PDA

View Full Version : Your code will be the death of you.



Vulkan
2016-03-30, 08:42 AM
If you have a class feature that relies on you fallowing a code it will be the death of you.
Here's my story from last night.


One of the players in the group had a cavalier that was basically a hippy, (I forget the order.) So every time we would encounter a wild animal she would try to calm it down while the thing was attacking us with wild empathy. I'd wait until things were obviously not going to work out and then just shoot the animal to hell and back in a glorious hail of arrows to which after the cavalier (in character) would be angry with my character for interfering.

So last night I decided to wait because I didn't want to get yelled at again and the one time I don't interfere is the time she is brutally eviscerated. The moral of the story is... You're character is likely to die in a very ironic way if you have a strict code.


To clear things up

The character was an order of the beast cavalier. Wild empathy same as a druid. The huge sized crocodile lunged at me out of water causing me to lose 1/3 of her hp in one attack. It had reach and I was in its threatened range, so a full flee would not have prevented an AoO. I tried using wild empathy. To no avail, the thing did too much damage, but as the "tank" she stayed in front of it while the Oracle tried to charm it.

We were trying to stop a boat on the river and a huge sized crocodile would have been a great ally. The moral of the story is that not EVERYTHING is a combat encounter (Except that clearly was one.)

Geddy2112
2016-03-30, 09:26 AM
Literal dogmatic codes that are open to zero interpretation are certainly a good way to die.

The order of the beast code is pretty dangerous, but at a certain point you have to realize that something actively trying to kill you is incredibly unlikely to just stop. This was not a snake you accidentally stepped on that bit as a reaction, or a bear waking up from hibernation that is hungry. This crocodile is clearly trying to kill and eat you and is probably not going to be convinced to stop without loss of party life.

I agree, not all encounters should be combat- a pack of hungry wolves circling the party can be talked down, but once they start attacking the party talking time is done. The same works for humanoids and some paladin codes-angry humanoids, even if they have weapons drawn, can be talked down. But once they start attacking, fight is on.

Negotiations don't work when there is active combat. And some things can't be negotiated. Ideals are nice, but codes don't do much for the dead.

SimonMoon6
2016-03-30, 09:57 AM
I remember running a 1st edition D&D game shortly after Unearthed Arcana had come out. One player had a paladin (which was a kind of cavalier which had a code that said he couldn't run away in combat).

He ended up encountering a ghost. He couldn't hurt the ghost. But it was combat, so he wasn't allowed to run away. And he was all alone. And so he died.

Keltest
2016-03-30, 10:51 AM
I remember running a 1st edition D&D game shortly after Unearthed Arcana had come out. One player had a paladin (which was a kind of cavalier which had a code that said he couldn't run away in combat).

He ended up encountering a ghost. He couldn't hurt the ghost. But it was combat, so he wasn't allowed to run away. And he was all alone. And so he died.

That sounds like DM failure to me. Never present your players with a challenge they are literally unable to overcome or circumvent.

Also, I don't recall paladins be forced to fight a battle they clearly cannot win. The paladin code was more abstract than that.

Vulkan
2016-03-30, 11:13 AM
Well that sounds as if it was ages ago. Plus the paladin could of simply backed away slowly to gain a vantage point.
He's not retreating he's leading the villainous Ghost into a trap so he can then vanquish it.

Segev
2016-03-30, 11:16 AM
"Cavalier" was a kit in 1e/2e for the paladin. It got ludicrous combat buffs (especially on horseback), was more immune to fear than the standard paladin (somehow; I forget exactly how that worked), but could not retreat from a fight. The only "tactical withdrawl" they could perform was repositioning on the current battlefield, and they had NO ranged combat ability. They could NOT reposition and then ignore the foe, either.

It wasn't a well-designed kit. It was overpowered, except when it was helpless.

Keltest
2016-03-30, 11:39 AM
"Cavalier" was a kit in 1e/2e for the paladin. It got ludicrous combat buffs (especially on horseback), was more immune to fear than the standard paladin (somehow; I forget exactly how that worked), but could not retreat from a fight. The only "tactical withdrawl" they could perform was repositioning on the current battlefield, and they had NO ranged combat ability. They could NOT reposition and then ignore the foe, either.

It wasn't a well-designed kit. It was overpowered, except when it was helpless.

I am suddenly remembering why my 1e UA book continues to gather dust in spite of the fact that we still play 1e.

RazorChain
2016-03-30, 12:21 PM
In many cases it is the GM's fault when your code of honor/sense of duty or whatever kills you.

