with a situation *very* different to the one people are describing on this thread.

For "ordinary" people, who think they can be killed by mundane weapons, avoiding violence means capitulation. For "heroic" people, who can't, avoiding violence means subduing your enemies instead of killing them.

The "old west marshal" analogy doesn't strike me as being one which screams "violence is a last resort". It says "violence is very much an option, and one we use regularly."

Going back to the original example, here "bugbear" is essentially code for "bandito". You encounter this guy on the road, sure he's not attacking you, but you can be pretty sure he'll be raiding defenseless Mexican villages in the next couple of weeks. By the "frontier justice" model, offing him is perfectly justifiable.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-20, 07:43 AM
No, actually, in this analogy, bugbear isn't code for "bandito." You can't tell that someone is a criminal just by looking at him, especially in an area where pretty much everyone carries a weapon and many races are hostile to one another. Since we're playing in such a way that 'usually evil' races aren't always evil, and even evil people don't always commit death-penalty worthy defenses, we need actual evidence of wrongdoing before we deliver justice. Even the roughest sort of justice needs that in order to have any claim to the word 'justice'.

And, for the record, I've never advocated violence as an absolute last resort. But it's not a first resort, either. There's something in between killing on sight and killing only in self-defense, where you define self-defense as only when the CR is significantly higher than the party's level. In the frontier justice model, there are crimes justifying field execution. But 'being a bugbear,' and even 'being a cleric of Vecna,' aren't crimes in this model.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-20, 07:50 AM
Your party: let's presume they're moderately high level, maybe eighth or ninth, is set upon by a group of bandits in the woods. They point crossbows at you, and demand that you hand over your gold, or they'll kill you.

You now have three options.

1) Hand over your gold.
2) Fight the bandits using lethal force.
3) Fight the bandits, but attempt to subdue them, not kill them.

What I don't believe is supportable is option 2, in which the players are defiant enough to start a fight, but then all of a sudden are "in fear of their lives" and so are morally justified in killing the bandits. That's *exactly* the kind of doublethink I'm complaining about.

#2 is supportable if:
1) The party is more concerned with ridding the world of this threat than their actual lives. (cops/soldiers)
2) The Party doesn't have enough gold to hand over. (broke/previously robbed)
3) The party doesn't believe that even IF they turn over their gold that the bandits will keep their word... they are bandits after all. (Party can identify the bandits to the cops)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 08:32 AM
No, actually, in this analogy, bugbear isn't code for "bandito." You can't tell that someone is a criminal just by looking at him, especially in an area where pretty much everyone carries a weapon and many races are hostile to one another. Since we're playing in such a way that 'usually evil' races aren't always evil, and even evil people don't always commit death-penalty worthy defenses, we need actual evidence of wrongdoing before we deliver justice. Even the roughest sort of justice needs that in order to have any claim to the word 'justice'.

So just out of interest, what crimes actually *are* worthy of the death penalty in your game?


And, for the record, I've never advocated violence as an absolute last resort. But it's not a first resort, either. There's something in between killing on sight and killing only in self-defense, where you define self-defense as only when the CR is significantly higher than the party's level. In the frontier justice model, there are crimes justifying field execution. But 'being a bugbear,' and even 'being a cleric of Vecna,' aren't crimes in this model.

So which crimes justify a field execution? And on what authority are you making these judgments?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 08:36 AM
#2 is supportable if:
1) The party is more concerned with ridding the world of this threat than their actual lives. (cops/soldiers)
2) The Party doesn't have enough gold to hand over. (broke/previously robbed)
3) The party doesn't believe that even IF they turn over their gold that the bandits will keep their word... they are bandits after all. (Party can identify the bandits to the cops)

But none of those things are compatible with "killing is the last resort."

In fact, none of those things are compatible with anything other than "killing is our default option."

#1 is Default Adventuring Party: these guys are black hats, so it's okay to kill them.
#2 and #3 are only viable if you view killing the bandits (rather than subduing them and handing them over to the proper authorities, thereby granting them the chance to mend their ways) as being desirable in and of itself. Otherwise you *should* try to keep the bandits alive, or stop complaining about people killing their enemies.

hewhosaysfish
2007-06-20, 10:22 AM
Dan, a large part of your arguement seems to arise from the notion that if the you can defeat someone in a fight by lethal methods, you can defeat then with non-lethal methods. In D&D, attacking to deal subdual damage reduces your chances of striking an opponent by the same amount as lying flat on your back.

It's like "Hmmm.... he's got a knife but what he doesn't realise is: I've got a gun... Wait, a gun will kill him! I should fight him bare-handed instead!"

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 10:30 AM
Dan, a large part of your arguement seems to arise from the notion that if the you can defeat someone in a fight by lethal methods, you can defeat then with non-lethal methods. In D&D, attacking to deal subdual damage reduces your chances of striking an opponent by the same amount as lying flat on your back.

So grapple them, disarm them, do whatever it takes to avoid killing them, or else stop pretending that you aren't just wandering around the countryside killing things.


It's like "Hmmm.... he's got a knife but what he doesn't realise is: I've got a gun... Wait, a gun will kill him! I should fight him bare-handed instead!"

It's more like "Hmmm... he's got a knife, but what he doesn't realise is: I'm superhumanly good at fighting people, and his knife isn't a threat to me, and I also have a gun. If I want to, I can take the knife away from him and restrain him, but he might damage my shirt, for which I paid money. Or I could just shoot him."

Diggorian
2007-06-20, 10:39 AM
What I'm arguing is that it's utterly disingenuous to kill 249 out of 250 Orcs you meet, and then claim to be somehow different to the people that kill number 250 as well.

Who's arguing the counter-point to that?

I'm saying based on the general nature of good in D&D, good characters should avoid killing when possible.

Out of 250 orcs you face as threats, those that choose to fight to the death die or kill while those that choose to surrender live if you're good.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-20, 10:39 AM
I think what we are forgetting is the dead at -10 hp in DND. Which means, if you can LETHALLY knock them into the negatives, you can quickly bind their wounds and interrogate them afterwards. If you ACCIDENTLY do enough to knock them to -10 then oops. If you fail the heal check then oops.

The added benefit is you can use the dying leader as negotiating ploy. "Surrender now and we'll bandage up your leader, keep fighting and he'll die in a few moments."

If you use Finger of Death on them... that's a different story.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 11:01 AM
Who's arguing the counter-point to that?

I'm saying based on the general nature of good in D&D, good characters should avoid killing when possible.

That's the thing. It is *always* possible to avoid killing. You can strike for non-lethal damage in combat, or attempt to disarm and subdue that way. Or you could even, y'know, accede to whatever demands your enemies are making of you.


Out of 250 orcs you face as threats, those that choose to fight to the death die or kill while those that choose to surrender live if you're good.

Allow me, if I may, to put before you a hypothetical situation:

An adventuring party are searching for the Lost Idol of McGuffin. The Lost Idol of McGuffin is rumored to be inside an ancient temple.

As the players approach the temple, they are confronted by a band of Orcs. The Orcs tell you that this temple is sacred to their people, and that they will not allow you to enter it. If you turn around and go back the way you came, you will not be harmed, but otherwise they will fight to the death to defend their sacred relics.

What do you believe to be the correct response for a Good-Aligned party in this situation?

Citizen Joe
2007-06-20, 11:19 AM
What do you believe to be the correct response for a Good-Aligned party in this situation?

Kill them. Raise them as zombies and have the zombies rape the women and eat the children. Then enslave the... oh wait... good aligned...:smalltongue:

Good aligned dwarves? Slaughter the orcs.
Good aligned elves? Slaughter the orcs.

These races hate each other. The fact that the temple is holy to an orc means that its an unholy site for the dwarves and elves.

Good party that was sent to retrieve the Idol of MacGuffin by a 'good' source that told them that the orcs were guarding it and may need to be disposed of? Slaughter the orcs.

Good Party that just wants the Idol of MacGuffin as a trophy on their mantlepiece? Parlay. Ask questions about the Idol. Get paintings of the the Idol. Write a nice book about it. Donate to the orcs for their help.

Neutral party that wants the Idol for their own ends? Charm the orcs into giving it to them. Sneak in to steal it.

Evil Party. Maybe slaughter, maybe dominate the orcs. Seize the temple as their own base of operations and enslave the orcs as their minions. Rule over the land with a terrible iron fist by right of possessing the Idol of MacGuffin.

Jorkens
2007-06-20, 11:27 AM
No, actually, in this analogy, bugbear isn't code for "bandito."

'Mexican' might be better - "70% of mexicans are banditos or donkey rustlers, I've just met a mexican so I'd better kill him because he's probably a criminal. That's frontier justice for you."

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-20, 11:44 AM
To answer your question: executionable crimes definitely includes murder of an innocent, attempted murder or attacking with intent to kill without provocation, and possibly torture and rape. Field executionable mainly boils down to attacking rather than surrendering to a legitimate call to do so, and thus means assaulting an officer with lethal force, and a lethal response is justifiable. That's what I'm calling a field execution. That's pretty much the only crime my knight sees as justifying killing them right there, but that's one thing that different characters can have different views on. My knight won't advocate it, but if other PCs call for field execution for an executionable crime, he may not fight the party to prevent it, even if he disapproves. That depends on the circumstances.

There at least has to be some crime. You can't kill someone who hasn't done anything. Why should this be controversial?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 11:49 AM
There at least has to be some crime. You can't kill someone who hasn't done anything. Why should this be controversial?

Because in a lawless society, what constitutes a "crime" is difficult to define.

Are Goblinoids even under your jurisdiction?

I think the thing I have particular issue with is this:


Field executionable mainly boils down to attacking rather than surrendering to a legitimate call to do so

From a certain point of view, what this means is that if somebody is willing to fight for their freedom, rather than let some guy they've never met drag them off to who knows where, then you can summarily execute them. That just doesn't strike me as that different to killing Orcs on sight.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-20, 11:57 AM
There at least has to be some crime. You can't kill someone who hasn't done anything. Why should this be controversial?

Presumption of guilt. The DM put something killable in front of me and said roll initiative, thus I should kill it. You don't know that he HASN'T committed a crime. You don't know that he WON'T commit a crime in the future. It is safer to simply kill it. I'm not saying that's good. I'm not saying you're justified. I'm not saying you even have the right to confront the creature. But it happens and those are just SOME of the reasons why.

Its all very situational, and since most of the time adventurers are committing a crime themselves (home invasion, robbery, mass murder), and they are in enemy territory when this happens, fear plays a big part in rational thinking.

Kioran
2007-06-20, 12:04 PM
To answer your question: executionable crimes definitely includes murder of an innocent, attempted murder or attacking with intent to kill without provocation, and possibly torture and rape. Field executionable mainly boils down to attacking rather than surrendering to a legitimate call to do so, and thus means assaulting an officer with lethal force, and a lethal response is justifiable. That's what I'm calling a field execution. That's pretty much the only crime my knight sees as justifying killing them right there, but that's one thing that different characters can have different views on. My knight won't advocate it, but if other PCs call for field execution for an executionable crime, he may not fight the party to prevent it, even if he disapproves. That depends on the circumstances.

There at least has to be some crime. You can't kill someone who hasn't done anything. Why should this be controversial?

Be aware that if you permit field execution (instead of, say, killing someone in defense or hunting him down) you must as a LG character place your party under the same rules unless theres very good and rare reason not to do so.......

Diggorian
2007-06-20, 12:04 PM
That's the thing. It is *always* possible to avoid killing. You can strike for non-lethal damage in combat, or attempt to disarm and subdue that way. Or you could even, y'know, accede to whatever demands your enemies are making of you.

It isnt always always possible to avoid killing, such as when your gonna be killed if you use non-lethal options. A good character tries to preserve life.


What do you believe to be the correct response for a Good-Aligned party in this situation?

I'll answer this when you answer my question: who's arguing that killing 250 out of 250 orcs is very different than killing 249 out of 250?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 12:26 PM
It isnt always always possible to avoid killing, such as when your gonna be killed if you use non-lethal options. A good character tries to preserve life.

But not if it will result in their having to drink an extra potion of Cure Light Wounds at the end of the encounter?


I'll answer this when you answer my question: who's arguing that killing 250 out of 250 orcs is very different than killing 249 out of 250?

Nobody, but that's the logical extension of your argument. It's okay to kill Orcs 90% of the time, but not when the GM decides it isn't.

hewhosaysfish
2007-06-20, 12:33 PM
Presumption of guilt. The DM put something killable in front of me and said roll initiative, thus I should kill it. You don't know that he HASN'T committed a crime. You don't know that he WON'T commit a crime in the future. It is safer to simply kill it. I'm not saying that's good. I'm not saying you're justified. I'm not saying you even have the right to confront the creature. But it happens and those are just SOME of the reasons why.


But, but, but... I thought that's what we were discussing?



Its all very situational, and since most of the time adventurers are committing a crime themselves (home invasion, robbery, mass murder), and they are in enemy territory when this happens, fear plays a big part in rational thinking.


Grr! This is rapidly turning into one of by biggest pet peeves on this board: in every discussing about alignment and morality, people keep assuming that PCs just get bored/restless/poor, storm into the nearest orc (or other humanoid) village,kill everything that moves for the xp, loot the bodies and then saunter of to the tavern/magic item shop to while away time until they need more victims,monsters.
Does anyone actually play in a game like that? I've played in games where orcs have invaded kingdoms, or started pillaging small farming communities, or kidnapped virgins to sacrifice to dark gods, or initiated secret rituals to open gateways to hell... But I've never played in a game where the party were encouraged to attack a group of creatures that were just siiting around eating breakfast, washing their babies and other acts of aggression. Have we been doing it wrong? Because it seems like everyone else around here likes to centre their campaigns around the Final Solution to the Goblin Problem! (Godwin be damned!)

I am I part of the only D&D group in the world that tries to play PCs as, wells, heroes rather than cut-throats, bandits and mercenaries? Are most "quests" plans to " kill sentient creatures because they had green skins and fangs and stuff and we don't, and then take their stuff" rather than anything to do with saving the world/kingdom/princess?

Jorkens
2007-06-20, 12:35 PM
Because in a lawless society, what constitutes a "crime" is difficult to define.
If you're wandering around doing no harm to anybody, then someone attacking you with a sword, robbing someone at crossbow point or killing innocent villagers probably is committing a crime. Someone who happens to be of a 'mostly evil' race isn't, as far as you can tell, committing a crime. Thus in a world of 'frontier justice', you're a lot more justified in using lethal force against the first three than the fourth. Particularly if you've already asked them nicely to stop and go away and they haven't done.

Nero24200
2007-06-20, 12:41 PM
OP
Killing someone who surrendered is unmerciful, and thus evil. If done, the clerics would likely loss their powers (assuming they follow CG gods) and the party will now be wholly distrusted by any paladins or LG characters they meet. It might also be regarded as being dishonourble, so you may lose your Lawful aligment.

Simply tell the party this IC, and that if they have any damm consideration at all for their teammates, they'll at least TRY to negociate

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 12:43 PM
If you're wandering around doing no harm to anybody, then someone attacking you with a sword, robbing someone at crossbow point or killing innocent villagers probably is committing a crime.

Not if you're in their territory. Then they call the shots.


Someone who happens to be of a 'mostly evil' race isn't, as far as you can tell, committing a crime. Thus in a world of 'frontier justice', you're a lot more justified in using lethal force against the first three than the fourth. Particularly if you've already asked them nicely to stop and go away and they haven't done.

You've already asked them to stop and go away, but you've got no authority to do so. So really what you're saying is "do what I want you to do, or I'll kill you".

Which is, co-incidentally, pretty much what the guys robbing people with crossbows are doing.

Diggorian
2007-06-20, 12:45 PM
But not if it will result in their having to drink an extra potion of Cure Light Wounds at the end of the encounter?

Is that a statement or question? I dont understand what you mean with this response.

How is that the logical extention of my arguement, which has been that good characters should try to avoid killing?

Jorkens
2007-06-20, 12:48 PM
Not if you're in their territory. Then they call the shots.
Yes.

You've already asked them to stop and go away, but you've got no authority to do so. So really what you're saying is "do what I want you to do, or I'll kill you".

Which is, co-incidentally, pretty much what the guys robbing people with crossbows are doing.
Hang on, are you saying that preventing innocent villagers from being raped and pillaged is morally equivalent to robbing people at crossbow point?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 12:55 PM
But not if it will result in their having to drink an extra potion of Cure Light Wounds at the end of the encounter?

Is that a statement or question? I dont understand what you mean with this response.

How is that the logical extention of my arguement, which has been that good characters should try to avoid killing?

Your statement was that good characters should try to avoid killing, but that they shouldn't have to actually try to avoid killing in combat, even though doing so would result in no physical danger to them, but would simply involve their expending a few more of their (renewable) resources.

So good characters avoid killing, except when it's inconvenient.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 12:59 PM
Hang on, are you saying that preventing innocent villagers from being raped and pillaged is morally equivalent to robbing people at crossbow point?

No, I'm saying that using the threat of death to make somebody behave as you would wish them to is morally equivalent to robbing people at crossbow point.

Preventing innocent villagers from being raped and pillaged may, or may not, be a consequence of your actions. You can *also* prevent innocent villagers from being raped and pillaged by finding the people doing the raping and pillaging (that is to say "the Orcs") and killing them all.

Jorkens
2007-06-20, 01:05 PM
No, I'm saying that using the threat of death to make somebody behave as you would wish them to is morally equivalent to robbing people at crossbow point.

Preventing innocent villagers from being raped and pillaged may, or may not, be a consequence of your actions. You can *also* prevent innocent villagers from being raped and pillaged by finding the people doing the raping and pillaging (that is to say "the Orcs") and killing them all.
You could also prevent it by killing all of the villagers.

