Good Guys as Werebeasts: "Oh Pelor Above, what am I!?" "Still a Paladin..."

[Leliel]

As many people already know by now, one of the campaigns I plan to run in 4th edition is one in which the party play non-evil afflicted lycanthropes. During my musings, I came up with a more concrete version of this idea, with a basic plotline and villains. So, here's my idea:

PCs were a normal bunch of adventurers until after the first adventure of the campagin, during which this guy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66516) infected them with the lycanthropy variety of their OOC choice. Now besides being hated by most of humanity (Lycanthropes are not corrupted by their natures in this campagin, but the NPCs don't know that), and struggling with identity issues (They didn't know the above fact IC either), they are unwillingly drawn into the larger conflict between above mentioned BBEG and the corrupt members of his former order of paladins (Many of whom are lycanthropes themselves, due to reasons revealed in the link I posted). And then things get bad.

So, what would you do in my situation? What would be a good sub-villain for such a campagin? How many "Oh, great, the fork is silverware" jokes should I put in it?

Few notes:

1) Forget LA. That's only when the PCs are not on even ground. They are this way.

2) Remember that these guys are non-evil. Non-evil hunted by misguided non-evil, but still non-evil.

Your savage insticts are telling you to respond...Your human insincts that is, since they haven't had time to evolve since you were savage.

[Tengu]

Well, to start with, in such a campaign I'd quickly find as many ways as possible to deal nonlethal damage - a good guy who consciously kills a non-evil, but misguided guy is hardly good in my book.

[Ascension]

Well, to start with, in such a campaign I'd quickly find as many ways as possible to deal nonlethal damage - a good guy who consciously kills a non-evil, but misguided guy is hardly good in my book.

So you don't think it's possible for a good character to respond with lethal force in the name of self defense if another non-evil person is trying to kill them? The way I look at it, as soon as the other guy starts using lethal force, that's all the justification you need.

[Leliel]

Well, to start with, in such a campaign I'd quickly find as many ways as possible to deal nonlethal damage - a good guy who consciously kills a non-evil, but misguided guy is hardly good in my book.

Have you ever heard of "self-defense"? They'll try to negotiate with afromentioned misguded guy at first, but once he attacks them, they're perfectly entitled to get the claw sharpener out.

[Chronos]

1) Forget LA. That's only when the PCs are not on even ground. They are this way.Two points, here: First, it doesn't really put them on even ground with each other, since the benefits of lycanthropy benefit warrior-types a lot more than they do caster-types. It's probably OK to let this slide, though, given that the caster types are more powerful to begin with.

Second, it also means that you'll have to throw tougher enemies at them, for the fights to still be balanced. How much tougher, exactly, you'll have to judge for yourself, but it's something to keep in mind.

[Tengu]

So you don't think it's possible for a good character to respond with lethal force in the name of self defense if another non-evil person is trying to kill them? The way I look at it, as soon as the other guy starts using lethal force, that's all the justification you need.

That's a neutral approach. A good guy, when faced against someone who has done nothing wrong and is just misguided, will not kill him unless there is absolutely no other way (and that's a rare case), and even then he will be very regretful about that.

[Leliel]

Second, it also means that you'll have to throw tougher enemies at them, for the fights to still be balanced. How much tougher, exactly, you'll have to judge for yourself, but it's something to keep in mind.

Of course. Thats what CR is for.

[Hectonkhyres]

That's a neutral approach. A good guy, when faced against someone who has done nothing wrong and is just misguided, will not kill him unless there is absolutely no other way (and that's a rare case), and even then he will be very regretful about that.
Hm. It seems good is dead, both in real life and D&D.

[kamikasei]

Of course. Thats what CR is for.

But... that's part of what LA is for too. Otherwise you're throwing higher-CR enemies at the party because they're stronger, but giving them XP as if they were a weaker party.

Are you actually tracking ECL, LA and RHD included, and matching it to CR, and just saying "you all have the same LA and RHD, so just think of yourselves in terms of class levels"? Or are you ignoring LA all together, which surely will create some headaches?

[Collin152]

Of course. Thats what CR is for.

Without LA, how do you know what CR to use?

Oh, Ninja'd by time itself.

[Tengu]

Hm. It seems good is dead, both in real life and D&D.

That's never been an issue in my games - when faced against someone whom they know not to be a bad guy, my players usually resorted to non-lethal ways or running. As for real life... there are many stories of vigilantes and non-helpless crime victims who could kill the criminals that attacked them, but instead just have beaten the crap out of them (not that those criminals were innocent, but I hope you see the point here).

But yeah, being good is too much hassle for many people. Because it requires effort.

[Collin152]

That's never been an issue in my games - when faced against someone whom they know not to be a bad guy, my players usually resorted to non-lethal ways or running. As for real life... there are many stories of vigilantes and non-helpless crime victims who could kill the criminals that attacked them, but instead just have beaten the crap out of them.

But yeah, being good is too much hassle for many people. Because it requires effort.

This whole conversation is funny because I'm currently playing a neutral character who prefers takng prisoners than killing.
Of course, as for what happens after he turns them over to whoever, what does he care?
Lethal force can be Good. Look at some of the spells Clerics get.