Once I was playing a overconfident character who had a sense of duty to his friends. In one particular scenario our 350lbs "mountain of a man" fighter had gone down unconscious. My character was critically wounded so the hafling ran off to fetch a cart to get the fighter to a safe place, we were on a city street during nighttime. The fighter had a bounty on him from a local crime boss so of course while I was there alone guarding him when a large group of thugs appears with said local crime boss. I get asked to hand over my friend and I refuse (sense of duty friends and overconfidence). So this ends with a mexican standoff where I aim my bow at the crime boss and his thugs aim their crossbows at me. "If you order any of your lackeys to get close or shoot me it will be the last thing you'll do" I warn him and of course he orders them to shoot. So the last thing he knows is my arrow entering his eye socket before I get shot to death.

So in the end the lackeys just strip the fighter of his valuables as the crime boss is dead anyway and not bounty to be had so he survived but my character died.


In this case my character could have been ambushed by the thugs and captured, I was literally one blow/shot from going down and the GM was fully aware of that. He knew that I would never surrender my friend (I had failed my overconfidence roll), so my character just got shot by dozen crossbowmen.

Keltest
2016-03-30, 12:26 PM
In many cases it is the GM's fault when your code of honor/sense of duty or whatever kills you.

Once I was playing a overconfident character who had a sense of duty to his friends. In one particular scenario our 350lbs "mountain of a man" fighter had gone down unconscious. My character was critically wounded so the hafling ran off to fetch a cart to get the fighter to a safe place, we were on a city street during nighttime. The fighter had a bounty on him from a local crime boss so of course while I was there alone guarding him when a large group of thugs appears with said local crime boss. I get asked to hand over my friend and I refuse (sense of duty friends and overconfidence). So this ends with a mexican standoff where I aim my bow at the crime boss and his thugs aim their crossbows at me. "If you order any of your lackeys to get close or shoot me it will be the last thing you'll do" I warn him and of course he orders them to shoot. So the last thing he knows is my arrow entering his eye socket before I get shot to death.

So in the end the lackeys just strip the fighter of his valuables as the crime boss is dead anyway and not bounty to be had so he survived but my character died.


In this case my character could have been ambushed by the thugs and captured, I was literally one blow/shot from going down and the GM was fully aware of that. He knew that I would never surrender my friend (I had failed my overconfidence roll), so my character just got shot by dozen crossbowmen.

A flaw isn't really interesting if it doesn't actually ever impact you. I don't think I would blame the DM there, too many things happened for it to really be his fault.

Xuc Xac
2016-03-30, 12:42 PM
I'm impressed that you killed a crime boss with one arrow. At least you took him down with you. A lot of DMs would have said "ok, you do 1d8 hit points of damage to the crime boss, but he still has 36 hp left. The lackeys do 1d8 each to you. How many hp do you have left?"

hamlet
2016-03-30, 12:43 PM
"Cavalier" was a kit in 1e/2e for the paladin. It got ludicrous combat buffs (especially on horseback), was more immune to fear than the standard paladin (somehow; I forget exactly how that worked), but could not retreat from a fight. The only "tactical withdrawl" they could perform was repositioning on the current battlefield, and they had NO ranged combat ability. They could NOT reposition and then ignore the foe, either.

It wasn't a well-designed kit. It was overpowered, except when it was helpless.

Minor point: it was actually a class in 1st edition ad&d, not a kit. And yes, that was true of the class. Most sensible people eased up on the restrictions a bit or just relegated the class to comedic relief or got rid of it.

By 2nd edition, with the advent of kits, cavalier made a comeback, and the restrictions weren't quite as tight or absurd. It was more playable, though still led to a lot of stupid on the part of DM's and Players.

Essentially, both were silly because the whole thing could have been handled entirely by good roleplaying.

Mordar
2016-03-30, 02:51 PM
A flaw isn't really interesting if it doesn't actually ever impact you. I don't think I would blame the DM there, too many things happened for it to really be his fault.

I think this is kind of true...but with qualifications galore. It seems to me that flaws fall into a couple of general categories of misuse in RPGs - "free character points" and "fluff that GMs use against players".

DISCLAIMER: There are lots of players and GMs who make good and appropriate use of flaws in both point-games and character fluff. This is not about them.

DISCLAIMER 2: I am counting Codes as flaws for purposes of this discussion.

DISCLAIMER 3: I actually think codes are great ways to help define a character and give structure to role play...but see Disclaimers 1 & 2.