The point is that only one of these methods avoids killing any innocent people, and thus only one of these methods should be taken by someone who "protects innocent life" or displays "respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 01:14 PM
You could also prevent it by killing all of the villagers.

The point is that only one of these methods avoids killing any innocent people, and thus only one of these methods should be taken by someone who "protects innocent life" or displays "respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."

At which point you have to make one of two decisions.

a) Orcs constitute "innocent life", so you aren't allowed to do anything to them other than defending your villages. Once they go back into Orc territory, that's it. Furthermore, you are obliged to avoid killing Orcs *wherever possible* and this should include striking for non-lethal damage in combat. Invest in a merciful sword if you have to.

b) Orcs do not constitute "innocent life", they are an evil race that brings harm on other people. In this case Orcs should be wiped out.

There's no other options here.

Jorkens
2007-06-20, 01:24 PM
At which point you have to make one of two decisions.

a) Orcs constitute "innocent life", so you aren't allowed to do anything to them other than defending your villages. Once they go back into Orc territory, that's it. Furthermore, you are obliged to avoid killing Orcs *wherever possible* and this should include striking for non-lethal damage in combat. Invest in a merciful sword if you have to.

b) Orcs do not constitute "innocent life", they are an evil race that brings harm on other people. In this case Orcs should be wiped out.

There's no other options here.
The orcs in question - the ones that were doing the raping and pillaging - clearly don't constitute innocent life. Unless all orcs are intrinsically evil - which may or may not be the case - then you'd have to assume that an orc you met wandering around not obviously doing anything bad was innocent life unless you had some evidence otherwise.

Diggorian
2007-06-20, 01:25 PM
Your statement was that good characters should try to avoid killing, but that they shouldn't have to actually try to avoid killing in combat, even though doing so would result in no physical danger to them, but would simply involve their expending a few more of their (renewable) resources.

Finally, the root. Show me where I said what you assert and I'll show where the misunderstanding is. I've only said that good heroes should offer surrender and accept it when given out a respect for "the dignity of sentient beings".

Now to your hypothetical. You answered now I shall.


What do you believe to be the correct response for a Good-Aligned party in this situation?

Step zero, ask why the idol is needed by my employer. Use Sense Motive and/or Detect evil to see who i'm dealing with. Accept or turn down the mission based on this. Let's assume for this scenario it's for a good cause.

Step one, ask the Orcs if they've seen the Idol and if we can acquire it from them for the important purpose it serves. Let's say they've seen it, confirming it's location, but arent willing to accomdate any offer.

Step two decide if the Idol's value is worth desecrating the temple. If no, report back to employer with the problem before us, collecting our finder's fee. If yes, try to sneak into the temple to get the idol. Any orcs in our way get subdued cause we're in the wrong here.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-20, 04:21 PM
Okay, I realize I didn't explain that very well. I was in a bit of a hurry. Let's try that better.

In the ideal case, our team would confront the criminals, get them to surrender, and bring them in for trial. That's not always possible. Sometimes they attack us instead. In this case, my knight feels no need to use non-lethal force. They're committing the crime of lethal assault against our team, and killing them on the spot is justified. As for it being easy to take them alive, well, we've never encountered an enemy with a low enough CR that we could capture them without much risk to ourselves. Remember, this is a team of 2nd-3rd level characters. 20% resources means that usually one party member goes down. Maybe if we reach the point where we start facing encounters with CRs a couple of levels lower than our level (rather than a couple of levels higher, which is usual for us), using non-lethal force will be possible against enemies using lethal force. Right now, it's not, and as I said, use of lethal force by our opponents constitutes acceptable justification for doing the same.

Trying to kill us (or an innocent) is really the only crime my knight feels warrants killing on the spot, and if they later surrender, he'll accept. But I don't think that needs to be universal, and other members of our party have differing opinions. Some of these opinions the knight will oppose with all his might, even if it comes to using non-lethal force to subdue his teammates, but some of them he'll argue against but won't use force to stop. The above goblin tribe example being one of the cases he was willing to give in, mainly because doing so allowed him to protect the actual innocents at the price of allowing the guilty to be punished without a proper trial. It's a tough balancing act, I'll grant you, but usually it's a lot of fun game-wise.

Oh, for the record, the bugbear wasn't in our territory, we were in his, going after the bad guy whom the goblins turned our original two kidnapped companions over to. Not that crossing the border is a death-penalty deserving offense from my viewpoint anyway, considering we were the ones who had done so.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-20, 05:04 PM
From a certain point of view, what this [demanding they surrender and attacking if they refuse] means is that if somebody is willing to fight for their freedom, rather than let some guy they've never met drag them off to who knows where, then you can summarily execute them. That just doesn't strike me as that different to killing Orcs on sight.
Well, if we were just accosting random people on the street and asking them to surrender, then sure. If we demanded the bugbear's surrender, for example. (Crazy Elf actually did that, and it wasn't a legitimate call. It was when the bugbear refused that she attacked.) But we're talking about people we have the equivalent of an arrest warrant for. If they've never met us, then they have a right to know whose authority we're acting under and why we're asking them to submit. If we catch them in the act (which is often the case in heroic fantasy games), then they don't exactly have the moral high ground.

Flakey
2007-06-20, 06:09 PM
One step that been downplayed so far is the problem of leadership. Seems to me that the others in the party have the attitude of he can have the leadership to do the "boring" leadership organising stuff, but since we are "chaotic" we will not listen to what he wants, and do our own stuff. Unless he makes a big fuss over it.

If you stay with the party with this character once the adventure arc is over I would tell them I.C. they either pick a new leader, or if they go against you in a threat situation again, the person/people that do so get heavily fined, including loss of magic items. All procedes going to a church or the poor etc.
At the moment it seems your just a leader as a convienice, and not really the leader of the party. You can ignore this, but it does leave it open for the same situation happening again the next encounter.

Jannex
2007-06-20, 07:22 PM
You see, this I find disingenuous. Yes, you can argue that your characters don't literally know that they have hit points, but they *do* know how the last thirty fights they've been in went. It is completely disingenuous to say that decisions made in D&D combat are being made "in the thick of battle, with large angry beings swinging sharp bits of metal at your squishy bits." That isn't how combat works in D&D.

That may not be how it works in your D&D games, but when I play, every time somebody takes a swing at my character's head with a sword, she takes it seriously. Someone is trying to KILL her. If she isn't careful, clever, and lucky, they will SUCCEED. And there's no guarantee of the cleric being able to get to her before she bleeds out. There is nothing disingenuous about a character understanding that she isn't immortal--at least, not in any game I've played.


But let's ignore that for a second. Let's accept your interpretation of the IC/OOC knowledge divide. In that case, attacking Evil races on sight is *absolutely* the right thing to do. You don't want to give them the *chance* to attack you because if you do you might die. By your own logic, you don't know, in-character, that you can't be killed by a single arrow or sword thrust, so you can't take the risk of being wrong-footed by the enemy.

...If all you care about is your own hide. Even if it were reasonable to assume that all members of "Evil races" had committed acts warranting death, which it isn't. And that, really, is the crux of our disagreement, it seems. Some creatures have the "Always Evil" alignment descriptor; it's fairly safe to assume that if you encounter a member of that race, it's Evil. Other races (such as bugbears) have the "Usually Evil" alignment descriptor. This implies that, while the majority of the race tends toward evil, a non-trivial minority is NOT Evil. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Evil alignment = okay to kill, it is NOT justified to kill any member of that race you encounter until you have determined its alignment and motives. If we don't make the Evil = kill-on-sight assumption, then you have to know more about the specific individual in question before you're justified in making that moral call.

To say "all bugbears are evil" or "all orcs are evil" is no more justified than saying "all humans are evil" or "all elves are evil." All of these races are made up of individuals who are capable of making their own moral decisions, regardless of the prevailing moral tone of their culture. If, in your adventuring travels, you happen to trip over a Good-aligned bugbear, and kill him on sight just for being a bugbear (and therefore a member of an "Evil" race), you have committed an Evil act.

Furthermore, by your logic here, your adventurer would have to kill EVERY being he encountered, regardless of race, because he was afraid of being caught flat-footed and killed by that single arrow or sword-thrust. At the very least, he'd have to kill every armed being with which he came into contact. And that's fine; but he shouldn't expect to be able to write "Good" at the top of his character sheet.


And even more to the point,

Whichever logic you use, though, characters who *really* try to avoid killing should not act like ordinary D&D characters (and by "ordinary D&D characters" I mean "characters which behave in the ways that other people on this thread have described characters as behaving").

Let me put it this way.

Your party: let's presume they're moderately high level, maybe eighth or ninth, is set upon by a group of bandits in the woods. They point crossbows at you, and demand that you hand over your gold, or they'll kill you.

You now have three options.

1) Hand over your gold.
2) Fight the bandits using lethal force.
3) Fight the bandits, but attempt to subdue them, not kill them.

Now by your logic, the PCs are in fear of their lives. They believe, in character, that a single shot from a crossbow could kill any one of them. So they should just hand over the money.

Alternatively, you can use "metagame" logic, and assume that the PCs understand enough about their own combat abilities to know that they *won't* die in a hail of crossbow bolts if they try something. In this case they should take option 3, and attempt to subdue the bandits by non-lethal means.

What I don't believe is supportable is option 2, in which the players are defiant enough to start a fight, but then all of a sudden are "in fear of their lives" and so are morally justified in killing the bandits. That's *exactly* the kind of doublethink I'm complaining about.

Here's where it looks like you're running into a problem: it seems that you're conflating "taking a threat to one's life seriously" with "abject cowardice." Many real-life people (and certainly, some D&D characters), would simply hand over their valuables, out of fear for their lives, because they consider the bandits to pose a significant threat to their lives, and are afraid. Many adventurers, however, have a great deal of courage, and are trained for battle. (Real-life examples of such people might include police officers, professional soldiers, and certain violent criminals.) While they do genuinely believe that the danger to their lives is real, they are unwilling to be conquered by fear, and will instead resist that threat with violence.

Anybody who starts a fight with lethal weaponry puts his life at significant risk, because all it takes is one lucky shot. (Yes, this is even true in D&D, where critical hits are a possibility--especially at low levels, such as the OP's party is playing. A x3 critical multiplier and a lucky damage roll can put a character down to -10 from full in one shot. And resurrection's hard to come by at those levels.) And yet, people do it anyway, in D&D and in real life--in situations from full-scale warfare to knife fights in back alleys. Once somebody is actively engaged in trying to kill you, you don't stop to think about nonlethal ways of stopping them, even if you don't like the idea of killing. You just think about ending the threat in the most expedient means possible. I'm not seeing how that's "doublethink."

Citizen Joe
2007-06-20, 08:53 PM
Some creatures have the "Always Evil" alignment descriptor; it's fairly safe to assume that if you encounter a member of that race, it's Evil. Other races (such as bugbears) have the "Usually Evil" alignment descriptor.
Actually it says usually CHAOTIC evil. So its possible (and more likely) that it is Neutral evil or Lawful evil. There is a small chance that it may be neutral in some way. But a good bugbear doesn't deserve to live... in fact, in bugbear society, it would likely be killed early on.


To say "all bugbears are evil" or "all orcs are evil" is no more justified than saying "all humans are evil" or "all elves are evil." All of these races are made up of individuals who are capable of making their own moral decisions, regardless of the prevailing moral tone of their culture. If, in your adventuring travels, you happen to trip over a Good-aligned bugbear, and kill him on sight just for being a bugbear (and therefore a member of an "Evil" race), you have committed an Evil act.
No more so than killing an evil bugbear on sight. Killing is a really bad indicator of alignment. If you start allowing killing to affect alignment you will start getting into this situation: Character goes into a church and robs the donation box designated for little Timmy's cure. Now he wants to stay good so he goes out and wipes out a bunch of goblins. Now that he's good again, he goes out to rape some woman in celebration. Oops back to killing some vampires....


Furthermore, by your logic here, your adventurer would have to kill EVERY being he encountered, regardless of race, because he was afraid of being caught flat-footed and killed by that single arrow or sword-thrust. At the very least, he'd have to kill every armed being with which he came into contact. And that's fine; but he shouldn't expect to be able to write "Good" at the top of his character sheet.

No, he should write ADND character at the top of the sheet:smalltongue:

Diggorian
2007-06-20, 08:57 PM
But a good bugbear doesn't deserve to live... in fact, in bugbear society, it would likely be killed early on.


That's what they said about a good Drow :smallwink:

Jannex
2007-06-21, 12:32 AM
Actually it says usually CHAOTIC evil. So its possible (and more likely) that it is Neutral evil or Lawful evil. There is a small chance that it may be neutral in some way. But a good bugbear doesn't deserve to live... in fact, in bugbear society, it would likely be killed early on.

The point remains that "being evil" a necessary condition for "being a bugbear." It is certainly theoretically possible for there to be a Neutral or Good bugbear. Therefore, killing a bugbear without provocation solely on the basis of his species is morally problematic.


No more so than killing an evil bugbear on sight. Killing is a really bad indicator of alignment. If you start allowing killing to affect alignment you will start getting into this situation: Character goes into a church and robs the donation box designated for little Timmy's cure. Now he wants to stay good so he goes out and wipes out a bunch of goblins. Now that he's good again, he goes out to rape some woman in celebration. Oops back to killing some vampires....

I'm completely not following you here. Killing is a good indicator of alignment when part of the description of the Good alignment is "respect for life." If you kill indiscriminately without provocation or justification, regardless of the species of your victims, that probably means that you're Evil.


No, he should write ADND character at the top of the sheet:smalltongue:

I expect that your D&D games are somewhat different than mine.

Kioran
2007-06-21, 12:49 AM
Actually it says usually CHAOTIC evil. So its possible (and more likely) that it is Neutral evil or Lawful evil. There is a small chance that it may be neutral in some way. But a good bugbear doesn't deserve to live... in fact, in bugbear society, it would likely be killed early on.


See - that is something most people don´t get. Evil people do not necessesary kill evil people and vice versa. What you describe is black-vs.-white, which is very unlike good and evil (I won´t go on lest this devolve into a political rant). If an Evil person sees an advantage in keeping it´s stupid, NG cousin alive, it will probably do so. mostly because he is a more complacent slave or something. Same goes for evil people in mostly good societies - most will put up with them if it´s neither threat nor great inconvenenience. Mainly because they´re good. But Evil people won´t all be homicidal rapists..........
Seriously, first and foremost all of them are people with individual motivations, maybe something like "Scam people of a lot of money in a scheme involving multiple partners of mine in our public organisation, using obscure laws several hundred years old." That is LE, and it nets you 160.000$ cash in your first year as associate. And, though some may despise you, no one kills you on sight. Neither do you rape and pillage. Most Evil people just have a good time at a heavy expense to others.

But killing is something rare and dangerous. Biology wouldn´t be able to compensate if killing was easily and repeatedly done. Even an Orc will hesitate before killing someone or something, mainly because he risks his own hide as well.

So unless this Bugbear has done something worthy of death that you have witnessed or know about, killing is worth neither the risk to your own lives nor the risk of being wrong......

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 09:08 AM
That's what they said about a good Drow :smallwink:

Oh if *only* they had...

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 09:21 AM
That may not be how it works in your D&D games, but when I play, every time somebody takes a swing at my character's head with a sword, she takes it seriously. Someone is trying to KILL her. If she isn't careful, clever, and lucky, they will SUCCEED. And there's no guarantee of the cleric being able to get to her before she bleeds out. There is nothing disingenuous about a character understanding that she isn't immortal--at least, not in any game I've played.

But there is something disingenuous about you making your out of character decisions about your character's behaviour based on your OOC knowledge of the rules, and then insisting that it was a snap judgment on the part of your character.


...If all you care about is your own hide. Even if it were reasonable to assume that all members of "Evil races" had committed acts warranting death, which it isn't. And that, really, is the crux of our disagreement, it seems. Some creatures have the "Always Evil" alignment descriptor; it's fairly safe to assume that if you encounter a member of that race, it's Evil. Other races (such as bugbears) have the "Usually Evil" alignment descriptor. This implies that, while the majority of the race tends toward evil, a non-trivial minority is NOT Evil. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Evil alignment = okay to kill, it is NOT justified to kill any member of that race you encounter until you have determined its alignment and motives. If we don't make the Evil = kill-on-sight assumption, then you have to know more about the specific individual in question before you're justified in making that moral call.

In which case you wind up with a world that looks nothing like a standard D&D world.


To say "all bugbears are evil" or "all orcs are evil" is no more justified than saying "all humans are evil" or "all elves are evil." All of these races are made up of individuals who are capable of making their own moral decisions, regardless of the prevailing moral tone of their culture. If, in your adventuring travels, you happen to trip over a Good-aligned bugbear, and kill him on sight just for being a bugbear (and therefore a member of an "Evil" race), you have committed an Evil act.

No, to say "all bugbears are evil" is no more justified than saying "all people executed in America are guilty of capital crimes."


Furthermore, by your logic here, your adventurer would have to kill EVERY being he encountered, regardless of race, because he was afraid of being caught flat-footed and killed by that single arrow or sword-thrust. At the very least, he'd have to kill every armed being with which he came into contact. And that's fine; but he shouldn't expect to be able to write "Good" at the top of his character sheet.

On the contrary, I'd just be extremely conciliatory.


Here's where it looks like you're running into a problem: it seems that you're conflating "taking a threat to one's life seriously" with "abject cowardice." Many real-life people (and certainly, some D&D characters), would simply hand over their valuables, out of fear for their lives, because they consider the bandits to pose a significant threat to their lives, and are afraid. Many adventurers, however, have a great deal of courage, and are trained for battle. (Real-life examples of such people might include police officers, professional soldiers, and certain violent criminals.) While they do genuinely believe that the danger to their lives is real, they are unwilling to be conquered by fear, and will instead resist that threat with violence.