"Free Character Points"
In many point-build games, there are systems of merits and flaws that cost or provide character points. These systems can be well-thought-out and balanced by game design...or not...and can be well used or misused by players. Far too often, though, I think we see the player(s) who select a perfect array of flaws practically guaranteed to never result in a deleterious outcome (things like "heavy eater" in games that don't track food resources, or "unattractive" for a character that will never try to interact socially any way). Taking metagame into consideration and selecting flaws that will never come into play is probably the more common misuse, and I think one that might actually increase with experience and skill at the table. In these cases, I agree wholeheartedly with Keltest.

"Fluff that GMs use against players"
Much worse than free character points is the instance in which a GM rewards a player for developing an interesting character trait in their backstory, or latches on to a requirement of a character class, to unfairly penalize that player. Designing encounters specifically to exploit that flaw or trait, draconian interpretations of codes far beyond what the GM would do with alignments or other restrictions (typified by the urgency with which some GMs want to make "Paladins fall"...while turning blind eyes to the non-good actions of their "NG" or "CG" players or encouraging murderhoboism by all non-Paladins), or viewing flaws as chances to screw the players as opposed to a chance for great story and growth *with* the players.

This more than perhaps anything I have ever seen discourages players from adding color and depth to their characters, and I wish I better understood the genesis of the phenomena. Why is it, for instance, that the Paladin is so punished by this attention? Clearly it isn't because they are game-breaking or over-powered. Is it really just an opportunity to beat down a stereotypical good guy because lulz, or because being bad rulez?

I get that like so many things there is a fine line to tread between unfairly punishing "flaws" and allowing free character points...so what can be done to help manage the issue (if any management is necessary...).

- M

Khedrac
2016-03-30, 02:52 PM
A long time ago there was a 2nd Ed Chaosium RuneQuest Adventure where at one point the part is on the deck of a "ship" while a storm is brewing up and a large army is coming.
It is obvious that anyone who remains on deck will be killed by the army, but the adventure specifically notes that anyone with the geas "may not hide from storms" cannot seek to hide from the army below decks because that would be taking shelter from the storm.

I don't know anyone who enforced that, I think everyone who ran it at my University ruled that you were not trying to hide from the storm (for one thing it had not hit yet) but from the army which did not break your geas.

Still writing in a "if your character rolled this random result when becoming a priest they now die" step in an adventure is bad adventure design, and it was bad design even back then.

Segev
2016-03-30, 03:23 PM
One thing that people tend to notice in well-done fiction is how people's foibles and virtues both can be used to make problems more personal and tie them more deeply to the plot. They make things seem natural when the protagonists become involved. They also recognize that getting PCs emotionally invested makes a game stronger. And, particularly when new to GMing but familiar with other tabletop games, they recognize that they're controlling the antagonists in the game and thus have, on some level, an expectation that they are playing "against" the players.

All of this combines to make GMs feel clever when they find ways to use the PCs' backgrounds to hook them. When they can use them to compel them to face the challenge head-on. When it's a flaw, or a "class feature" that is a drawback, to GMs who have not learned better, that is a beacon saying, "exploit this as much as possible, because it's here to weaken the character or make the game harder for him."

Why would Paladins have a code of conduct if there wasn't a risk they'd break it? Why would they NEED it if violating it didn't make them too powerful? Why would a flaw be worth bonus character points if it didn't also make the character weaker in some way? Clearly, these things must be exploited as much as possible to balance things. Also, these exploitations can force the PCs to be where the GM needs/wants them to be, and to suffer the effects of things the GM has in his arsenal but otherwise may not be able to make as threatening as he thinks it should be.

What's the fun of having werewolves if the party won't stand and fight them? What's the point of having lycanthropy curses if at least one person in the party doesn't get afflicted?

It is EASY to write, "if you have this geas that probably doesn't come up very often, you can't hide from the incoming certain-death army." It makes something tense (in theory) because it increases danger! In practice, it really just removes tension because it invites resignation. "I'm dead without a deus ex machine. Ho hum. Better start making my next PC."

It's a lot harder to really have these drawbacks impact the game meaningfully without being stupid. And some GMs (and even some players) don't recognize when a drawback or flaw is being played up or is never coming up that it's still actually in play. Just because the guy who's a recovering alcoholic never has to make a "self-control roll" or the like doesn't mean the flaw isn't coming into play; he never has to make it because he actively avoids all temptation and sources thereof. He stays out of the bars, avoids social drinking situations, etc. It is not necessary to "force" him into a situation where he might drink to "make his flaw count;" he's taking it upon himself to make it count by how he's playing. It just is hard to point to a specific instance.

So it happens, in short, because GMs think they have an obligation to exploit these flaws to "balance" the character's power, which he surely got in at least commensurate amount to the worst the flaw can do, right?

Quertus
2016-03-30, 05:00 PM
For the hiding from the storm dilemma: if it comes up, you get to tell the story of the man who stayed true in the face of adversity. Or, perhaps, the story of how his friends sucker punched him and drug his sorry *** below decks.

Either way, because it was a module, and the DM didn't custom tailor it to your character's flaws, it's an acceptable story element.

RazorChain
2016-03-30, 07:33 PM
I'm impressed that you killed a crime boss with one arrow. At least you took him down with you. A lot of DMs would have said "ok, you do 1d8 hit points of damage to the crime boss, but he still has 36 hp left. The lackeys do 1d8 each to you. How many hp do you have left?"

Well I gave up on playing D&D for more than 20 years ago. So we were playing Gurps and there an arrow to the eye will most likely kill you (the problem is placing it there)




I think this is kind of true...but with qualifications galore. It seems to me that flaws fall into a couple of general categories of misuse in RPGs - "free character points" and "fluff that GMs use against players".

DISCLAIMER: There are lots of players and GMs who make good and appropriate use of flaws in both point-games and character fluff. This is not about them.

DISCLAIMER 2: I am counting Codes as flaws for purposes of this discussion.

DISCLAIMER 3: I actually think codes are great ways to help define a character and give structure to role play...but see Disclaimers 1 & 2.

"Free Character Points"
In many point-build games, there are systems of merits and flaws that cost or provide character points. These systems can be well-thought-out and balanced by game design...or not...and can be well used or misused by players. Far too often, though, I think we see the player(s) who select a perfect array of flaws practically guaranteed to never result in a deleterious outcome (things like "heavy eater" in games that don't track food resources, or "unattractive" for a character that will never try to interact socially any way). Taking metagame into consideration and selecting flaws that will never come into play is probably the more common misuse, and I think one that might actually increase with experience and skill at the table. In these cases, I agree wholeheartedly with Keltest.

"Fluff that GMs use against players"
Much worse than free character points is the instance in which a GM rewards a player for developing an interesting character trait in their backstory, or latches on to a requirement of a character class, to unfairly penalize that player. Designing encounters specifically to exploit that flaw or trait, draconian interpretations of codes far beyond what the GM would do with alignments or other restrictions (typified by the urgency with which some GMs want to make "Paladins fall"...while turning blind eyes to the non-good actions of their "NG" or "CG" players or encouraging murderhoboism by all non-Paladins), or viewing flaws as chances to screw the players as opposed to a chance for great story and growth *with* the players.

This more than perhaps anything I have ever seen discourages players from adding color and depth to their characters, and I wish I better understood the genesis of the phenomena. Why is it, for instance, that the Paladin is so punished by this attention? Clearly it isn't because they are game-breaking or over-powered. Is it really just an opportunity to beat down a stereotypical good guy because lulz, or because being bad rulez?

I get that like so many things there is a fine line to tread between unfairly punishing "flaws" and allowing free character points...so what can be done to help manage the issue (if any management is necessary...).

- M

Well in my opinion it is often the flaws that best define my characters. In this case it was an archer that was full of himself and never left a friend behind. The GM knew both of these things as it had come into play plenty of times. And I know this GM pretty good, he's a simulationist and if I had not defended my friend, he probably would have been killed, if I hadn't killed the crime boss, we probably would both have been killed.

In this case we use Gurps where disadvantages are built into the system, but we, the group, don't get points for taking disads but use them anyway to flesh out our characters. Of course flaws should impact the story and impact the character that's why we use them. In my opinion this was just blatant railroading, I had two choices A) Give up my friend and walk away B) Defend my friend and die. Option A went against everything my character stood for and I was willing to let my character die for his principles, option B would have felt like cheating myself.

Sure we can always say that this is a case of a player screaming "YOU CAN'T LET ME COMPROMISE MY CHARACTER CONCEPT". But then again if a GM forces you to kill women and children when you are playing a LG character to stay alive then you could say the same.

Âmesang
2016-03-30, 07:44 PM
Suddenly I want to play a game where an epic barbarian scares away the storm with an Intimidate check. :smallbiggrin:

Arbane
2016-03-30, 08:31 PM
I'm impressed that you killed a crime boss with one arrow. At least you took him down with you. A lot of DMs would have said "ok, you do 1d8 hit points of damage to the crime boss, but he still has 36 hp left. The lackeys do 1d8 each to you. How many hp do you have left?"