Two things.

Firstly: police officers and soldiers absolutely do *not* react to people who have the drop on them with missile weapons by throwing punches. It isn't abject cowardice to surrender to somebody who is pointing a crossbow at you. It's just good sense.


Anybody who starts a fight with lethal weaponry puts his life at significant risk, because all it takes is one lucky shot. (Yes, this is even true in D&D, where critical hits are a possibility--especially at low levels, such as the OP's party is playing. A x3 critical multiplier and a lucky damage roll can put a character down to -10 from full in one shot. And resurrection's hard to come by at those levels.) And yet, people do it anyway, in D&D and in real life--in situations from full-scale warfare to knife fights in back alleys.

Full scale warfare and back-alley knife fights are different things, though. What we're talking about here is a situation in which:

From a purely in-character perspective, trying anything other than handing over your money *will* get you killed. They have bows pointed at you, you're screwed.

From a game mechanical perspective, you can kick these guys' asses.

Incidentally, the majority of "back alley knife fights" don't happen, because the two guys with knives don't want to attack each other. People get hurt when somebody doesn't *realise* their opponent has a knife, or when somebody gets the jump on somebody else.


Once somebody is actively engaged in trying to kill you, you don't stop to think about nonlethal ways of stopping them, even if you don't like the idea of killing. You just think about ending the threat in the most expedient means possible. I'm not seeing how that's "doublethink."

It's doublethink because the threat isn't real, and you're only treating it as real to justify your character attacking people. You're calling something "courage" when it's actually just the expectation that combat will occur combined with the knowledge that you're extremely unlikely to suffer any lasting consequences.

And I think you'll find that the most expedient way possible to end the threat of some guys with crossbows is to just give them your money.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 09:24 AM
Well, if we were just accosting random people on the street and asking them to surrender, then sure. If we demanded the bugbear's surrender, for example. (Crazy Elf actually did that, and it wasn't a legitimate call. It was when the bugbear refused that she attacked.) But we're talking about people we have the equivalent of an arrest warrant for. If they've never met us, then they have a right to know whose authority we're acting under and why we're asking them to submit. If we catch them in the act (which is often the case in heroic fantasy games), then they don't exactly have the moral high ground.

It sounds like an interesting setup for a game, actually.

Just out of interest, does Crazy Elf's player agree with you that demanding the surrender of the Bugbear wasn't a legitimate call?

Saph
2007-06-21, 09:41 AM
I'm going to support Jannex here.


But there is something disingenuous about you making your out of character decisions about your character's behaviour based on your OOC knowledge of the rules, and then insisting that it was a snap judgment on the part of your character.

Not really. You roleplay your character as best you can while still taking into account the rules of the system. Good D&D players balance the two against each other - they know the rules, and follow them, but try to keep the focus on RPing their character rather than playing the numbers.


From a purely in-character perspective, trying anything other than handing over your money *will* get you killed. They have bows pointed at you, you're screwed.

Who says they've got the drop on you? If you're experienced, you should have spotted them in advance, and put yourself in a position where you can take cover.

But this is getting off the point, because the reality of it is that, in-character, you don't know whether you'll win the fight or not. Are the bandits 1st-level warriors? 5th-level rangers? 10th-level fighters? 15th-level warblades? You have absolutely no idea. They don't walk around with their class and level tattooed on their foreheads. Once the crossbow bolts start flying, you'll be able to make a guess at it pretty fast, but until then, it's purely uncertain.

This is where courage and personal principles come into play. Are you the sort of character who surrenders when bullied, or fights back? It's no good to say "depends whether I'll win", because in character, you just don't know. All you can do is guess, and you can never guess with 100% certainty. In this situation, it comes down to personality.


It's doublethink because the threat isn't real, and you're only treating it as real to justify your character attacking people.

Is your DM telling you the class, level, numbers, and CR of the attackers? Because that's what you need to know to be able to conclude that the threat "isn't real". If your DM is telling you all this, why?

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 10:00 AM
I'm going to support Jannex here.

Cool, nice to hear from you.


Not really. You roleplay your character as best you can while still taking into account the rules of the system. Good D&D players balance the two against each other - they know the rules, and follow them, but try to keep the focus on RPing their character rather than playing the numbers.

The problem, though, is where to draw the line.

Obviously, your character doesn't know how many Hit Points he has, but does he know whether he can be killed by a single arrow?


Who says they've got the drop on you?

The original scenario. "Bandits demand your money at crossbow-point".


If you're experienced, you should have spotted them in advance, and put yourself in a position where you can take cover.

But this is getting off the point, because the reality of it is that, in-character, you don't know whether you'll win the fight or not. Are the bandits 1st-level warriors? 5th-level rangers? 10th-level fighters? 15th-level warblades? You have absolutely no idea. They don't walk around with their class and level tattooed on their foreheads. Once the crossbow bolts start flying, you'll be able to make a guess at it pretty fast, but until then, it's purely uncertain.

You can't know for certain, but you can make a reasonable guess. And you *can* know whether or not your character can survive a single shot from a crossbow or not.


This is where courage and personal principles come into play. Are you the sort of character who surrenders when bullied, or fights back? It's no good to say "depends whether I'll win", because in character, you just don't know. All you can do is guess, and you can never guess with 100% certainty. In this situation, it comes down to personality.

Okay, let's extend the hypothetical:

You're stuck up by bandits. You opt to fight, because it's your IC call that you are willing to risk death over this issue.

The Bandits turn out to be significantly higher level than you, and you get killed.

Do you say "well that was my call, I went into that fight knowing I was risking my life" or do you say "holy crap, what was that? What was my DM thinking sending us up against those guys?"


Is your DM telling you the class, level, numbers, and CR of the attackers? Because that's what you need to know to be able to conclude that the threat "isn't real". If your DM is telling you all this, why?


In a standard D&D game it is reasonable to assume that the DM will not put your characters into a fight in which you do not have a better than fifty percent chance of survival. That is the whole purpose of the CR and Encounter system.

If you were playing say GURPS, or The Riddle of Steel: a game in which any single sword thrust really *could* spell death for your character (and without hope of resurrection), that would be a different matter, but in D&D you *expect* to fight frequently and you *expect* to win.

Saph
2007-06-21, 10:15 AM
The problem, though, is where to draw the line.

Obviously, your character doesn't know how many Hit Points he has, but does he know whether he can be killed by a single arrow?

Who's shooting the arrow?

Remember that HP in D&D means not only physical toughness, but the ability to turn a serious wound into a less serious one. It's assumed that a crossbow bolt that takes off 1/10 of your HP did not get you right in the forehead - that would be a glancing blow, a flesh wound, or maybe nothing but a pulled muscle from dodging (depending on how your DM describes it).

The answer to the question "Does my character know whether she can be killed by a single arrow?" is yes. Yes, she knows that she can. A single shot from a high-level rogue, ninja, or assassin most certainly can kill you, especially if it's poisoned or criticals.


You can't know for certain, but you can make a reasonable guess. And you *can* know whether or not your character can survive a single shot from a crossbow or not.

Again, who's shooting the crossbow? They might have Rogue levels. They might have poisoned bolts. There might be twenty more of them in the trees aiming at you. Or they might be incompetents who barely know which end of a crossbow to point at people. Your example doesn't specify.


Okay, let's extend the hypothetical:

You're stuck up by bandits. You opt to fight, because it's your IC call that you are willing to risk death over this issue.

The Bandits turn out to be significantly higher level than you, and you get killed.

Do you say "well that was my call, I went into that fight knowing I was risking my life" or do you say "holy crap, what was that? What was my DM thinking sending us up against those guys?"

Both. In-character, the first. Out-of-character, the second. But I'd accept it if there was some kind of explanation, or warning in advance.


In a standard D&D game it is reasonable to assume that the DM will not put your characters into a fight in which you do not have a better than fifty percent chance of survival. That is the whole purpose of the CR and Encounter system.

Hmm. How recently have you read the DMG?

If you look at the Encounter Guidelines section, you should see that the DMG only recommends sending equal-CR against the party 50% of the time. 15% of the time the CR will be 1-4 points above the party level. 5% of the time the CR will be 5+ points above the party level.

As a DM, I go well beyond this, and routinely send enemies against my PCs that are a good bit above their level in CR, because I think battles where the PCs are at no risk at all of dying are very boring for all concerned. And once in a while, I do send an encounter at them which is practically impossible to beat. Keeps the game exciting.

So you're talking to the wrong person if you assume that all D&D games are a succession of beatable equal-CR battles. :)

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 10:33 AM
Who's shooting the arrow?

Anybody. In character it shouldn't make a difference.


Remember that HP in D&D means not only physical toughness, but the ability to turn a serious wound into a less serious one. It's assumed that a crossbow bolt that takes off 1/10 of your HP did not get you right in the forehead - that would be a glancing blow, a flesh wound, or maybe nothing but a pulled muscle from dodging (depending on how your DM describes it).

But that's not the issue, the issue is whether it is reasonable for you to believe, in character, that any man with a projectile weapon constitutes an immediate threat to your life.


The answer to the question "Does my character know whether she can be killed by a single arrow?" is yes. Yes, she knows that she can. A single shot from a high-level rogue, ninja, or assassin most certainly can kill you, especially if it's poisoned or criticals.

That's not the same thing, though. Your character doesn't know about levels and classes, and certainly doesn't know about Sneak Attack.


Again, who's shooting the crossbow? They might have Rogue levels. They might have poisoned bolts. There might be twenty more of them in the trees aiming at you. Or they might be incompetents who barely know which end of a crossbow to point at people. Your example doesn't specify.

It shouldn't have to, because in-character none of those things matter. In character a crossbow is a piece of sharp wood flying swiftly towards your body, and whether it will kill you or not shouldn't depend on whether the guy at the other end of the bow has "rogue levels" (whatever those are).


Both. In-character, the first. Out-of-character, the second. But I'd accept it if there was some kind of explanation, or warning in advance.

You see, this is the bit that doesn't work for me. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you were upset out of character that you got killed, it strongly implies that your out-of-character expectation of survival coloured your in-character decision to fight.

That's sort of what I mean about the threat not being real.


Hmm. How recently have you read the DMG?

If you look at the Encounter Guidelines section, you should see that the DMG only recommends sending equal-CR against the party 50% of the time. 15% of the time the CR will be 1-4 points above the party level. 5% of the time the CR will be 5+ points above the party level.

But in each situation you expect the party to win, you just don't expect it to be easy.


As a DM, I go well beyond this, and routinely send enemies against my PCs that are a good bit above their level in CR, because I think battles where the PCs are at no risk at all of dying are very boring for all concerned. And once in a while, I do send an encounter at them which is practically impossible to beat. Keeps the game exciting.

Do you have regular TPKs then? Or do your players still defeat these impossible fights?


So you're talking to the wrong person if you assume that all D&D games are a succession of beatable equal-CR battles. :)

- Saph

Fair enough.

Just out of interest, how many fights-per-session do you have in your campaigns?

Saph
2007-06-21, 10:48 AM
But that's not the issue, the issue is whether it is reasonable for you to believe, in character, that any man with a projectile weapon constitutes an immediate threat to your life.

That's not the same thing, though. Your character doesn't know about levels and classes, and certainly doesn't know about Sneak Attack.

My character's seen people get killed with crossbow bolts, hence, yes, she knows they're potentially lethal (she's really not that stupid). Whether THIS man is likely to kill her with one shot - the only possible answer to that is "maybe".


You see, this is the bit that doesn't work for me. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you were upset out of character that you got killed, it strongly implies that your out-of-character expectation of survival coloured your in-character decision to fight.

*shrug*

Sorry if it doesn't work for you - but you asked a question, and you got your answer. My reactions to something in-character are not going to be the same as my reactions to something out-of-character.


But in each situation you expect the party to win, you just don't expect it to be easy.

Who's "you"? I certainly don't expect my party to win every fight. If they did, fights would be very boring.


Do you have regular TPKs then?

None so far.


Just out of interest, how many fights-per-session do you have in your campaigns?

About four.

- Saph

Diggorian
2007-06-21, 10:50 AM
Oh if *only* they had...

Perhaps some did, but Salvatore wasnt listening :smallwink: Still, that's another multiple thread page argument until someone gets an email back from R.A.

BTW, you didnt address my reply in post #124, Dan.


As a DM, I go well beyond this, and routinely send enemies against my PCs that are a good bit above their level in CR, because I think battles where the PCs are at no risk at all of dying are very boring for all concerned. And once in a while, I do send an encounter at them which is practically impossible to beat. Keeps the game exciting.


This is how our games are as well. It would be a good day to have half our encounters at our CR :smallamused:. We're magic item light, 1 per PC maybe, so encounters are maybe 2 per day average. We've never had a TPK, but easy victories are only a bit more frequent. Loosing a party member per encounter is common.

Dan, itr seems you make alot of assumptions about "standard D&D games" that are too limited to only your experience.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 10:56 AM
My character's seen people get killed with crossbow bolts, hence, yes, she knows they're potentially lethal (she's really not that stupid). Whether THIS man is likely to kill her with one shot - the only possible answer to that is "maybe".

Fair enough. And would you, out of character, be willing to accept "maybe" as an assessment of the question "will my character die from a single crossbow bolt", or would you find that unfair?


*shrug*

Sorry if it doesn't work for you - but you asked a question, and you got your answer. My reactions to something in-character are not going to be the same as my reactions to something out-of-character.

Sure, different strokes for different folks. Do you think your out of character assessment of a situation affects your in-character assessment of it at all?


Who's "you"? I certainly don't expect my party to win every fight. If they did, fights would be very boring.

Yet they have, thus far, won every fight? Or at least not been killed?


About four.

- Saph

Ah, and I think that's the crucial datum.

I've played a bit of D&D, and it was comparatively low-combat (maybe one or two fights a session). I've played a lot of non-D&D games, and the amount of combat in those games was *drastically* less. Like, one fight every ten sessions.

The reason for this was that those games had combat systems where getting into a fight meant that you had a *genuine* chance of death. They also took place in settings where randomly getting involved in fights wasn't considered a sensible thing to do. In that kind of game, you *absolutely* fought to end the threat in the most expedient way possible, because every round the guy with the pistol was standing was a round in which he could shoot you dead in a single shot.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 11:03 AM
Perhaps some did, but Salvatore wasnt listening :smallwink: Still, that's another multiple thread page argument until someone gets an email back from R.A.

BTW, you didnt address my reply in post #124, Dan.

Sorry, I was worried about making too many posts. Let's see...


Finally, the root. Show me where I said what you assert and I'll show where the misunderstanding is. I've only said that good heroes should offer surrender and accept it when given out a respect for "the dignity of sentient beings".

If that's all you're saying, fair enough.


This is how our games are as well. It would be a good day to have half our encounters at our CR :smallamused:. We're magic item light, 1 per PC maybe, so encounters are maybe 2 per day average. We've never had a TPK, but easy victories are only a bit more frequent. Loosing a party member per encounter is common.

You see, to me, the moment I start losing a party member per encounter (and at two encounters per day, that *really* adds up) is the moment that I, in character, realise that I just plain can't take it any more, and decide to become a farmer instead.


Dan, itr seems you make alot of assumptions about "standard D&D games" that are too limited to only your experience.

Actually I'd say it was the contrary. The problem is that I have too much experience with games that *aren't* D&D, where people react very, very differently to D&D characters. Where you don't have the assumption of regulated encounters *at all*. Where getting into a fight means something has probably gone very, very wrong.

Saph
2007-06-21, 11:25 AM
Fair enough. And would you, out of character, be willing to accept "maybe" as an assessment of the question "will my character die from a single crossbow bolt", or would you find that unfair?

Why would I find it unfair? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here.


Sure, different strokes for different folks. Do you think your out of character assessment of a situation affects your in-character assessment of it at all?

I'm sure it does, one way or the other. But again, I really don't see what you're getting at.


Yet they have, thus far, won every fight? Or at least not been killed?

You mean the game I play in, or the game I DM for? Also, what's your definition of "winning"?

- Saph

Diggorian
2007-06-21, 11:36 AM
You see, to me, the moment I start losing a party member per encounter (and at two encounters per day, that *really* adds up) is the moment that I, in character, realise that I just plain can't take it any more, and decide to become a farmer instead.

Common as in "It's not unheard of" or "Can be expected." We dont loose someone every encounter. I could've worded that better.



Actually I'd say it was the contrary. The problem is that I have too much experience with games that *aren't* D&D, where people react very, very differently to D&D characters. Where you don't have the assumption of regulated encounters *at all*. Where getting into a fight means something has probably gone very, very wrong.

But dont you see, someone like yourself whom has only played a "bit" of D&D shouldnt be making assumptions on what's normal or standard to it and be dismissive of other's experience.

I've played nearly weekly since 3.0 came out with a dozen groups online and tabletop and DMed several campaigns yet I wouldnt say what's default for D&D.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 11:53 AM
But dont you see, someone like yourself whom has only played a "bit" of D&D shouldnt be making assumptions on what's normal or standard to it and be dismissive of other's experience.

I've played nearly weekly since 3.0 came out with a dozen groups online and tabletop and DMed several campaigns yet I wouldnt say what's default for D&D.

You miss my point.

D&D, as you describe it, as Saph describes it, as everybody here describes it, involves an order of *magnitude* more combat that I would consider reasonable in an ordinary RPG.