Heaven forfend a character's last act actually ACCOMPLISH anything, after all. Their deaths should be as futile as possible.

(Oh, and it was GURPS, where one well-placed arrow will kill someone, so there's that.)

goto124
2016-03-31, 12:39 AM
I realized, I've never liked any character for their flaws. Whenever I see a flaw I just think 'come on yet another stupid flaw that exists purely to drive the plot and create drama'. For me to like a character I focus on the strong point and ignore (or justify) the flaws as much as I can.

I must be wrong for, say, being overly critical. But I'm not sure how to fix it.

BWR
2016-03-31, 02:17 AM
I realized, I've never liked any character for their flaws. Whenever I see a flaw I just think 'come on yet another stupid flaw that exists purely to drive the plot and create drama'. For me to like a character I focus on the strong point and ignore (or justify) the flaws as much as I can.

I must be wrong for, say, being overly critical. But I'm not sure how to fix it.

Stop thinking in terms of 'strengths' and 'flaws' and start thinking in terms of 'personality'.
Stop thinking in terms of absolute optimization for resolving a situation and start thinking 'given this personality, how would the situation be resolved?'.

RazorChain
2016-03-31, 06:12 AM
I realized, I've never liked any character for their flaws. Whenever I see a flaw I just think 'come on yet another stupid flaw that exists purely to drive the plot and create drama'. For me to like a character I focus on the strong point and ignore (or justify) the flaws as much as I can.

I must be wrong for, say, being overly critical. But I'm not sure how to fix it.


Well lot of virtues are actually flaws. Being honorable, truthful, dutiful, honest, to never break your vows are just as much flaws as being lecherous, greedy, envious etc.

Being Lawful Good in D&D is actually a flaw if you compare it to Chaotic Neutral.

OldTrees1
2016-03-31, 08:59 AM
The ideal for anyone that truly believes in their code, is to be able to stick to that code regardless of any personal cost(that remain consistent with the code).


I only hope that my code based characters live long enough to enjoy that ironic demise. For that would mean that not only did they give all they could give, but that they were lucky enough to be where there code could make use of all they could give. (My code based characters on the other hand merely hope that they have the strength to die if facing such a circumstance.)

wumpus
2016-03-31, 09:29 AM
If your enemies know your code, I would assume they will eventually break it (and presumably you).

Segev
2016-03-31, 11:17 AM
If your enemies know your code, I would assume they will eventually break it (and presumably you).

I think you mean "exploit it." Only you can break it. (Well, they can, too, but those who don't hold to a code "breaking" it doesn't make much difference.) They will likely exploit it to try to get YOU to break it, though.



The comment about LG alignment being a "flaw" compared to, say, CN, got me thinking a bit: LG types have advantages of reputation and trust that CN types tend to lack, especially from NPCs. It would be interesting to divorce these things in some character sometime. Make a CN jerk who, for whatever reason, has the reputation of an LG hero. People trust him as if he lived up to the highest code of honor and righteousness, no matter what he does.

Berenger
2016-03-31, 11:24 AM
Make a CN jerk who, for whatever reason, has the reputation of an LG hero. People trust him as if he lived up to the highest code of honor and righteousness, no matter what he does.

Ciaphas Cain, Hero of the Imperium!

OldTrees1
2016-03-31, 11:59 AM
I think you mean "exploit it." Only you can break it. (Well, they can, too, but those who don't hold to a code "breaking" it doesn't make much difference.) They will likely exploit it to try to get YOU to break it, though.



The comment about LG alignment being a "flaw" compared to, say, CN, got me thinking a bit: LG types have advantages of reputation and trust that CN types tend to lack, especially from NPCs. It would be interesting to divorce these things in some character sometime. Make a CN jerk who, for whatever reason, has the reputation of an LG hero. People trust him as if he lived up to the highest code of honor and righteousness, no matter what he does.

Ah, but what about:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ec/c9/9e/ecc99ea79305e3087f631042302ab9e7.jpg

mikeejimbo
2016-03-31, 05:01 PM
After an adventure and getting to a climax where keeping my code means that I die, so be it, that's an epic story.

Near the beginning of an adventure and some random encounter gets me into a situation where I have to compromise my code or die? Now that's a hilarious story.

I don't get too attached to my characters - I get attached to their stories. A death typically makes a good story, one way or another.

Mordar
2016-03-31, 05:30 PM
Being Lawful Good in D&D is actually a flaw if you compare it to Chaotic Neutral.