When people say that "Good characters should do everything in their power to avoid killing" I therefore think in terms of the "one short fight every ten sessions" style of game I'm used to. But what people really mean when they talk about good characters avoiding killing is Good characters being provided with a constant stream of situations in which they are conveniently "forced" into killing for the greater good. Because killing is part of what D&D is all about.

Essentially I find the amount of killing which people describe as happening in their games to be ludicrously high, and I therefore find it peculiar when people complain about other people who have a very slightly higher level of killing in *their* games.

To my mind, a game where you kill orcs on sight just for being orcs, and a game where orcs conveniently attack you so that you can kill them without having to worry about it are functionally identical.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 12:04 PM
Why would I find it unfair? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I'm trying to highlight the connection between your OOC knowledge of the system and your IC decisions.


I'm sure it does, one way or the other. But again, I really don't see what you're getting at.

What I'm getting at is this:

According to several people, Good characters should avoid killing wherever possible. However, according to several others, this goes out the window once combat starts. For some people (like DSCrankshaw's "wild west" party) this is because attacking you earns those characters a death sentence anyway, so killing them is okay. That I think is fair enough.

Other people, however, insist that once combat begins your character is "in fear of their life", and therefore cannot reasonably be expected to take steps to preserve the life of their enemy.

This is predicated on the assumption that your character doesn't know about levels and hit points, that as far as they're concerned, if somebody is swinging a sword a their head, they have but a fraction of a second to respond or else they will die.

The thing is, from my point of view, somebody who thought that they were in a "realistic" world (where any sword thrust or bow shot could be reasonably expected to kill you) would put far, far more effort into avoiding fights than the average D&D character. We wouldn't be looking at four fights every session, we'd be looking at one fight every four sessions if that.

So I think there's something that isn't entirely sincere about the idea of "avoiding killing wherever possible."

To go back to the bandit example: if your argument is "these guys have just committed banditry, therefore it is okay to kill them" I'm cool with that. What I am not cool with is the idea that you can make a system-based decision to fight, knowing that you will probably survive, and then make the statement that you were "in fear for your life" in character, because your character doesn't know about hit points.


You mean the game I play in, or the game I DM for? Also, what's your definition of "winning"?

In this case I define "winning" as "not dying".

Saph
2007-06-21, 12:35 PM
The thing is, from my point of view, somebody who thought that they were in a "realistic" world (where any sword thrust or bow shot could be reasonably expected to kill you) would put far, far more effort into avoiding fights than the average D&D character. We wouldn't be looking at four fights every session, we'd be looking at one fight every four sessions if that. So I think there's something that isn't entirely sincere about the idea of "avoiding killing wherever possible."

"If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back".

It's that simple. You're massively overthinking this with the constant reference to game system. As Diggorian and I have already told you, in our games combat IS dangerous. Our characters DO risk death by fighting so frequently. They do it anyway. Whether you find that implausible or not is up to you, but you'll just have to take our word for it that we don't go into battles because we're 100% sure of surviving.


In this case I define "winning" as "not dying".

Which character not dying? There's more than one. And again, I play in more than one game.

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 12:51 PM
"If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back".

But why are they trying to kill you? Did you attempt to defuse the situation? Did you try to give them what they wanted? Did you, before the fight began, genuinely act as if your life was in danger? Or were you just marking time waiting for somebody to throw a punch so that you could start defending yourself.


It's that simple. You're massively overthinking this with the constant reference to game system. As Diggorian and I have already told you, in our games combat IS dangerous. Our characters DO risk death by fighting so frequently. They do it anyway. Whether you find that implausible or not is up to you, but you'll just have to take our word for it that we don't go into battles because we're 100% sure of surviving.

Again, we're coming at this from completely different places.

From your perspective "PCs sometimes die in fights if they're very difficult" is a game with dangerous combat. To me it's a cakewalk. I'm used to games in which attacking somebody armed with a missile weapon is literally suicide. It's not a case of "they might seriously damage me with that crossbow if they've got levels of Rogue or ninja" it's "if they hit me with that crossbow, which they will, because it's pointing right at me, my armour will be no defence against it, and it will leave me with a horrible wound of which I may later die."


Which character not dying? There's more than one. And again, I play in more than one game.

You win if more than 50% of the party survives without lasting crippling injuries.

Diggorian
2007-06-21, 12:55 PM
You miss my point.

D&D, as you describe it, as Saph describes it, as everybody here describes it, involves an order of *magnitude* more combat that I would consider reasonable in an ordinary RPG.

Once again, "in an ordinary RPG" you play. When discussing a D&D game, as Crankshaw original started, frame of reference should shift to D&D.


... But what people really mean when they talk about good characters avoiding killing is Good characters being provided with a constant stream of situations in which they are conveniently "forced" into killing for the greater good. Because killing is part of what D&D is all about.

I see no evidence of this being said by a poster on this thread.

Combat is a major part of D&D, killing doesnt have to be. We've been discussing the proper thing for Good characters to do. What NPCs do in response is completely up to the DM. They decide if the Orcs forgo parley and if the Orcs are too powerful to afford nonlethal attacks.



Essentially I find the amount of killing which people describe as happening in their games to be ludicrously high, and I therefore find it peculiar when people complain about other people who have a very slightly higher level of killing in *their* games.

I'm thinking what folks are saying is the level of killing isnt matching the alignment of the party. Good parties should have lower kill rates than a neutral mostly party, and far less than an evil party; although all may have the same rate of success.


To my mind, a game where you kill orcs on sight just for being orcs, and a game where orcs conveniently attack you so that you can kill them without having to worry about it are functionally identical.

The difference is in style, not total number of corpses left. Those whose alignment ends in "good", if roleplaying their character, should avoid killing when possible -- and what's possible is rarely left up the PC.

Deepblue706
2007-06-21, 01:01 PM
I really think Dan Hemmens is making a good argument here. Well, maybe it's just bias, because I already agree with everything he's said, but, a lot of people with "Good" characters seem to just wait to justify slaughtering things, as opposed to the "Evil" way of not waiting to justify slaughtering things.

Not enough people take combat seriously enough, either. If you can diffuse a combat situation, your character SHOULD, unless they are bloodthirsty maniacs.

A crossbow aimed at your heart should also be taken very seriously, as well. It doesn't matter if you find a roleplaying excuse to attack, if your only real motivation to fight was "I know that the DM is setting this up as an appropriate CR encounter, therefore this guy is a chump and will deal only X damage to me, at best."

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 01:04 PM
Once again, "in an ordinary RPG" you play. When discussing a D&D game, as Crankshaw original started, frame of reference should shift to D&D.

Which is what I'm doing. I'm just pointing out to you that, to me, any D&D game involves PCs who act in ludicrous ways and are almost nonsensically trigger happy.


I see no evidence of this being said by a poster on this thread.

Combat is a major part of D&D, killing doesnt have to be. We've been discussing the proper thing for Good characters to do. What NPCs do in response is completely up to the DM. They decide if the Orcs forgo parley and if the Orcs are too powerful to afford nonlethal attacks.

It's the players who decide whether they fight the orcs or run from them. If you're really serious about not killing, you should damned well not kill, not just not kill up until combat starts, then be as stab-happy as you want.


I'm thinking what folks are saying is the level of killing isnt matching the alignment of the party. Good parties should have lower kill rates than a neutral mostly party, and far more than an evil party; although all may have the same rate of success.

But is that how it works, or does it wind up in practice that all three types of party have the *same* rate of killing, because they can comfortably rely on being attacked with lethal force approximately four times a day?


The difference is in style, not total number of corpses left.

Yes, that's rather my point. "Good" D&D characters pay lip-service to avoiding killing, but the still engage in a boatload of it. Claiming that it's "self-defence" is frankly silly. You're a bunch of heavily armed people, going out looking for a fight, and when you find one, you kill your opponents and take all their belongings.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 01:09 PM
Not enough people take combat seriously enough, either. If you can diffuse a combat situation, your character SHOULD, unless they are bloodthirsty maniacs.


To be fair to the other posters on this thread, it's not entirely the PC's fault. D&D NPCs are just as irrationally bloodthirsty.

One wonders how many bandits lurk by the sides of the road having conversations along the lines of:

"Look, a band of adventurers, let's rob them."
"Umm, captain, instead of attacking the heavily armed group of professional warriors, why don't we wait for some nice merchants to come along, or a nobleman, we could rob a nobleman."
"Don't be stupid, look how expensive their gear is, we'll be rich!"
"Yes, all that plate mail they're wearing does look expensive, and the magical fire that's glowing around their weapons looks like it cost a lot too, I just can't help think that..."
"Right, here they are: Chaaaaaarge!"
[They die]

Deepblue706
2007-06-21, 01:17 PM
To be fair to the other posters on this thread, it's not entirely the PC's fault. D&D NPCs are just as irrationally bloodthirsty.

One wonders how many bandits lurk by the sides of the road having conversations along the lines of:

"Look, a band of adventurers, let's rob them."
"Umm, captain, instead of attacking the heavily armed group of professional warriors, why don't we wait for some nice merchants to come along, or a nobleman, we could rob a nobleman."
"Don't be stupid, look how expensive their gear is, we'll be rich!"
"Yes, all that plate mail they're wearing does look expensive, and the magical fire that's glowing around their weapons looks like it cost a lot too, I just can't help think that..."
"Right, here they are: Chaaaaaarge!"
[They die]

Yeah, that's a bit silly. I think a large part of the problem is that PCs generally only get XP for stabbing people.

"Can't spell skills without kills!"

Saph
2007-06-21, 01:46 PM
But why are they trying to kill you? Did you attempt to defuse the situation? Did you try to give them what they wanted? Did you, before the fight began, genuinely act as if your life was in danger? Or were you just marking time waiting for somebody to throw a punch so that you could start defending yourself.

No, we weren't just "marking time". Yes, we acted as though our lives were in danger.

As for "what they wanted" - hmm. Last fight I was in with my character was against a white dragon. What the dragon wanted was to have the souls and bodies of three of the five party members to act as batteries for the demiplane we were on. We refused. He attacked. Seven rounds later, the other four party members were either unconscious, dying, or paralysed. The dragon re-offered the deal; give him three of them, and I'd get to live along with one of my companions. I refused, and refused it in several more forms as we kept fighting. Eventually I won.

So no, I guess I failed to "try to give him what he wanted". Funnily enough, I'm not feeling all that guilty about it. Must be my amoral nature, I guess.


Again, we're coming at this from completely different places.

From your perspective "PCs sometimes die in fights if they're very difficult" is a game with dangerous combat. To me it's a cakewalk. I'm used to games in which attacking somebody armed with a missile weapon is literally suicide.

I really don't care if you consider it a cakewalk or not. Our parties regularly are involved in situations where there is no reasonable way to avoid combat. You may play in situations where attacking someone with a crossbow is suicide (very unrealistic, by the way - how can every enemy in your games reliably hit a moving target in a vital spot with a single shot from a crossbow? What are they, cybernetic?) and thus it's a good idea to avoid combat, but we play in games where you can't avoid combat without extreme skill or luck. Hence, over the course of numerous sessions, each PC has a very good chance of dying.

So yes, for the third time, our games are dangerous.

- Saph

Deepblue706
2007-06-21, 01:53 PM
I don't think Hemmens was denying there are situations where fighting is the only option - it's just that people should never rule out other options when possible. Sometimes they're fixed on "killing the bad guy", and forget he's actually not inherently such an evil bastard.

And um...if you weren't wearing a suit of platemail when someone fired a crossbow bolt aimed at your heart, there's a fair chance it'll hit you, and it'll probably hurt. Okay, maybe if you're at a godlike level, then perhaps it's not such a big deal when some chump tries to mug you. However, assuming all the bandits you come across are chumps because you assume your DM is always going to make it a fair fight is metagaming.

Diggorian
2007-06-21, 02:04 PM
It's the players who decide whether they fight the orcs or run from them. If you're really serious about not killing, you should damned well not kill, not just not kill up until combat starts, then be as stab-happy as you want.

One enters a combat with the intent to subdue, then finds it unfeasible. One must then fight or die because, despite your experience, character death is possible. Although an option, running is like leaving the slowest party member to solo what all of you together cant deal with in many cases. Not a good thing.

I'm thinking your reading "Avoid killing" as "Avoid killing at all cost", and "should" as "absolutely must". A character can be good and yet not a pacificist martyr.



But is that how it works, or does it wind up in practice that all three types of party have the *same* rate of killing, because they can comfortably rely on being attacked with lethal force approximately four times a day?

I cant say it doesnt, just as you cant say it does. I'm saying if one truely roleplays it should follow that general pattern.


Yes, that's rather my point. "Good" D&D characters pay lip-service to avoiding killing, but the still engage in a boatload of it. Claiming that it's "self-defence" is frankly silly. You're a bunch of heavily armed people, going out looking for a fight, and when you find one, you kill your opponents and take all their belongings.

This is just seems naive. But more than likely it's just the result of limited experience.

I'm saying D&D played this way is, to me, somewhat incomplete because alignment is oversimplified.

Your saying this is the typical way D&D is played.

My point is an opinion. Yours I dont think you can prove.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-21, 05:33 PM
No, we weren't just "marking time". Yes, we acted as though our lives were in danger.

As for "what they wanted" - hmm. Last fight I was in with my character was against a white dragon. What the dragon wanted was to have the souls and bodies of three of the five party members to act as batteries for the demiplane we were on. We refused. He attacked. Seven rounds later, the other four party members were either unconscious, dying, or paralysed. The dragon re-offered the deal; give him three of them, and I'd get to live along with one of my companions. I refused, and refused it in several more forms as we kept fighting. Eventually I won.

Okay, so why did he want those souls? What was he after, really? What motivated him? Or was he just pure evil?

And how many of your party *actually* died?


So no, I guess I failed to "try to give him what he wanted". Funnily enough, I'm not feeling all that guilty about it. Must be my amoral nature, I guess.

Did you make any other attempt to resolve the situation peacefully? Did you, for example, point out to him that having a demiplane fuelled by souls was getting him precisely nothing, offer to help him work out a way to support his demiplane without souls?


I really don't care if you consider it a cakewalk or not. Our parties regularly are involved in situations where there is no reasonable way to avoid combat.

That's because you play in a world with objective forces for evil.

Which again, I don't object to. But if you're going to have creatures which are Just Evil you should damned well let them be Just Evil.


You may play in situations where attacking someone with a crossbow is suicide (very unrealistic, by the way - how can every enemy in your games reliably hit a moving target in a vital spot with a single shot from a crossbow? What are they, cybernetic?)

Do you honestly think that inflicting a fatal injury on somebody at whom you are aiming a crossbow is remotely difficult?

Are you honestly telling me that it is unrealistic to have a combat system in which charging somebody who is pointing a loaded weapon at you is a bad idea?


and thus it's a good idea to avoid combat, but we play in games where you can't avoid combat without extreme skill or luck. Hence, over the course of numerous sessions, each PC has a very good chance of dying.

Precisely so. You play games where combat is the *default*. Which in turn leads to a completely distorted attitude to combat.


So yes, for the third time, our games are dangerous.

So how often do you usually go without a PC death?

Jannex
2007-06-21, 05:49 PM
Saph has already said most of this much better than I will, but I feel that I should respond anyway.


But there is something disingenuous about you making your out of character decisions about your character's behaviour based on your OOC knowledge of the rules, and then insisting that it was a snap judgment on the part of your character.

I'm confused. How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that this is what I'm suggesting?


In which case you wind up with a world that looks nothing like a standard D&D world.

Rather, it looks nothing like your interpretation of a standard D&D world. By my reading, it's exactly the way the setting is described in the books.


No, to say "all bugbears are evil" is no more justified than saying "all people executed in America are guilty of capital crimes."

This is demonstrably false. Being born a bugbear is by no reasonable definition equivalent to having evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of a capital crime.


On the contrary, I'd just be extremely conciliatory.

I'm not sure I get your meaning.


Firstly: police officers and soldiers absolutely do *not* react to people who have the drop on them with missile weapons by throwing punches. It isn't abject cowardice to surrender to somebody who is pointing a crossbow at you. It's just good sense.

When did I say anything about punches? And you're right, it isn't cowardice, but the point remains that there exist some people who will look for an opportunity to resist, because of training, or courage, or duty.


Full scale warfare and back-alley knife fights are different things, though. What we're talking about here is a situation in which:

From a purely in-character perspective, trying anything other than handing over your money *will* get you killed. They have bows pointed at you, you're screwed.

From a game mechanical perspective, you can kick these guys' asses.

Incidentally, the majority of "back alley knife fights" don't happen, because the two guys with knives don't want to attack each other. People get hurt when somebody doesn't *realise* their opponent has a knife, or when somebody gets the jump on somebody else.

That may happen in the majority of cases, but occasionally somebody is angry or arrogant enough to start trouble anyway. Heck, there was a time in history not long ago when men agreed--in advance--to face each other on the field of honor with deadly weapons. Alexander Hamilton died because of a duel. Both he and Burr had deadly weapons, and both knew it, but they attacked each other anyway.


It's doublethink because the threat isn't real, and you're only treating it as real to justify your character attacking people. You're calling something "courage" when it's actually just the expectation that combat will occur combined with the knowledge that you're extremely unlikely to suffer any lasting consequences.

And I think you'll find that the most expedient way possible to end the threat of some guys with crossbows is to just give them your money.

If all that's at stake is money, maybe. But if the bandits want to steal the rare herb that is the only cure for the orphans' terrible illness? If they want to steal the widget that will allow you to seal the portal to the Abyss? Then yes, it's courage, because while your character has every reason to believe that the threat to his life is real, sometimes there are more important concerns.


Okay, let's extend the hypothetical:

You're stuck up by bandits. You opt to fight, because it's your IC call that you are willing to risk death over this issue.