The comment about LG alignment being a "flaw" compared to, say, CN, got me thinking a bit: LG types have advantages of reputation and trust that CN types tend to lack, especially from NPCs. It would be interesting to divorce these things in some character sometime. Make a CN jerk who, for whatever reason, has the reputation of an LG hero. People trust him as if he lived up to the highest code of honor and righteousness, no matter what he does.

See, I think RazorChain has a point. LG is an exploitable flaw for the bad-version-GMs I'm talking about. It seems some GMs will latch on to that as a target in a way they will never do with 7 or 8 other alignments. NG or CG don't get the same consistent (if low frequency) trouble...they don't help the old lady across the street nothing bad happens to them. Similarly, when the CG/CN character consistently goes with the flow and follows the law of the land, there's no threats of alignment change or deity disownment. Nope, all that is saved for the player who puts two letters on their sheet that correspond to the vast majority of the 1st World population...

Okay, maybe this is a bit too far. But boy, do I get tired of the neckbeard who dumps on paladins and LG characters because it's black-t-shirt-with-anarchy-symbol-from-Spencers-cool to prove how Lawful and/or Good suck, and the combination is the epitome of megasuck.

There, I feel better.

Now, sure most games ignore alignment, and even DnD has greatly altered their take on alignment...but I do think it is still an issue that persists, and codes that don't have a significant stat/skill benefit seldom pay off. So the risk/benefit isn't great...and wholly lies in the realm of characterization. Now that's a laudable goal - maybe the best goal - but it requires GMs to recognize that it isn't there to punish the player unless it also rewards the player. You know, the reputation thing Segev mentions is a nice idea. Some benefit of social interaction to the character, some token to go along with the cat-in-the-tree-while-bad-guys-escape dilemma.

So GMs, hand out the love for the LG characters, the code-holders and the flaw players. Not just the lumps!

- M

RazorChain
2016-03-31, 05:51 PM
See, I think RazorChain has a point. LG is an exploitable flaw for the bad-version-GMs I'm talking about. It seems some GMs will latch on to that as a target in a way they will never do with 7 or 8 other alignments. NG or CG don't get the same consistent (if low frequency) trouble...they don't help the old lady across the street nothing bad happens to them. Similarly, when the CG/CN character consistently goes with the flow and follows the law of the land, there's no threats of alignment change or deity disownment. Nope, all that is saved for the player who puts two letters on their sheet that correspond to the vast majority of the 1st World population...

Okay, maybe this is a bit too far. But boy, do I get tired of the neckbeard who dumps on paladins and LG characters because it's black-t-shirt-with-anarchy-symbol-from-Spencers-cool to prove how Lawful and/or Good suck, and the combination is the epitome of megasuck.

There, I feel better.

Now, sure most games ignore alignment, and even DnD has greatly altered their take on alignment...but I do think it is still an issue that persists, and codes that don't have a significant stat/skill benefit seldom pay off. So the risk/benefit isn't great...and wholly lies in the realm of characterization. Now that's a laudable goal - maybe the best goal - but it requires GMs to recognize that it isn't there to punish the player unless it also rewards the player. You know, the reputation thing Segev mentions is a nice idea. Some benefit of social interaction to the character, some token to go along with the cat-in-the-tree-while-bad-guys-escape dilemma.

So GMs, hand out the love for the LG characters, the code-holders and the flaw players. Not just the lumps!

- M

It's because LG limits your character choices compared to for example CN. I'm no fan of the alignment system but it gives some roleplaying guidelines just the same as flaws or disadvantage systems do. And of course a DM/GM should jump at using Flaws or alignments to present moral dilemmas or even let the adversaries exploit it but killing characters because of it is another beast entirely.

Pyrous
2016-03-31, 06:40 PM
It's because LG limits your character choices compared to for example CN. I'm no fan of the alignment system but it gives some roleplaying guidelines just the same as flaws or disadvantage systems do. And of course a DM/GM should jump at using Flaws or alignments to present moral dilemmas or even let the adversaries exploit it but killing characters because of it is another beast entirely.

The problem is that the PC with an L in the alignment slot, playing by that L, is more trustworthy than the one with a C, playing by the C. But you usually don't see that flaw of the chaotic alignment exploited. Mostly because beyond a power level, if the DM tries it, he fails or is accused of railroding.

However, if the DM is not exploiting the C flaws, he shouldn't exploit the L ones. But the later is easy to do, so it continues to be exploited. And then he is a killer DM.

Worse, he uses the L ones as a restriction on the whole party. The result is that having a Lawful party member is only a liability, with no advantage whatsoever.