The Bandits turn out to be significantly higher level than you, and you get killed.

Do you say "well that was my call, I went into that fight knowing I was risking my life" or do you say "holy crap, what was that? What was my DM thinking sending us up against those guys?"

In-game, the character's reaction (in the afterlife) would be the former. Out-of-game, the player's reaction would most likely be the latter. This is not inconsistent.


You see, this is the bit that doesn't work for me. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you were upset out of character that you got killed, it strongly implies that your out-of-character expectation of survival coloured your in-character decision to fight.

That's sort of what I mean about the threat not being real.

That's the thing, though--I am not my character. Some things will upset me that might not upset my character, and some things will upset my character that might not upset me. That doesn't mean I shouldn't try to roleplay my character as truly as possible.


But that's not the issue, the issue is whether it is reasonable for you to believe, in character, that any man with a projectile weapon constitutes an immediate threat to your life.

That's not the same thing, though. Your character doesn't know about levels and classes, and certainly doesn't know about Sneak Attack.

Saph is right; a character doesn't know for certain that any given crossbow bolt will kill her, just that it might. Just like in real life: a person can get shot in the head and recover completely, and a person can get shot in the leg and die of blood loss or gangrene.


The thing is, from my point of view, somebody who thought that they were in a "realistic" world (where any sword thrust or bow shot could be reasonably expected to kill you) would put far, far more effort into avoiding fights than the average D&D character. We wouldn't be looking at four fights every session, we'd be looking at one fight every four sessions if that.

This is a difference in setting. Your average D&D setting, with wilderness and bandits and what-have-you, is more inclined toward violent conflict than a modern setting with police and urbanization. Good-aligned characters fight anyway, because they're doing something important, like saving the world.


Which is what I'm doing. I'm just pointing out to you that, to me, any D&D game involves PCs who act in ludicrous ways and are almost nonsensically trigger happy.

Then you've been playing D&D a lot differently than I do.


But is that how it works, or does it wind up in practice that all three types of party have the *same* rate of killing, because they can comfortably rely on being attacked with lethal force approximately four times a day?

I think it IS how it works. I know that my Good-aligned characters try to talk their way out of combat whenever possible, or sneak around it, or otherwise avoid unnecessary violence.


Yes, that's rather my point. "Good" D&D characters pay lip-service to avoiding killing, but the still engage in a boatload of it. Claiming that it's "self-defence" is frankly silly. You're a bunch of heavily armed people, going out looking for a fight, and when you find one, you kill your opponents and take all their belongings.

That's the thing. Most Good-aligned characters don't "go out looking for a fight." They go out to try to save the world, or play music in taverns, or try to find rare books, or what-have-you.

Saph
2007-06-21, 05:57 PM
Okay, so why did he want those souls? What was he after, really? What motivated him? Or was he just pure evil? Did you make any other attempt to resolve the situation peacefully? Did you, for example, point out to him that having a demiplane fuelled by souls was getting him precisely nothing, offer to help him work out a way to support his demiplane without souls?

Are you out of your mind? You're given a death threat, and your suggested response is "Hey, I don't think you're doing well out of this killing setup you've got here. Let's sit down and we can give you some advice." How do you know that it was gaining him nothing? How are we supposed to support his demiplane?

He was not interested in having an involved discussion with us. He gave us a simple ultimatum. The possible answers were "yes" and "no". As soon as he saw that our answer wasn't "yes", the battle started.


Do you honestly think that inflicting a fatal injury on somebody at whom you are aiming a crossbow is remotely difficult?

You said "attacking someone with a missile weapon is literally suicide". Which, as I pointed out, is extremely unrealistic, as proven by the fact that soldiers don't all die as soon as they encounter the enemy. You were exaggerating, I called you on it. That's all.


So how often do you usually go without a PC death?

You know, I'd tell you, except that I'm getting the impression that you don't actually care about the answer. I asked earlier for you to clarify which game you meant (the one I play in, or the one I DM?), and you didn't reply, so I've still got no idea which game you're referring to. Tell me that, and tell me why you want to know, and I'll give you a detailed answer to how many PC deaths we have.

- Saph

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-21, 11:02 PM
Heh. I think this thread is starting to degenerate. And to think I started it just because I wanted some advice...

I think people are staking out rather extreme positions. My position, and probably that of most, is if you catch someone in the act of doing something so evil as to warrant the death penalty (generally attempting to kill innocent people, possibly meaning just the party (depends on how innocent they are)), then from the good-aligned perspective, it's okay to kill them in order to stop them. There's no question as to their guilt, and while calling on them to surrender is usually appropriate (maybe not, if it'll just give them the opportunity to kill someone in the meantime), it's not necessary to do everything in your power to spare their lives when they're intent on killing you and/or someone else. If you take the position that you must spare their lives if at all possible, Dan's arguments have some validity, and it's a difficult way to play the game, but not impossible. I don't take that position--frontier justice, remember, and sometimes that means dead or alive. I'll make a reasonable attempt to call for surrender (and when we're talking someone we know is committing terrible crimes, that's more because I'm playing a knight, than because he's good), but once he attacks either the party or someone else, we'll fight to kill. However, what's not valid, and what was the case in the original post, is attacking just because the person is suspicious, while having no evidence of any crimes or even being certain that the person is, in fact, evil (we didn't discover the bugbear was a cleric of Vecna until after the fight).

And no, Crazy Elf doesn't agree that the call to surrender wasn't legitimate. But Crazy Elf's player does, and he is the first to admit that Crazy Elf isn't really rational, and her behavior here is driven more by racial hatred than correct interpretation of right and wrong.

Diggorian
2007-06-21, 11:14 PM
Well I'm done. It's starting to feel like Jannex, Saph, and I arguing the same general point in shifts.

Dan seems to be ignoring replies he cant counter and then bring up all new questions to get answers he'll call "disingenuous".

Good luck Crankshaw.

Deepblue706
2007-06-22, 02:58 AM
Dan Hemmens would appear to be trying only to make very simple points. It seems that his intentions have been misinterpretted - and the reason why he hasn't "responded" to some remarks is because they simply aren't important matters, considering his goal in this discussion.

This is a game, a game with many possible twists and turns. Players should not assume they know everything that'll come. Players should not assume their characters have the same knowledge they do. Players should not assume that their characters don't care about pain, injury, or have no qualms going up against what could look like horrible odds simply because of the assumption that it's an appropriate encounter for a PC of his/her level. While we'd all hope to have just and fair DMs, and never have to deal with a "whoops, the bandit is actually a 20th level rogue. Too bad you're a flat-footed 4th level wizard with 9 CON"-situation...a character should not assume they can take on everyone they meet, simply because the player is confident. This attitude should only be reserved for characters with great hubris. If you keep your character consistent only with your whims, and not with what you've already established about that character, are you really roleplaying? Or, are you trying to win a battle game, that most DMs are already handing over to you, already?

Players of the Good alignment should respect life, and save it wherever possible. Sometimes it's not easy. Sometimes it can be done, but the methods elude some players simply because they are so used to combat as being a way out of problems. The key to avoiding conflict is understanding motivation. Understanding that others actually have motivations for things generally shows the understanding that is necessary to actually have a Good alignment. If your enemies don't actually have real motivations, then I have to say, you have my sympathy.

"There is no good or evil, but thinking makes it so"
-Shakespeare

To assign an entire race as evil shows a great lack of thought. Societal ubringing determines a viewpoint on the world, and how things work - but an entirely "evil" society doesn't actually work. And, while some foes you might fight are "evil", they're probably not "evil" to themselves. Their understanding is probably limited...and to kill them means you've given up any hope of changing that. In some scenarios, it makes sense: an enemy saying "cooperate with my fiendish plan or die" doesn't give much leeway. But, is anyone here familiar with Star Wars? Why do you think Luke tried so desperately tried to turn Vader to the light side? It's because he cared about Vader, his father - and to have a Good alignment means you just pretty much care about plain life, in general, regardless of whether they're family or a complete stranger (I'd say Luke is pretty Neutral). On that note, does Superman ever kill Lex Luthor? I dunno, I didn't see the newest movie. But, I'm guessing probably not.

So, I'm guessing that many people already had some of these thoughts in mind, and discussing it is pointless, because they already know all about it, and usually they can't do it so perfectly because they usually encounter scenario-X where Y happens and Z is the only response. Well, Z being your only response is a shame, because last I looked, the players were supposed to decide what they do, and the DM is a ref. It shouldn't be the DM dictating everything that happens, and saying that every attempt you make to negotiate or otherwise avoid a battle is an utter failure because he likes fighting.

I don't believe Dan Hemmens was trying to single anyone out - it's just in trying to make points like these, he seemed to give people the idea that he was making personal addresses. I don't believe that was the aim. You don't always have to talk the big-guy down, out of his evil plans and towards a better life. But, a Good character should try, even if he "knows" it won't work.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-22, 04:45 AM
Well I'm done. It's starting to feel like Jannex, Saph, and I arguing the same general point in shifts.

Dan seems to be ignoring replies he cant counter and then bring up all new questions to get answers he'll call "disingenuous".

I'm not ignoring the replies I can't counter, I'm just replying to the points with which I disagree.

At this stage I'm happy to agree to disagree on the issue of "how good characters should behave": that's a campaign-by-campaign issue (which, if you look waaaaaay back is exactly the point I made). What I'm still interested in discussing is this idea of characters fearing for their lives.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-22, 04:58 AM
Heh. I think this thread is starting to degenerate. And to think I started it just because I wanted some advice...

Sorry, didn't mean to threadjack. Hope this is still vaguely of interest to you.


I think people are staking out rather extreme positions. My position, and probably that of most, is if you catch someone in the act of doing something so evil as to warrant the death penalty (generally attempting to kill innocent people, possibly meaning just the party (depends on how innocent they are)), then from the good-aligned perspective, it's okay to kill them in order to stop them.

I think that's a reasonable argument, and one that clearly works for your group. I think it causes problems if you sit down and analyse it.

It sounds like your group literally do act like wild west marshals (who, incidentally, I'm not convinced I'd characterize as "good" - some of those guys were pretty damned nasty). You hear about some group of black hats raiding a village, you go and you stop them. That's cool.


There's no question as to their guilt, and while calling on them to surrender is usually appropriate (maybe not, if it'll just give them the opportunity to kill someone in the meantime), it's not necessary to do everything in your power to spare their lives when they're intent on killing you and/or someone else. If you take the position that you must spare their lives if at all possible, Dan's arguments have some validity, and it's a difficult way to play the game, but not impossible. I don't take that position--frontier justice, remember, and sometimes that means dead or alive. I'll make a reasonable attempt to call for surrender (and when we're talking someone we know is committing terrible crimes, that's more because I'm playing a knight, than because he's good), but once he attacks either the party or someone else, we'll fight to kill. However, what's not valid, and what was the case in the original post, is attacking just because the person is suspicious, while having no evidence of any crimes or even being certain that the person is, in fact, evil (we didn't discover the bugbear was a cleric of Vecna until after the fight).

That's fair enough, and logically consistent. The argument that you're fighting to kill because the people you're fighting have shown themselves to deserve death is a reasonable one. It's the argument that you're fighting to kill because you fear for your lives I don't buy.


And no, Crazy Elf doesn't agree that the call to surrender wasn't legitimate. But Crazy Elf's player does, and he is the first to admit that Crazy Elf isn't really rational, and her behavior here is driven more by racial hatred than correct interpretation of right and wrong.

It was Crazy Elf's player that I was asking about. It's important in this sort of game to make sure all the players are on the same page. There's a world of difference between "my character attacks Goblins on sight because they're evil" and "my character attacks Goblins on sight because he thinks they're evil but I accept, out of character, that my character is wrong."

One of the hardest things to do as a roleplayer, I think, is to play a character who you believe to be misguided. It's all too easy to get defensive and say "no, my character was *totally* right to do that." So kudos to the crazy elf.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-22, 05:21 AM
Are you out of your mind? You're given a death threat, and your suggested response is "Hey, I don't think you're doing well out of this killing setup you've got here. Let's sit down and we can give you some advice." How do you know that it was gaining him nothing? How are we supposed to support his demiplane?

He was not interested in having an involved discussion with us. He gave us a simple ultimatum. The possible answers were "yes" and "no". As soon as he saw that our answer wasn't "yes", the battle started.

Okay, so here's the thing.

That dragon did not behave like a rational individual. It attacked you, at risk of its own life (I presume you did actually kill it) because you didn't agree to an impossible request.

Essentially what happened was your DM decided you were going to fight a white dragon, and added some preamble to it. The Dragon himself clearly had no motivation other than to Be Evil and to fight the party. He was a challenge to be overcome (a difficult one, by all accounts) rather than a character to be interacted with.

In a roundabout way, this is exactly the kind of arrangement which leads me to defend the policy of killing Orcs on sight.

In an emotionally and morally realistic world, you don't get whole races of irredeemably evil creatures. In an emotionally and morally realistic world, you don't get creatures who live in a demiplane fuelled by souls for no reason, who get themselves killed attacking you because you refuse to give up your souls for his benefit (I mean, couldn't he have got somebody else's?).

I find it inconsistent to have a world in which you have objective, absolute evil (like this White Dragon) but still play the "oh, but you can't say Orcs are all evil, because that's like saying black people are all criminals".


You said "attacking someone with a missile weapon is literally suicide". Which, as I pointed out, is extremely unrealistic, as proven by the fact that soldiers don't all die as soon as they encounter the enemy. You were exaggerating, I called you on it. That's all.

Soldiers don't all die as soon as they encounter the enemy because they *don't* charge headlong at enemies who are pointing missile weapons at them.

If you actually look at any kind of military history, you'll find that your odds of surviving a headlong charge against an opponent with a missile weapon are essentially zero. The British Empire did so well against the natives of whichever countries we were invading because we had guns and they didn't. An army of British soldiers could defeat a *massively* larger force of spear-wielders by the simple expedient of forming a square and firing outwards.

So no, I wasn't exaggerating. A headlong attack against an enemy pointing a missile weapon at you is suicide. If you don't accept that then *maybe* you've been playing a *bit* too much D&D.


You know, I'd tell you, except that I'm getting the impression that you don't actually care about the answer. I asked earlier for you to clarify which game you meant (the one I play in, or the one I DM?), and you didn't reply, so I've still got no idea which game you're referring to. Tell me that, and tell me why you want to know, and I'll give you a detailed answer to how many PC deaths we have.

I want to know because I want to know whether it is reasonable to say that you have a high expectation of your character being killed, every time you go into a fight (so go with the game you play, rather than the game you GM).

Essentially you've made two statements. One is "we have roughly four fights a session" and the other is "we do not go into fights expecting to win." I don't see how you can reconcile them.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-22, 05:41 AM
I'm confused. How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that this is what I'm suggesting?


You seem to be saying that your character will react as if he is engaged in a bloody brawl to the death, when in fact he will react as he is directed by you, his player, who is fully aware that he has a stock of Hit Points, doesn't bleed or feel pain, and is very, very unlikely to die from a single sword thrust.


Rather, it looks nothing like your interpretation of a standard D&D world. By my reading, it's exactly the way the setting is described in the books.

It's my interpretation based on the *specific* examples people have given me in *this very thread*.


This is demonstrably false. Being born a bugbear is by no reasonable definition equivalent to having evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of a capital crime.

This is going to vary from setting to setting, but as I've said, I'm more than happy to accept your interpretation.


I'm not sure I get your meaning.

I mean if somebody points a crossbow in your face, you're probably going to go "okay mate, whatever you want."


When did I say anything about punches? And you're right, it isn't cowardice, but the point remains that there exist some people who will look for an opportunity to resist, because of training, or courage, or duty.

But there's a difference between "look for an opportunity to resist" and "rush headlong at a man with a projectile weapon pointing right at you." In real life, and in many RPGs, that would be suicide. In D&D it's by far the best strategic option, because you know that a single crossbow shot isn't going to kill you if you have more than about 20 HP.


That may happen in the majority of cases, but occasionally somebody is angry or arrogant enough to start trouble anyway. Heck, there was a time in history not long ago when men agreed--in advance--to face each other on the field of honor with deadly weapons. Alexander Hamilton died because of a duel. Both he and Burr had deadly weapons, and both knew it, but they attacked each other anyway.

Duels are a different matter. What we're talking about is the way your average D&D game provides a steady stream of enemies who will cheefully fight you to the death, despite having remarkably little to gain by it.


If all that's at stake is money, maybe. But if the bandits want to steal the rare herb that is the only cure for the orphans' terrible illness? If they want to steal the widget that will allow you to seal the portal to the Abyss?

Then you hide it, or say "you can have my money, but you can't have this".


Then yes, it's courage, because while your character has every reason to believe that the threat to his life is real, sometimes there are more important concerns.

It's not courage. It's either stupidity, because your character is doing something that *should* get him killed, or callousness, because your character is killing people to get his own way.


In-game, the character's reaction (in the afterlife) would be the former. Out-of-game, the player's reaction would most likely be the latter. This is not inconsistent.

Yes it is. You made the decision to attack not because your character was being brave, but because you thought you would win. That's why you would be upset.

If you knew, out of character, that the guys with the crossbows were way higher level than you, would your character still have chosen to fight?


That's the thing, though--I am not my character. Some things will upset me that might not upset my character, and some things will upset my character that might not upset me. That doesn't mean I shouldn't try to roleplay my character as truly as possible.

But you're not roleplaying your character "truly" you're roleplaying your character in the manner which you desire them to act. If you were truly "roleplaying your character" then you wouldn't have been upset about their getting killed by the spuriously high-level bandits, because that was the decision you made: to die rather than to surrender.


Saph is right; a character doesn't know for certain that any given crossbow bolt will kill her, just that it might. Just like in real life: a person can get shot in the head and recover completely, and a person can get shot in the leg and die of blood loss or gangrene.

None of which can happen in D&D.


This is a difference in setting. Your average D&D setting, with wilderness and bandits and what-have-you, is more inclined toward violent conflict than a modern setting with police and urbanization. Good-aligned characters fight anyway, because they're doing something important, like saving the world.

Most fantasy settings are more inclined towards violent conflict than D&D. Most have much less actual combat in them. Most good characters in such games avoid fighting, because if they get killed, they won't be able to save the world.


Then you've been playing D&D a lot differently than I do.

You know, I really don't think that's true.


I think it IS how it works. I know that my Good-aligned characters try to talk their way out of combat whenever possible, or sneak around it, or otherwise avoid unnecessary violence.

But will they actually *compromise their goals*. Will they actually *surrender* to an enemy, give up their gold or their goods, rather than risk killing? If not, you're only paying lip-service to avoiding violence.


That's the thing. Most Good-aligned characters don't "go out looking for a fight." They go out to try to save the world, or play music in taverns, or try to find rare books, or what-have-you.

But fights come and find them, and they don't shy away, even though those fights usually involve unnecessary violence and killing which could be avoided.

Do all of your characters invest in Merciful Weapons as soon as they can afford them? It seems a logical way to respect and preserve life, after all.

Saph
2007-06-22, 06:34 AM
Okay, so here's the thing.

That dragon did not behave like a rational individual. It attacked you, at risk of its own life (I presume you did actually kill it) because you didn't agree to an impossible request.

Essentially what happened was your DM decided you were going to fight a white dragon, and added some preamble to it. The Dragon himself clearly had no motivation other than to Be Evil and to fight the party. He was a challenge to be overcome (a difficult one, by all accounts) rather than a character to be interacted with.

In a roundabout way, this is exactly the kind of arrangement which leads me to defend the policy of killing Orcs on sight.

In an emotionally and morally realistic world, you don't get whole races of irredeemably evil creatures.

. . .

This is turning into 'heads I win, tails you lose'.

We fought enemies? Well, then, we're trigger-happy. No choice? Then we're unrealistic. There was a choice? Right, we're back to being trigger-happy. There wasn't a choice? Then the DM just made the decision for us and it's unrealistic again.

Why are you even asking me anything if you're going to arrive at the same conclusion no matter what answer you get?


In an emotionally and morally realistic world, you don't get creatures who live in a demiplane fuelled by souls for no reason, who get themselves killed attacking you because you refuse to give up your souls for his benefit (I mean, couldn't he have got somebody else's?).

Dan, I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop assuming that you must know more about the way our games work than the people who actually play in them.


Soldiers don't all die as soon as they encounter the enemy because they *don't* charge headlong at enemies who are pointing missile weapons at them.

So no, I wasn't exaggerating. A headlong attack against an enemy pointing a missile weapon at you is suicide. If you don't accept that then *maybe* you've been playing a *bit* too much D&D.

You didn't say "a headlong attack against..." you just said "attacking someone with a missile weapon is suicide". Which is false, unless you're trying to say that shooting someone doesn't count as "attacking" them. You exaggerated and got called on it. Stop moving the goalposts.


Essentially you've made two statements. One is "we have roughly four fights a session" and the other is "we do not go into fights expecting to win." I don't see how you can reconcile them.

Good grief. And now you're making stuff up completely.

I did not say 'we do not go into fights expecting to win'. Our party's attitude to combat is the normal one for D&D - dangerous and with a high cumulative risk of death, but something we can usually handle in an individual case. Note the 'usually'. 'Usually' means 'not always'. We also don't know in advance which ones are the 'usually' and which ones are the 'not always'. Take that into account and you should find that what Jannex is saying isn't that confusing after all.

Before you explain to me how 'unrealistic' all this is, I should point out that it's pretty similar to the attitude of experienced fighter pilots in a war. Small individual chance of dying on a mission, high cumulative chance of dying on a mission, but they do it anyway, because that's their job.

You seem to have trouble with the notion of probability. You keep on talking as if every combat must be either invariably, instantaneously lethal, or a cakewalk in which you're at no risk at all. Doesn't work that way, in either games or real life. In any combat there is a chance of you dying. Not a certainty. Not a no-show. Just a chance. And here's the thing; you usually don't know exactly how big a chance.

Look, I'm getting the impression that you're either just not interested in what we're saying, or haven't played enough D&D to understand it. Either way, I don't think this argument is going anywhere.

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-22, 07:38 AM
. . .

This is turning into 'heads I win, tails you lose'.

We fought enemies? Well, then, we're trigger-happy. No choice? Then we're unrealistic. There was a choice? Right, we're back to being trigger-happy. There wasn't a choice? Then the DM just made the decision for us and it's unrealistic again.

Why are you even asking me anything if you're going to arrive at the same conclusion no matter what answer you get?

The point I am making is that in D&D combat is the default option. As a result both players and GMs have little investment in exploring other alternatives.


Dan, I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop assuming that you must know more about the way our games work than the people who actually play in them.

So explain the wider context to me, explain to me why the White Dragon was anything *other* than a predefined encounter that had no chance of ending other than in combat.


You didn't say "a headlong attack against..." you just said "attacking someone with a missile weapon is suicide". Which is false, unless you're trying to say that shooting someone doesn't count as "attacking" them. You exaggerated and got called on it. Stop moving the goalposts.

This was all within the context of being robbed at crossbow point. In which case your options are "go along with it" or "do something that will get you shot."

Now in D&D getting yourself shot isn't that much of a problem.


Good grief. And now you're making stuff up completely.

I did not say 'we do not go into fights expecting to win'. Our party's attitude to combat is the normal one for D&D - dangerous and with a high cumulative risk of death, but something we can usually handle in an individual case. Note the 'usually'. 'Usually' means 'not always'. We also don't know in advance which ones are the 'usually' and which ones are the 'not always'. Take that into account and you should find that what Jannex is saying isn't that confusing after all.

Before you explain to me how 'unrealistic' all this is, I should point out that it's pretty similar to the attitude of experienced fighter pilots in a war. Small individual chance of dying on a mission, high cumulative chance of dying on a mission, but they do it anyway, because that's their job.

Fighter pilots in a war, however, go to tremendous lengths to minimise their danger in any and all situations. They have clear, well defined objectives, which they go after with precision and, if possible, overwhelming force.

That is not at all the same as a D&D party wading into battle against a group of Orcs.


You seem to have trouble with the notion of probability. You keep on talking as if every combat must be either invariably, instantaneously lethal, or a cakewalk in which you're at no risk at all. Doesn't work that way, in either games or real life. In any combat there is a chance of you dying. Not a certainty. Not a no-show. Just a chance. And here's the thing; you usually don't know exactly how big a chance.

Except in D&D, you do. You know that a crossbow does 1D8 damage with a x3 critical modifier. You know that a single crossbow bolt can *never* do more than 24 points of damage to you, unless it's being fired by a rogue.

The is not the same as being a soldier in a military engagement, where you try your best to attack when the enemy isn't expecting it, minimise your exposure to enemy fire and, if possible, just bomb them from orbit.

Indeed real soldiers would *absolutely* kill orcs without parlaying with them. That's why long term military engagements have so many incidents of friendly fire.


Look, I'm getting the impression that you're either just not interested in what we're saying, or haven't played enough D&D to understand it. Either way, I don't think this argument is going anywhere.


And I get the impression that you're just not interested in what I'm saying, or haven't played enough games that *aren't* D&D to understand it.

There is a world of difference between going into a D&D encounter and thinking "if I get a run of bad luck, or this encounter turns out to be too tough for me, I've had it" and going into a fight in real life or in a game with a deadlier combat system and thinking "if one single thing goes wrong, I've had it."

Citizen Joe
2007-06-22, 07:57 AM
See these last 4 pages? Yea, THAT's why you don't parlay with a bugbear. Sitting at the table playing (or to a lesser extent a PbP game) and then you essentially bring up an alignment question. Accusations fly and suddenly you're embroiled in a deep philosophical debate. The game session is ruined... the whole campaign could be as well.

Tormsskull
2007-06-22, 08:02 AM
Except in D&D, you do. You know that a crossbow does 1D8 damage with a x3 critical modifier. You know that a single crossbow bolt can *never* do more than 24 points of damage to you, unless it's being fired by a rogue.

In a standard D&D world there are magical weapons, poisons, assassins, etc. I don't think its going too far out on a limb to assume that a guy with a crossbow might be more than just a farmer with a crossbow.

But Dan, you are right, combat is largely assumed to occur in D&D. I would agree with you that the default way of handling encounters is combat. It is up to the DM to make sure that resulting combat has some kind of meaning in the context of the campaign. If the DM doesn't show to the players that the encounter is more than just CR Appropriate Encounter #2, they can't be blamed for treating it that way.

When I DM I try to make each combat for a purpose. It can be very difficult, don't get me wrong, but when done well it results in great sessions.

Saph
2007-06-22, 08:27 AM
So explain the wider context to me, explain to me why the White Dragon was anything *other* than a predefined encounter that had no chance of ending other than in combat.

Why bother?

I could explain all the details of who the dragon was, what he originally was, how he created the demiplane, and what he was doing there (which our party discovered over the course of several sessions) - but like I said, your attitude to this is 'heads I win, tails you lose'. If I explain that there really wasn't any way to avoid the battle, you'll tell me that it's an 'unrealistic' encounter which had 'no chance of ending other than in combat.' If I explain that there was a way to avoid the battle, you'll tell me that we fought because we were looking for an excuse to and weren't trying to avoid combat at all. You'll come to the same conclusion no matter what you hear, so what's the point?


Except in D&D, you do.

No, I don't.


You know that a crossbow does 1D8 damage with a x3 critical modifier. You know that a single crossbow bolt can *never* do more than 24 points of damage to you, unless it's being fired by a rogue.

What's a d8? Is that some kind of spell? I'm not sure what a critical modifier is, either. Look, are you a crossbow expert, or something? Is that why you're so interested? I'm sorry, but I've never really learnt how to build weapons. I know how to fire a crossbow, but that's about it. You should ask Jinx, he's the sniper. At least that's what he calls himself.
. . .
Uh, no, crossbows are dangerous. Really.
. . .
Because I've seen people get killed by them, that's why.
. . .
No, I don't know that a shot from a crossbow won't kill me. Where are you getting these ideas? Look, take one of your crossbow bolts. See the pointy thing on the end? Measure that against your body.
. . .
What's HP? Look, why are you so interested in knowing how many arrows or bolts it would take to kill me? Why do you even want to know? Are you planning on testing it out?
. . .
You aren't making any sense. Look, I'm sorry, but could you go away, please? You're making me nervous. And please keep that thing unloaded while you're near me.

- Saph

Jayabalard
2007-06-22, 08:41 AM
Yes, that's rather my point. "Good" D&D characters pay lip-service to avoiding killing, but the still engage in a boatload of it. Claiming that it's "self-defence" is frankly silly. You're a bunch of heavily armed people, going out looking for a fight, and when you find one, you kill your opponents and take all their belongings.Perhaps that's how you play "good" characters... I think you have a pretty skewed idea of the difference between good and evil.

If someone in one of my campaigns acted like that, they wouldn't have a good alignment for very long. It doesn't matter what RPG system I play in, characters that wander around looking for a fight, never look for alternate options, kill people simply because they are there and take their belongings aren't part of the "good guys".

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-22, 08:47 AM
Why bother?

I could explain all the details of who the dragon was, what he originally was, how he created the demiplane, and what he was doing there (which our party discovered over the course of several sessions) - but like I said, your attitude to this is 'heads I win, tails you lose'. If I explain that there really wasn't any way to avoid the battle, you'll tell me that it's an 'unrealistic' encounter which had 'no chance of ending other than in combat.' If I explain that there was a way to avoid the battle, you'll tell me that we fought because we were looking for an excuse to and weren't trying to avoid combat at all. You'll come to the same conclusion no matter what you hear, so what's the point?

The point is that the more information I have, the more I can understand the situation you're describing. Now yes, it's possible I'll still come to the same conclusion afterwards, in fact it's extremely probable. But you're the one who's complaining that I'm arguing from a position of ignorance here.

My position is simple and straightforward: D&D is a game geared towards combat. Because players know that their characters have a better chance of surviving combat than they would in any other game, they have less incentive to look for non-combat solutions to their problems, and the DM has less incentive to provide them.


No, I don't.

Yes, you do. You know out of character, and your out of character knowledge informs your in-character decisions.


What's a d8? Is that some kind of spell? I'm not sure what a critical modifier is, either. Look, are you a crossbow expert, or something? Is that why you're so interested? I'm sorry, but I've never really learnt how to build weapons. I know how to fire a crossbow, but that's about it. You should ask Jinx, he's the sniper. At least that's what he calls himself.
. . .
Uh, no, crossbows are dangerous. Really.
. . .
Because I've seen people get killed by them, that's why.
. . .
No, I don't know that a shot from a crossbow won't kill me. Where are you getting these ideas? Look, take one of your crossbow bolts. See the pointy thing on the end? Measure that against your body.
. . .
What's HP? Look, why are you so interested in knowing how many arrows or bolts it would take to kill me? Why do you even want to know? Are you planning on testing it out?
. . .
You aren't making any sense. Look, I'm sorry, but could you go away, please? You're making me nervous. And please keep that thing unloaded while you're near me.


So you're applying in-character logic, which says that a single shot from a crossbow, or blow from a sword, could cripple or kill you?

Brilliant. Then that's the logic we are going to stick with.

Now let's take a hypothetical situation. Your character "knows" that weapons are dangerous and combat is deadly. He knows that letting somebody fire a crossbow at him is stupid decision that could cost him his life. He knows that letting somebody swing a sword at him is an equally stupid decision that could cost him his life.

He know's he's in Orc country, and he knows that Orcs are often hostile to strangers.

He sees a band of Orcs cresting a nearby hill. They are armed, and he has no way of knowing what their intentions are.

What is the correct response from a man who knows that a single spear thrust could kill him?

Jayabalard
2007-06-22, 08:52 AM
There is no "the correct response". There are many correct responses for a person who has a "good" alignment.

Since you don't know what their intentions are attacking them before you ascertain their intentions is not on that list of correct responses. If that's the response you take, then you probably should have chosen a neutral (or evil) alignment instead.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-22, 09:00 AM
There is no "the correct response". There are many correct responses for a person who has a "good" alignment.

Since you don't know what their intentions are attacking them before you ascertain their intentions is not on that list of correct responses.

Okay, I can accept that, but follow me down this train of thought for a second.

You're operating from the assumption that a single bow-shot or sword thrust can kill you, the only sane way to fight these people is from ambush. Anything else is just insane and invites death. The reason that real world soldiers and fighter pilots have a reasonably good chance of surviving an engagement with the enemy, is that they always do it on their own terms.

So if you can't assume they're hostile (because that would be non-good) and you can't assume they're non-hostile (because that, from your in-character perspective, would be suicidal). What's left?

Saph
2007-06-22, 09:16 AM
The point is that the more information I have, the more I can understand the situation you're describing. Now yes, it's possible I'll still come to the same conclusion afterwards, in fact it's extremely probable. But you're the one who's complaining that I'm arguing from a position of ignorance here.

My position is simple and straightforward: D&D is a game geared towards combat. Because players know that their characters have a better chance of surviving combat than they would in any other game, they have less incentive to look for non-combat solutions to their problems, and the DM has less incentive to provide them.

That's a pretty big climbdown from 'all characters who claim to try and avoid combat are hypocrites'. If you'd just said that at the beginning, I wouldn't have disagreed with you in the first place.


So you're applying in-character logic, which says that a single shot from a crossbow, or blow from a sword, could cripple or kill you?

Brilliant. Then that's the logic we are going to stick with.

Now let's take a hypothetical situation. Your character "knows" that weapons are dangerous and combat is deadly. He knows that letting somebody fire a crossbow at him is stupid decision that could cost him his life. He knows that letting somebody swing a sword at him is an equally stupid decision that could cost him his life.

He know's he's in Orc country, and he knows that Orcs are often hostile to strangers.

He sees a band of Orcs cresting a nearby hill. They are armed, and he has no way of knowing what their intentions are.

What is the correct response from a man who knows that a single spear thrust could kill him?

I've no idea. Who's this man you're talking about? And saying that there's a 'correct' response seems pretty arrogant. If you only want an answer that's correct by your own standards, don't ask anyone else.

If you want to know what my character would do in that situation, though, I could tell you. There are various options. Here they are, roughly in order of her personal preference.

a) Hide. Watch them go past, and carry on. If spotted:

b) Watch (from a safe distance) what they do. Stay away from their route. They might just go on past. If they turn towards me, how aggressive do they look?

c) If they're obviously aggressive and are going for me, cast Alter Self, take avariel form, and fly off. I'm faster than them, so I should be able to outdistance them without too much trouble.

d) If they seem to want to parley, then it's a bit more difficult. I don't want to let them get too close, but I don't want to just run away, either. I'd find a position where I could take good cover (peek out from behind a tree, maybe) and watch them approach. If they're trying not to scare me off, they'll stop a good distance away and send one or two orcs over to talk. If so, we talk. If they get aggressive, revert to plan c).

e) If neither running away nor hiding is an option, take a defensive position and wait for them to approach. Ask them not to get too close, and try to talk to them. Pre-casting a spell with a long duration would probably be smart.

f) If neither running away nor hiding is an option and they just charge, cast defensive spells, get off the ground, and fight back as they come into range. This is a last-resort option and really not something my character's particularly well suited to. It's also highly dangerous, since I have no idea how powerful the orcs are (they could all be 10th-level for all I know). But sometimes you don't have a choice.