And some of that applies to GxE as well.

It's not a alignment system fault. It's entirely on the DM.

Segev
2016-04-01, 10:24 AM
I'm curious; how would you have the DM exploit the Chaotic character's flaws (of being untrustworthy or whatever)? Specifically, in what ways that you don't see it done beyond a certain power level?




Personally, the "flaws" that I see Chaotic types who play up the "break my word when convenient" "flout the law because it's annoying" side of things suffer reputation hits for it. The Lawful guy - in the hands of a DM who isn't a jerk - will be respected by his fellow Lawful types and even trusted by Neutral and Chaotic types to keep his word...based on the fact that he has done so in the past. Chaotic types might be a little worried that he'll do so too rigidly, but they'll at least trust him to be honorable/reliable in the sense that he won't break his code.

Chaotic types will be viewed as untrustworthy elements. Maybe not malign ones (the NG and LG types will not view CG as inherently villainous), but ones upon which they cannot rely too much. Because Chaos says to do what's expedient. And to trust your own judgment and be willing to change things with merely a notice to others.

The advantage, obviously, is that the Chaotic type is free to do whatever he likes, while the Lawful type is constrained by others' expectations. Even the CG type, who feels constrained to make others happy, is free to choose how to do it. The LG type winds up wanting to help but being bound left and right in some cases. (In others, that's grossly exaggerated; LG types in LG organizations tend to structure the rules to avoid constraining them from helping the truly needy.)

OldTrees1
2016-04-01, 11:00 AM
I'm curious; how would you have the DM exploit the Chaotic character's flaws (of being untrustworthy or whatever)? Specifically, in what ways that you don't see it done beyond a certain power level?

A little thing I learned about threats: They only work when your mark can trust you not to carry out your threat if they were to comply. Sure you can terrify the guard by threatening to kill them, possibly even to the point that they are frozen in fear, but if they can't trust you will let them live they will not comply.

This hits Chaotic(chaos) characters more than Lawful(order) characters.

SimonMoon6
2016-04-01, 11:38 AM
That sounds like DM failure to me. Never present your players with a challenge they are literally unable to overcome or circumvent.


Well, (1) it was a module and (2) the PCs split up when they shouldn't have done so, so it's his own fault really. If everyone had been together, it wouldn't have been a problem. The player in question was a "I don't need you guys, I can handle everything by myself" kind of guy. And he was wrong.

Kriton
2016-04-02, 03:19 PM
So the last thing he knows is my arrow entering his eye socket before I get shot to death.

So in the end the lackeys just strip the fighter of his valuables as the crime boss is dead anyway and not bounty to be had so he survived but my character died.

I think that is a very heroic death for a PC though. To the point that it was worth it.

RazorChain
2016-04-02, 05:04 PM
I think that is a very heroic death for a PC though. To the point that it was worth it.


Well you live by a code and you die by a code. I could have missed though :smalltongue:

Mordar
2016-04-04, 12:28 PM
I'm curious; how would you have the DM exploit the Chaotic character's flaws (of being untrustworthy or whatever)? Specifically, in what ways that you don't see it done beyond a certain power level?

Personally, the "flaws" that I see Chaotic types who play up the "break my word when convenient" "flout the law because it's annoying" side of things suffer reputation hits for it. The Lawful guy - in the hands of a DM who isn't a jerk - will be respected by his fellow Lawful types and even trusted by Neutral and Chaotic types to keep his word...based on the fact that he has done so in the past. Chaotic types might be a little worried that he'll do so too rigidly, but they'll at least trust him to be honorable/reliable in the sense that he won't break his code.

Chaotic types will be viewed as untrustworthy elements. Maybe not malign ones (the NG and LG types will not view CG as inherently villainous), but ones upon which they cannot rely too much. Because Chaos says to do what's expedient. And to trust your own judgment and be willing to change things with merely a notice to others.

The advantage, obviously, is that the Chaotic type is free to do whatever he likes, while the Lawful type is constrained by others' expectations. Even the CG type, who feels constrained to make others happy, is free to choose how to do it. The LG type winds up wanting to help but being bound left and right in some cases. (In others, that's grossly exaggerated; LG types in LG organizations tend to structure the rules to avoid constraining them from helping the truly needy.)

An additional consideration is that the LG reputation tends to help the party and pretty much completely abrogates the potential harm in having Chaotic Selfish (or Chaotic Rebellious) characters in the mix. Basically for game advancement/stroy purposes, the party still gets the contract to rescue the princess because Sir Trustworthy is part of the group...even though Jack Scalliwag wouldn't normally even be let into the keep to discuss the job. At least in OotS we saw some Belkar-related issues for the good guys...but even that was kind of covered by Miko painting everyone with the naughty brush.

In short, the whole party benefits from the LG character, while only the LG character has to deal with alignment difficulties. Again, YMMV...

goto124
2016-04-05, 12:07 AM
So... replace DnD Alignment with a Reputation system?

Felyndiira
2016-04-05, 01:26 PM
A little thing I learned about threats: They only work when your mark can trust you not to carry out your threat if they were to comply. Sure you can terrify the guard by threatening to kill them, possibly even to the point that they are frozen in fear, but if they can't trust you will let them live they will not comply.

This hits Chaotic(chaos) characters more than Lawful(order) characters.

I'd say that this is more of a good vs. evil thing rather than a lawful vs. chaos one. If I was a normal, OotS-reading guard and being threatened by Haley (CG) for a macguffin that I happen to possess, I will probably acquiesce to her threats since Haley isn't likely to murder/harm me if I don't present myself as a threat. On the other hand, if Tarquin (LE) is threatening me for a macguffin, I have more reasons to believe that even if he doesn't kill me now, he'll still find some way to do me in at a later time and probably sunder my good name into the ground in the process.

Segev
2016-04-05, 02:31 PM
On the other hand, if Tarquin (LE) is threatening me for a macguffin, I have more reasons to believe that even if he doesn't kill me now, he'll still find some way to do me in at a later time and probably sunder my good name into the ground in the process.

Unless Tarquin had further use for you, he's more likely to either leave you to live your life or to bribe you to stay silent and potentially willing to be subverted later. He seems the sort to keep those who serve a purpose to him in a place where continuing to do so is desirable. Nale, on the other hand, is much more the "cut loose ends" type.

OldTrees1
2016-04-05, 02:44 PM
I'd say that this is more of a good vs. evil thing rather than a lawful vs. chaos one. If I was a normal, OotS-reading guard and being threatened by Haley (CG) for a macguffin that I happen to possess, I will probably acquiesce to her threats since Haley isn't likely to murder/harm me if I don't present myself as a threat. On the other hand, if Tarquin (LE) is threatening me for a macguffin, I have more reasons to believe that even if he doesn't kill me now, he'll still find some way to do me in at a later time and probably sunder my good name into the ground in the process.

There is of course variation within each category, but "Tendency to hold themselves to their word even at their own expense" is not on the Good-Evil axis, it is on the Order-Chaos axis.

Tarquin may or may not kill me later if I comply. So I would tend to distrust him unless given reason to.
Haley is unlikely to kill me if I don't comply to the threat on my life(rendering the "Give it or die" threat moot).

Nightcanon
2016-04-06, 11:22 AM
I think you mean "exploit it." Only you can break it. (Well, they can, too, but those who don't hold to a code "breaking" it doesn't make much difference.) They will likely exploit it to try to get YOU to break it, though.



The comment about LG alignment being a "flaw" compared to, say, CN, got me thinking a bit: LG types have advantages of reputation and trust that CN types tend to lack, especially from NPCs. It would be interesting to divorce these things in some character sometime. Make a CN jerk who, for whatever reason, has the reputation of an LG hero. People trust him as if he lived up to the highest code of honor and righteousness, no matter what he does.

Sir Harry Flashman, VC, perhaps?

Segev
2016-04-06, 11:46 AM
Sir Harry Flashman, VC, perhaps?

Unfortunately, I do not recognize this reference.

Nightcanon
2016-04-06, 06:08 PM
Unfortunately, I do not recognize this reference.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flashman_Papers
As a series, it's worth a look. Without wishing to repeat the wiki article, he's a fictional character who is written into various historical events of the 19C; despite being cruel and self-centred he acquires a heroic reputation (at least one character with a classical education refers to him as 'one of the paladins') through luck, being in the right place at the right time, and others putting a charitable interpretation on his actions. As an example, in the first book, Flashman is involved in a duel shortly after joining the Army (I don't recall whom he insulted to find himself in this situation). His opponent fires first, but suffers a misfire and stands waiting for death. Flashman, fully intending to kill his opponent, misses with his shot and by chance hits another small object (I forget what, possibly a bottle or glass) by the man's head, which results in the observers mistakenly believing him to be a crack shot who declines to kill a fellow officer over a misunderstanding and a false accusation. At various other points, his attempts to run or hide from danger, and subsequent frantic attempts to escape following capture, result in his accidentally doing something of military value, for which he is honoured as a hero.