A more aggressive character would respond by laying an ambush and trying to kill them all from surprise, and I've played characters who would have done that, too. But this particular character's quite gentle and avoids fights where possible. Still, gentle doesn't mean suicidal.

- Saph

Jayabalard
2007-06-22, 09:21 AM
Okay, I can accept that, but follow me down this train of thought for a second.

You're operating from the assumption that a single bow-shot or sword thrust can kill you, the only sane way to fight these people is from ambush. Anything else is just insane and invites death. The reason that real world soldiers and fighter pilots have a reasonably good chance of surviving an engagement with the enemy, is that they always do it on their own terms.

So if you can't assume they're hostile (because that would be non-good) and you can't assume they're non-hostile (because that, from your in-character perspective, would be suicidal). What's left?

You seem to be assuming that everyone is a coward and afraid to die; that's not the case at all, especially for adventurers. As a matter of fact, being courageous and laughing in the face of death is a virtue. So I'm free to assume that they may not be hostile without "being insane". The only time it's "insane" is when you metagame and look for the optimal battlegaming path.

Killing people from ambush when you have no idea of their intentions, just because they happened to be armed is cowardly as well as being non-good.

Even if you are playing a cowardly character, avoiding the fight is a better response than ambush

Some simple rules of thumb for being a heroic good person (not a comprehensive list):

If someone doesn't threaten you, you don't threaten them. You don't go around ambushing people unless you have really good reason to believe that they are going to do someone harm.
If someone threatens you, or the weak and innocent, you should act to protect yourself or those who need protection.
Don't assume that someone is hostile unless you have a really good reason to believe it; you should be willing to take at least some personal risk to keep the peace.
If fighting someone is meaningless other than loot and XP, and you have an opportunity to avoid the fight, you should strive to avoid the fight at all costs.
If you're fighting someone, and you can safely disable/subdue them rather than kill you should do so.
If you're fighting someone, and they surrender, you should accept their surrender.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-22, 09:26 AM
That's a pretty big climbdown from 'all characters who claim to try and avoid combat are hypocrites'. If you'd just said that at the beginning, I wouldn't have disagreed with you in the first place.

What I actually said was "players who claim that their characters kill in self defence out of the fear of death, but do not let that same fear of death prevent their characters from entering combat in the first place are, perhaps, being a little hypocritical."


I've no idea. Who's this man you're talking about? And saying that there's a 'correct' response seems pretty arrogant. If you only want an answer that's correct by your own standards, don't ask anyone else.

I'm not asking for the right answer by my standards, I'm asking for the right answer by your standards.


If you want to know what my character would do in that situation, though, I could tell you. There are various options. Here they are, roughly in order of her personal preference.

<snip>

Fair enough, all of those are reasonable options. Is that the way your character would react to every fight?

[quote]A more aggressive character would respond by laying an ambush and trying to kill them all from surprise, and I've played characters who would have done that, too. But this particular character's quite gentle and avoids fights where possible. Still, gentle doesn't mean suicidal.

And, in your opinion, would a character laying an ambush and trying to kill them all from surprise be committing an Evil act, or would they be acting in self-defense?

Saph
2007-06-22, 09:33 AM
Fair enough, all of those are reasonable options. Is that the way your character would react to every fight?

Pretty much. She's kind, extremely strongly Good-aligned, and doesn't fight without a good reason.

If it had been just a single creature I'd be less reluctant to close the distance, since I could use Charm Person or Charm Monster if they turned out to be aggressive. But if it's a gang of orcs all together, that wouldn't work.


And, in your opinion, would a character laying an ambush and trying to kill them all from surprise be committing an Evil act, or would they be acting in self-defense?

It depends. You'd have to give a lot more details before I'd be comfortable calling that one way or another.

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-22, 09:35 AM
You seem to be assuming that everyone is a coward and afraid to die; that's not the case at all, especially for adventurers. As a matter of fact, being courageous and laughing in the face of death is a virtue. So I'm free to assume that they may not be hostile without "being insane". The only time it's "insane" is when you metagame and look for the optimal battlegaming path.

I notice you use the phrase "coward and afraid to die" as if the one implies the other. I would hazard that most people are afraid to die, that does not make them cowards.

When we launch airstrikes against enemy positions in a war, we do so because we want to minimise the risk to our own people, despite the fact that this increases the risk to the enemy, both combatant and civilian. This isn't cowardice, it's standard strategy.


Killing people from ambush when you have no idea of their intentions, just because they happened to be armed is cowardly as well as being non-good.

You say cowardly, others would say prudent.


Even if you are playing a cowardly character, avoiding the fight is a better response than ambush

Some simple rules of thumb for being a heroic good person (not a comprehensive list):

If someone doesn't threaten you, you don't threaten them. You don't go around ambushing people unless you have really good reason to believe that they are going to do someone harm.
If someone threatens you, or the weak and innocent, you should act to protect yourself or those who need protection.
Don't assume that someone is hostile unless you have a really good reason to believe it; you should be willing to take at least some personal risk to keep the peace.
If fighting someone is meaningless other than loot and XP, and you have an opportunity to avoid the fight, you should strive to avoid the fight at all costs.
If you're fighting someone, and you can safely disable/subdue them rather than kill you should do so.
If you're fighting someone, and they surrender, you should accept their surrender.


Okay, let's have a look at that list.

So no ambushes, unless it's a legitimate target. Fair enough.

By "act to protect yourself" do you mean "by any means necessary" or do you mean "with the minimum of bloodshed"?

By "at all costs" do you mean that literally? If a group of bandits demand your gold at crossbow point, do you believe that the "Good" response is to hand over your gold.

By "safely" do you mean "safely within a real-world context, in which a sword is a deadly weapon" or "safely within D&D, where taking -4 to hit is a non-trivial but workable option, even if it might result in your losing a couple more hitpoints"?

And how many times does somebody have to betray your trust before you refuse to accept their surrender?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-22, 09:40 AM
Pretty much. She's kind, extremely strongly Good-aligned, and doesn't fight without a good reason.

Fair enough.


If it had been just a single creature I'd be less reluctant to close the distance, since I could use Charm Person or Charm Monster if they turned out to be aggressive. But if it's a gang of orcs all together, that wouldn't work.

And, for all you know, they could be level ten...


It depends. You'd have to give a lot more details before I'd be comfortable calling that one way or another.


Okay, specifically: your nation is under invasion by Orcs. The Orcish armies are marching on your homeland even now, and your party is deep within enemy territory looking for the Orcish High Command, hoping that you can take the impetus out of the invasion by dealing with their leaders. Orcish culture is barbaric, violent and "usually chaotic evil", reinforcements are going to the front lines every day bringing untold suffering and death to your people.

Is it okay to ambush roving bands of Orcs on spec, or should you still leave them in peace?

Saph
2007-06-22, 09:53 AM
Okay, specifically: your nation is under invasion by Orcs. The Orcish armies are marching on your homeland even now, and your party is deep within enemy territory looking for the Orcish High Command, hoping that you can take the impetus out of the invasion by dealing with their leaders. Orcish culture is barbaric, violent and "usually chaotic evil", reinforcements are going to the front lines every day bringing untold suffering and death to your people.

Is it okay to ambush roving bands of Orcs on spec, or should you still leave them in peace?

My character would be unlikely to be recruited for a mission like that, so I assume I'd be playing someone else who was more like a professional soldier.

First, if I'm aiming for the High Command, then I'm probably going to avoid random bands of orcs. They're a distraction from my mission.

If I do have to go through a band of Orcs, and if they're obviously combatants (rather than stray civilians) - then ambush them, kill them all, preferably by surprise, make sure none get away, and then go over the bodies afterwards to confirm they're all dead (if not, correct the mistake).

Good or evil? Don't know, don't care. We're at war and the priority is survival, not ethics.

- Saph

Jayabalard
2007-06-22, 10:22 AM
I notice you use the phrase "coward and afraid to die" as if the one implies the other. I would hazard that most people are afraid to die, that does not make them cowards. Sorry, but in a world where magic is real, and the question on whether there is or isn't an afterlife is a settled issue, that does indeed make them cowards. If you get killed in battle you know for certain that you'll be heading up to Valhalla and fighting endless battles in preparation for Ragnarok, or off to some other plane to enjoy eternal bliss. Don't get that mixed this up with the real world, where that's a really question for many people.

Don't forget, even in the real world, more people are afraid of speaking in public than death.


When we launch airstrikes against enemy positions in a war, we do so because we want to minimise the risk to our own people, despite the fact that this increases the risk to the enemy, both combatant and civilian. This isn't cowardice, it's standard strategy.

You Some say cowardly, others would say prudent.Just because cowardly and evil strategy is standard doesn't mean that it's any less cowardly and evil. Calling it "prudent" doesn't change what it is any more than any other form of doublespeak does.


Okay, let's have a look at that list.

So no ambushes, unless it's a legitimate target. Fair enough.

By "act to protect yourself" do you mean "by any means necessary" or do you mean "with the minimum of bloodshed"?isn't that pretty clearly covered by later statements and the fact that we're talking about "the good guys"? Using "any means necessary" is mutually exclusive with "good"; that's a neutral methodology at best, and often it means doing evil.

Besides, "act to protect yourself" doesn't even mean that you necessarily have to fight them.


By "at all costs" do you mean that literally? If a group of bandits demand your gold at crossbow point, do you believe that the "Good" response is to hand over your gold.Yes I mean that literally, no I don't think that the good response is necessarily going to be to hand over the gold.

Are you saying that when you are being robbed, "Fighting [them] is meaningless other than loot and XP"? Personally, I think that the answer to whether the fight is "meaningless other than loot and XP" could vary from scenario to scenario, and the one you give doesn't have all the needed information to make a judgment on that.

It's a case of "If someone threatens you, or the weak and innocent, you should act to protect yourself or those who need protection." and you should therefore "act to protect yourself". Whether giving up your is an acceptable means of "acting to protect yourself" varies from character to character.


By "safely" do you mean "safely within a real-world context, in which a sword is a deadly weapon" or "safely within D&D, where taking -4 to hit is a non-trivial but workable option, even if it might result in your losing a couple more hitpoints"?I mean safely as in "safely within a real-world context, in which a sword is a deadly weapon" while keeping in mind that "you should be willing to take at least some personal risk to keep the peace."


And how many times does somebody have to betray your trust before you refuse to accept their surrender?Varies from once to countably infinite, depending on the character.


Orcish culture is barbaric, violent and "usually chaotic evil", reinforcements are going to the front lines every day bringing untold suffering and death to your people.

Is it okay to ambush roving bands of Orcs on spec, or should you still leave them in peace?Remember, we're going with the "not metagaming" assumption, so "usually chaotic evil" is not a valid description of the orcs.

If you're actively at war with the orcs, and you're within the war zone, then you certainly have reason to believe that they will act in a hostile manner. Fighting them is probably (though not certainly) meaningful disregarding the exp and loot.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-22, 10:49 AM
Sorry, but in a world where magic is real, and the question on whether there is or isn't an afterlife is a settled issue, that does indeed make them cowards. Don't get that mixed this up with the real world, where that's a question for many people.

Umm ... in D&D the afterlife is real, and only cowards fear death.

But killing is still wrong, because?


Don't forget, even in the real world, more people are afraid of speaking in public than death.

Stuff and nonsense. In the real world people are confronted with having to speak in public more often than they are confronted with death.


Just because cowardly and evil strategy is standard doesn't mean that it's any less cowardly and evil. Calling it "prudent" doesn't change what it is any more than any other form of doublespeak does.

How about calling it "the best way to save lives"?


isn't that pretty clearly covered by later statements and the fact that we're talking about "the good guys"? Using "any means necessary" is mutually exclusive with "good"; that's a neutral methodology at best, and often it means doing evil.

Besides, "act to protect yourself" doesn't even mean that you necessarily have to fight them.

Quite so, but it frequently does, doesn't it?


Yes I mean that literally, no I don't think that the good response is necessarily going to be to hand over the gold.

Are you saying that when you are being robbed, "Fighting [them] is meaningless other than loot and XP"? Personally, I think that the answer to whether the fight is "meaningless other than loot and XP" could vary from scenario to scenario, and the one you give doesn't have all the needed information to make a judgment on that.

You are presented with the choice of: hand over the money or fight them, kill them, and take their stuff. One profits you, the other costs you. If you fight, you're just fighting to save your money. "For loot", in other words.


It's a case of "If someone threatens you, or the weak and innocent, you should act to protect yourself or those who need protection." and you should therefore "act to protect yourself". Whether giving up your is an acceptable means of "acting to protect yourself" varies from character to character.

It's the method that involves the least killing, and should therefore be the one commensurate with the greatest good, by your definition.


I mean safely as in "safely within a real-world context, in which a sword is a deadly weapon" while keeping in mind that "you should be willing to take at least some personal risk to keep the peace."

In which case you should under no circumstances engage armed men directly in a fair fight. That's not "some personal risk", that's a better than fifty percent chance of death or injury.


Varies from once to countably infinite, depending on the character.

But we're not talking about the character, we're talking about your definition of goodness.


Remember, we're going with the "not metagaming" assumption, so "usually chaotic evil" is not a valid description of the orcs.

Hence the quotation marks. It was shorthand for "their society is such that it produces a population the majority of whom will kill for sport or pleasure".


If you're actively at war with the orcs, and you're within the war zone, then you certainly have reason to believe that they will act in a hostile manner. Fighting them is probably (though not certainly) meaningful disregarding the exp and loot.

But you shouldn't ambush them? Or is it okay now, because you're at war?

Jayabalard
2007-06-22, 11:42 AM
Umm ... in D&D the afterlife is real, and only cowards fear death.

But killing is still wrong, because?really, even the good cowards have nothing to fear except for the fear of the unknown; it's only the evil and neutral ones that have anything to fear. Also, don't mix up being afraid of death with giving into the fear of death; most people do the former, cowards are the ones who do the latter.

It's wrong primarily because the gods say so: it causes the people you kill (and perhaps their loved ones) pain, you're robbing them of the chance to repent their evil that they may have done, denying them the chance to do more good things while still alive, you're destroying that which was given to them by the gods, and so on. There's a reason why people live rather than just going directly to the afterlife, and you killing them interferes with that.

certainly it's not entirely logical and consistent, but what do you really expect from a world where magic is real?


Stuff and nonsense. In the real world people are confronted with having to speak in public more often than they are confronted with death.It's something appearing in public speaking textbooks and workshops and in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_public_speaking);

And of course there's the Seinfeld bit: "According to most studies, people's number one fear is public speaking. Number two is death. Death is number two. Does that sound right? This means to the average person, if you go to a funeral, you're better off in the casket than doing the eulogy."


How about calling it "the best way to save lives"?That's a strictly utilitarian evaluation (neutral) which doesn't make it good, and it doesn't say anything about it being non-cowardly.


You are presented with the choice of: hand over the money or fight them, kill them, and take their stuff. One profits you, the other costs you. If you fight, you're just fighting to save your money. "For loot", in other words.

It's the method that involves the least killing, and should therefore be the one commensurate with the greatest good, by your definition. You're oversimplifying and and overgeneralizing.

If someone is being robbed, there may be (and probably are) quite a few other reasons for someone to fight than just the money thats involved; as an example: for a paladin, his responsibility to protect the innocent people that the robbers will harm in the future, his duty to enforce justice and the laws of the land (and so on) make the money the least important part of his decision to fight.

I used the word "loot" intentionally; by "loot" I mean to take stuff from them, generally off of their dead or unconscious bodies, after a battle. Not one of the slang meanings that just means "money" or "things of value"

Greatest good does not mean it's the only good choice; what choice a good character makes isn't always going to be the same as what another good character makes. They can be quite different and still fit in the mold of a heroic good character.

In this case, the greatest good would be to convince the bandits to give up their life of crime, and instead work toward the common good of mankind. If that's not something you can do, you'll have to make do with one of the other good choices, and that specific choice is going go depend on specifics in the situation, and of the character.


In which case you should under no circumstances engage armed men directly in a fair fight. That's not "some personal risk", that's a better than fifty percent chance of death or injury.Again, you're resorting back to cowardism, I'm talking about heroic good characters. Heroes are not afraid to die for their beliefs, while doing what they believe is right, or in the defense of others. That's what makes them heroes.

Certainly they're going to weigh the risk against what they lose by not fighting; but the risk of injury or even death is nothing compared to protecting others.


But we're not talking about the character, we're talking about your definition of goodness.Nope, I gave rules of thumb for a heroic good character; you made specific comments on those rules of thumb, and I made a response to your comments. We're talking about characters. Heroic good characters have a pretty wide variation, and different characters, all of them good, will have different responses, which is why I gave general rules of thumb.


Hence the quotation marks. It was shorthand for "their society is such that it produces a population the majority of whom will kill for sport or pleasure"."usually chaotic evil" is much more general than that; if you're going to set up a non-metagaming scenario, leave the metagaming all the way out of it.


But you shouldn't ambush them? Or is it okay now, because you're at war?If you're at war, they've made a formal declaration of their intentions, so you know their intentions, don't you? That was the primary objection that I raised, wasn't it? The one where I said that you had a skewed idea of the difference between good and evil.

Whether you ambush them or not depends on specifics of the character; some will, some won't.

Diggorian
2007-06-22, 11:56 AM
I'm not ignoring the replies I can't counter, I'm just replying to the points with which I disagree.

And you agree with the points ya cant counter, naturally. That's not an issue, the issue is when your having a discussion and then stop it without closure. I'm not the etiquette police, but I know rude.


What I'm still interested in discussing is this idea of characters fearing for their lives.

It's positively ridiculous that you cant conceive of characters fighting the literal stuff of nightmares being afraid for their lives while they fight them, yet being courageous enough to do so after so many posters here have described such situations they've actually experienced in game.

There, now I done. I name Jayabalard my successor. :smallbiggrin:

Deepblue706
2007-06-22, 12:11 PM
Mr. Hemmens, I strongly suggest, as this point, you stop having these people "play the game", and try another approach. Obviously they are not going to participate in this conversation in the way you've intended - and it doesn't look like it'll change. Even if it's that annoying to do so, just blurt out each of your beliefs in bullet-list form, so they don't keep missing the hart. Make sure you rule out absolutes, as someone will most certainly say "but wait, there's always that one exception, blah blah..." and be as clear as possible. Anything remotely cryptic can sometimes be very hard to interpret, simply because of preestablished perspectives and disposition.

Tormsskull
2007-06-22, 12:16 PM
Even if it's that annoying to do so, just blurt out each of your beliefs in bullet-list form, so they don't keep missing the hart.

Hey! I'm enjoying his use of the Socratic Method. Let it continue with the introspective line of questioning.

Jorkens
2007-06-22, 12:20 PM
If someone is being robbed, there may be (and probably are) quite a few other reasons for someone to fight than just the money thats involved; as an example: for a paladin, his responsibility to protect the innocent people that the robbers will harm in the future, his duty to enforce justice and the laws of the land (and so on) make the money the least important part of his decision to fight.
This seems to be a significant point - in a society where capital punishment is a practical neccessity and justice tends to be rough, there's still a big difference between killing people who you've seen on at least one occasion attempting robbery with lethal force (ie attempting to rob you), and killing someone because they have a greater than evens chance of being generally ill disposed towards others.

Deepblue706
2007-06-22, 12:25 PM
Hey! I'm enjoying his use of the Socratic Method. Let it continue with the introspective line of questioning.

Unfortunately, we have people giving up on the conversation. The method works a lot better in person - people can still hear you when they begin to walk away, even if they run or try to plug their ears. You also have a better shot at grabbing their attention to do so.

On a forum, they can kinda...just stop looking.

Diggorian
2007-06-22, 12:46 PM
Unfortunately, we have people giving up on the conversation.

I put my time in. Further posts from me will cost ya $10 per post. :smallamused:

Gryndle
2007-06-22, 02:14 PM
Going back to the original example, here "bugbear" is essentially code for "bandito". You encounter this guy on the road, sure he's not attacking you, but you can be pretty sure he'll be raiding defenseless Mexican villages in the next couple of weeks. By the "frontier justice" model, offing him is perfectly justifiable.


Nope, I totally disagree here. It is NEVER justifiable to kill someone because of what they MIGHT do in the future. Because, you know, they MIGHT NOT. But more importantly, guilt does not come from what you may or may not yet do, but what you have done or are presently attempting to do.

Yogi
2007-06-22, 02:32 PM
That dragon did not behave like a rational individual. It attacked you, at risk of its own life (I presume you did actually kill it) because you didn't agree to an impossible request.

Essentially what happened was your DM decided you were going to fight a white dragon, and added some preamble to it. The Dragon himself clearly had no motivation other than to Be Evil and to fight the party. He was a challenge to be overcome (a difficult one, by all accounts) rather than a character to be interacted with.

In a roundabout way, this is exactly the kind of arrangement which leads me to defend the policy of killing Orcs on sight.So, any encounter when the enemy does not deserve to be killed, the players shouldn't kill. Any encounter where the enemy DOES deserve to be killed, doesn't count because the DM is making it that way. Therefore players are not justified in killing anything. Therefore, players can justly kill everything.

Gotcha.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-22, 05:38 PM
See these last 4 pages? Yea, THAT's why you don't parlay with a bugbear. Sitting at the table playing (or to a lesser extent a PbP game) and then you essentially bring up an alignment question. Accusations fly and suddenly you're embroiled in a deep philosophical debate. The game session is ruined... the whole campaign could be as well.

Well, I've only been skimming the really long posts unless they directly address my question. And for the record, despite a tense weekend, the group's gotten over it and moved on without anywhere near this amount of arguing.

As for whether it matters, well, I suppose a lot of it depends on the DM. From what the DM has said about our next adventure, moral choices will be having definite, in-game impact. Apparently that's how the world works in Ravenloft.

Diggorian
2007-06-22, 05:40 PM
Crankshaw how about a link to your PBP where this went down?

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-22, 05:45 PM
Crankshaw how about a link to your PBP where this went down?
I'm reluctant to do that. This way, there's a certain amount of anonymity for all participants (aside from me). They're just characters without even a name. If I link to the site, then I identify the players.

Diggorian
2007-06-22, 05:48 PM
Why not PM me? I'm discrete.

Bassetking
2007-06-22, 11:22 PM
Why not PM me? I'm discrete.

Like a Macy's Balloon...:smallbiggrin:

Jannex
2007-06-23, 02:23 AM
I'm starting to get frustrated by this discussion as well, but I am perhaps not as smart as Diggorian, to walk away when I start to get disgusted.

I have had characters die in "level-appropriate encounters." So yes, I take every combat seriously, because I know that unless I'm both clever and lucky, my character could die. And you know what else? Even in games where I've had the GM (here I'm talking about White Wolf, because you seldom get this sort of guarantee in D&D) tell me, "I'm not going to kill your character--no matter what--unless you do something monumentally stupid," my characters STILL treat every combat situation like the potentially-lethal encounter it is. I tend to play characters that are cautious and defensive in combat: diving for cover when being shot at, employing strike-and-withdraw tactics, or avoiding combat altogether through stealth or diplomacy whenever feasible. This is the sort of character I play. However, there are some things that are important enough to my characters that they're willing to fight for them. Protecting innocents. Saving the world. Standing up for "what's right." That sort of thing. These are important enough to many of my characters that they're willing to risk death.

So yes. When I roleplay, I respond to situations based on my character's thoughts, emotions, values, and impressions. My approach to roleplaying is fairly accurately described by the Meisner technique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meisner_technique). I go for immersion, the point where I don't have to think about how my character would respond to a given situation, because I just know. So really, I don't like to be called a liar when I say that I keep my reactions as true-to-character as possible.

The other problem it seems we're running into here is a mental stumbling-block of absolutism: the idea that a race is either all-good or all-evil; the idea that a character is either completely fearless of death, or absolutely terrified and refuses to put himself at any risk. There's a whole spectrum of shades of grey between those black-and-white options--heck, there're colors!

The fact remains that a "usually chaotic evil" race isn't ALWAYS chaotic evil, and if you encounter a member of such a race in a peaceful context (i.e. just walking down the road or through the woods, or approaches you without weapons drawn and wishing to talk), and gives no indication that he intends harm to you, your friends, or any other innocent, and you have no specific evidence that this particular individual is guilty of acts that warrant a violent response, and he is not a member of a military force with which you are actively at war, then attacking him unprovoked is a decidedly non-Good act. I don't see how this is in dispute.

Dan, you've given hypothetical situations previously in this thread. I'd like to give you one. Your character is on a road. (I don't care what character of yours, save that, for it to be relevant to the discussion, he'd have to be Good-aligned.) He's between settlements, and so miles away from any civilized area. Coming up the road in the opposite direction, he sees a very well-armed minotaur. (Minotaurs, like bugbears, are "usually chaotic evil.") When the minotaur sees your character, he offers him a friendly wave and continues approaching at the same speed as before he'd noticed him. The minotaur's weapons are not drawn. What does your character do?

A second hypothetical situation: That same character from the first hypothetical is on a road, between settlements, miles from civilization. Coming up the road in the opposite direction, he sees a very well-armed dwarf. When the dwarf sees your character, he offers him a friendly wave, and continues approaching at the same speed as before he'd noticed him. The dwarf's weapons are not drawn. What does your character do? And if his actions are different than they were in the first hypothetical, please explain this difference.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-23, 03:02 AM
Dan, you've given hypothetical situations previously in this thread. I'd like to give you one. Your character is on a road. (I don't care what character of yours, save that, for it to be relevant to the discussion, he'd have to be Good-aligned.) He's between settlements, and so miles away from any civilized area. Coming up the road in the opposite direction, he sees a very well-armed minotaur. (Minotaurs, like bugbears, are "usually chaotic evil.") When the minotaur sees your character, he offers him a friendly wave and continues approaching at the same speed as before he'd noticed him. The minotaur's weapons are not drawn. What does your character do?

A second hypothetical situation: That same character from the first hypothetical is on a road, between settlements, miles from civilization. Coming up the road in the opposite direction, he sees a very well-armed dwarf. When the dwarf sees your character, he offers him a friendly wave, and continues approaching at the same speed as before he'd noticed him. The dwarf's weapons are not drawn. What does your character do? And if his actions are different than they were in the first hypothetical, please explain this difference.

A Minotaur is a particularly rare creature to encounter on a road, so I'd be very suspicious and would at the very least give him a wide berth. A dwarf is not an uncommon creature to find on a road, thus I'd be less suspicious. However, they are both well armed and alone in the wilderness, so I'd be suspicious of both. If it was my job to protect the area, I would detain both for questioning and probably escort both to make sure they don't start trouble.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-23, 04:57 AM
I'm starting to get frustrated by this discussion as well, but I am perhaps not as smart as Diggorian, to walk away when I start to get disgusted.

I have had characters die in "level-appropriate encounters." So yes, I take every combat seriously, because I know that unless I'm both clever and lucky, my character could die.

Unless you're clever and lucky you *could* die every time you cross the road. There's still an order of magnitude between "crossing the road" and "a fight to the death with weapons."


And you know what else? Even in games where I've had the GM (here I'm talking about White Wolf, because you seldom get this sort of guarantee in D&D) tell me, "I'm not going to kill your character--no matter what--unless you do something monumentally stupid," my characters STILL treat every combat situation like the potentially-lethal encounter it is. I tend to play characters that are cautious and defensive in combat: diving for cover when being shot at, employing strike-and-withdraw tactics, or avoiding combat altogether through stealth or diplomacy whenever feasible. This is the sort of character I play. However, there are some things that are important enough to my characters that they're willing to fight for them. Protecting innocents. Saving the world. Standing up for "what's right." That sort of thing. These are important enough to many of my characters that they're willing to risk death.

And would the number of things your character was willing to "risk death" for increase in any way if the *actual* risk of your character dying increased by a factor of, say, ten?


So yes. When I roleplay, I respond to situations based on my character's thoughts, emotions, values, and impressions. My approach to roleplaying is fairly accurately described by the Meisner technique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meisner_technique). I go for immersion, the point where I don't have to think about how my character would respond to a given situation, because I just know. So really, I don't like to be called a liar when I say that I keep my reactions as true-to-character as possible.

If you're that immersed in your character, why would you be pissed off if the GM threw an overwhelmingly powerful encounter at you?

You simply can't have it both ways. Either you play this game for the "immersion", in which case "doing what your character would do" is the whole point, and if you get killed as a result them's the breaks, or else you're playing it, in part, as a game of strategy, and you're making your character's decisions based in part on your understanding of the system.

It's very easy to say "my character is willing to die for this" when you know that the chances of your character actually dying are, if not zero, then at least extremely small.


The other problem it seems we're running into here is a mental stumbling-block of absolutism: the idea that a race is either all-good or all-evil; the idea that a character is either completely fearless of death, or absolutely terrified and refuses to put himself at any risk. There's a whole spectrum of shades of grey between those black-and-white options--heck, there're colors!

It's not absolutism, it's consistency.

When deciding whether your character is going to fight, your character is willing to challenge people armed with weapons which could kill you with a single blow, despite frequently being outnumbered, or having projectile weapons trained at him. This is because he considers whatever matter is at stake "worth dying for."

When deciding what your character is going to do *during* the fight, your much vaunted respect for life goes out the window, because your character suddenly develops a "fear of death" which was absent when they ran headlong into a situation which, from an in-character perspective meant almost certain death. So you don't fight to subdue or disarm because your character wouldn't take the risk.

This strikes me as inconsistent. Now if you're taking the line that once somebody attacks you, you are no longer obliged to show any regard for their life, that's a different matter, but I think that goes beyond self defense.


The fact remains that a "usually chaotic evil" race isn't ALWAYS chaotic evil, and if you encounter a member of such a race in a peaceful context (i.e. just walking down the road or through the woods, or approaches you without weapons drawn and wishing to talk), and gives no indication that he intends harm to you, your friends, or any other innocent, and you have no specific evidence that this particular individual is guilty of acts that warrant a violent response, and he is not a member of a military force with which you are actively at war, then attacking him unprovoked is a decidedly non-Good act. I don't see how this is in dispute.

It isn't in dispute.

If Orcs are a race of people with their own culture, no different from humans except cosmetically. In this case killing Orcs is (almost) always wrong, just like killing humans is (almost) always wrong. The only possible exceptions being legitimate executions (depending on the cultural background of your gameworld) or legitimate self-defence.

To clarify, I would count "legitimate self defence" as meaning (a) that you did nothing to provoke the attack, and this includes walking into their territory unannounced and (b) that you do everything in your power to preserve the life of your opponent.

Alternatively, if Orcs are bloodthirsty monsters who attack without mercy or warning, then I expect to treat them as such.

What annoys the hell out of me are games or settings in which ninety percent of "Orcs" are bloodthirsty monsters, and ten percent are mysteriously "good" (or at least non-evil). DMs usually justify this by reference to the word "usually" in the monster description. It's inconsistent, and it's bad setting design. It means you're using Orcs as mindless monsters when you want the party to fight, and ordinary people when you want to make a cheap point about racism.


Dan, you've given hypothetical situations previously in this thread. I'd like to give you one. Your character is on a road. (I don't care what character of yours, save that, for it to be relevant to the discussion, he'd have to be Good-aligned.) He's between settlements, and so miles away from any civilized area. Coming up the road in the opposite direction, he sees a very well-armed minotaur. (Minotaurs, like bugbears, are "usually chaotic evil.") When the minotaur sees your character, he offers him a friendly wave and continues approaching at the same speed as before he'd noticed him. The minotaur's weapons are not drawn. What does your character do?

I'd approach, see what he wants, and if combat starts I'd roll initiative. I wouldn't attack him first, and I wouldn't get out of his way.


A second hypothetical situation: That same character from the first hypothetical is on a road, between settlements, miles from civilization. Coming up the road in the opposite direction, he sees a very well-armed dwarf. When the dwarf sees your character, he offers him a friendly wave, and continues approaching at the same speed as before he'd noticed him. The dwarf's weapons are not drawn. What does your character do? And if his actions are different than they were in the first hypothetical, please explain this difference.

They'd be no different at all. My opening line of dialogue would probably be different, since I would probably want to express surprise at being greeted by a minotaur, but not by a dwarf, other than that I wouldn't differentiate.

The difference, though, is that I'm not claiming that my actions are uninformed by my knowledge of the system and my expectations regarding a standard D&D game.

The way I would parse this entire situation is "Hmm, the DM is presenting me with an encounter to which he initially wants me to react in a non-hostile manner, it would be bad manners, as a player, for me to turn this into a fight before he is ready. On his side, I can expect that the DM is not trying to sucker me into a fight I cannot win, so I do not feel threatened in taking a non-hostile response to this situation."

Now as it happens, that maps fairly well to a decent in-character reaction for a good-aligned, mid-level D&D character who has a reasonable level of confidence in their own abilities. It doesn't map so well to a character who genuinely believes that any clash with weapons stands a good chance of killing them.

If I were playing this as a character in, say, WFRP, I'd get the hell off the road the moment I saw the heavily armed guy coming in the opposite direction, if it was obvious he'd seen me I'd be openly mistrustful, keep a good distance away from them, and quite possibly have somebody keep a crossbow pointed in their general direction so I could be certain they weren't about to attack me. If they did draw their weapons, I'd probably surrender. Again the game has different assumptions, and in WFRP I'd think it very unlikely that the GM would put you in a situation where a fight was unavoidable, because a fight stands a *good* chance of killing your character.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-23, 05:07 AM
So, any encounter when the enemy does not deserve to be killed, the players shouldn't kill. Any encounter where the enemy DOES deserve to be killed, doesn't count because the DM is making it that way. Therefore players are not justified in killing anything. Therefore, players can justly kill everything.

Gotcha.

Actually, that's pretty close to what I'm saying. It's just a sarcastic way of putting it.

My basic argument is that the idea of an individual that "deserves to be killed" is pretty much as absurd as the idea of an entire race which "deserves to be killed".

The way it works in D&D is that some situations will wind up being fights, you will have those fights and you will kill your opponent. You run a small but acceptable risk of dying yourself in the process. That's the way the game is designed to be played. A fight in D&D isn't a moral decision, it's a resource allocation exercise.

Diggorian
2007-06-23, 05:38 AM
Like a Macy's Balloon...:smallbiggrin:

Why you ... pointing out the obvious ... basset!! :smallyuk: :smallamused:

Yogi
2007-06-24, 12:58 PM
The way it works in D&D is that some situations will wind up being fights, you will have those fights and you will kill your opponent. You run a small but acceptable risk of dying yourself in the process. That's the way the game is designed to be played. A fight in D&D isn't a moral decision, it's a resource allocation exercise.Well, this IS a game, so it DOES spend a lot of time on resource allocation. The question is then, if things like hit point and gold pieces are considered in-game resources, why is alignment NOT considered an in-game resource as well? Certainly, most people who play their characters don't play them the same way as they would act in real life, even if they DID have the appropriate ability score, equipment, and class levels. Clearly, any alignment-affecting decision is not a judge of the player's REAL moral attitude. Then, it should be treated as an in-game statistic, the same way you keep track of race, hit points, and other in-game stuff.