[Tengu]

Lethal force can be Good. Look at some of the spells Clerics get.

I never said it cannot be. But against an opponent you know not to have done anything wrong, and who faces you because he thinks you're evil? Hardly.

[Leliel]

But... that's part of what LA is for too. Otherwise you're throwing higher-CR enemies at the party because they're stronger, but giving them XP as if they were a weaker party.

Are you actually tracking ECL, LA and RHD included, and matching it to CR, and just saying "you all have the same LA and RHD, so just think of yourselves in terms of class levels"? Or are you ignoring LA all together, which surely will create some headaches?

...Doh. I didn't think of that.

Well, you see, I learned D&D from the SRD, and its not clear on it. Could you explain?

[Collin152]

I never said it cannot be. But against an opponent you know not to have done anything wrong, and who faces you because he thinks you're evil? Hardly.

Merciles Mike the FIghter thinks you are evil. He attacks you with a greatsword. You are bleeding. His intent is to kill. You are a monster to him. You use non-lethal attacks, rendering him unconcious. Next week, he does it again, but with friends.

[kamikasei]

...Doh. I didn't think of that.

Well, you see, I learned D&D from the SRD, and its not clear on it. Could you explain?

LA isn't just for comparing characters to one another but to the challenges they face. LA, RHD, and class levels sum to give you the ECL. A party of ECL X is supposed to face challenges of EL X as their "normal" encounters. ECL determines wealth and experience.

So, your eighth-level fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric, all of them afflicted, say, werewolves, are all still as balanced against one another as if they were just normal eighth-level characters (nominally; as has been pointed out, the melee-types get more from lycanthropy). However, they are stronger and thus merit stronger challenges. So, you use their ECL as the guide for what CR to throw at them.

They also would be presumed to have more XP and WBL than non-lycanthropic characters. The WBL will probably be important given the tougher challenges.

The long and the short of it is: you still need to keep track of LA, in order to know how tough the game considers them to be, and how much to reward them. Don't forget the racial hit dice of their were-form, either.


edit: Some clarification, because the SRD is a terrible resource to try to learn this from.

Bob is an eighth-level fighter. He is also an afflicted werewolf. Fred is also an eighth-level fighter, but a normal human.

Obviously Bob has the edge over Fred, which is represented by his higher ECL. Fred's ECL is just 8, equal to his class level because he has no Level Adjustment or Racial Hit Dice. Bob on the other hand has +2 Level Adjustment as an afflicted lycanthrope and 2 HD from his wolf form (these are animal HD granting animal skills, HP, saves etc.). Bob is an ECL 12 character.

Thus, while Fred would join with three other ECL 8 characters to face challenges of Encounter Level (EL) 8 most of the time and receive appropriate awards, Bob is tougher. He has more XP (as a twelfth-level character) and more wealth (again, as a twelfth-level character). His "appropriate" challenges will be EL or CR 12.

If you treat Bob as being 8th level because he and his friends all have the same LA and RHD, then he will still have to fight 12th level challenges or he will walk all over everything. He'll only have 8th level wealth, though, so he'll be a full +1 behind on most things. He'll also get XP as if he was an 8th level character defeating a 12th level challenge, which is a lot of XP, much more than he deserves for how hard the challenge would actually be to him.

Sorry if much of this was already known/obvious to you! I just realized that my initial response might not make much sense, acronym-filled as it was.

[Tengu]

Merciles Mike the FIghter thinks you are evil. He attacks you with a greatsword. You are bleeding. His intent is to kill. You are a monster to him. You use non-lethal attacks, rendering him unconcious. Next week, he does it again, but with friends.

Leave him a note after beating him up. Don't let him find you again afterwards. If he manages to anyway, beat him and his friends up, or escape if you're too weak.

Being good is not an easy path. Watch Trigun.

[Collin152]

Leave him a note after beating him up. Don't let him find you again afterwards. If he manages to anyway, beat him and his friends up, or escape if you're too weak.

Being good is not an easy path. Watch Trigun.

Right, a note. Because, you know, the monster he was just fighting can certainly be trusted to tell the truth in writing.
And he found you the first time, diddn't he?
What do you plan to do, run all across the countryside until you find an evil town where you're free to kill people?
What happened to alignment beign background enough that it wasn't good vs good= evil good vs evil= good evil vs evil=easier

[Nero24200]

Leave him a note after beating him up. Don't let him find you again afterwards. If he manages to anyway, beat him and his friends up, or escape if you're too weak.

Being good is not an easy path. Watch Trigun.

So no Good Aligned PC or NPC in any of your campaigns have ever killed? Ever?

Killing isn't nessicerily evil in D'n'D, in fact, one of the main class features of the paladin, a -good- aligned only class, is to "Smite" evil. It doesn't say anywhere that the damage dealt with a smite deals non-lethal. Fight against someone like "Merciles Mike" where their intent is your death (and they ain't shy about showing it) and they won't stop until they're dead (and maybe not even then.)

[Collin152]

So no Good Aligned PC or NPC in any of your campaigns have ever killed? Ever?

Killing isn't nessicerily evil in D'n'D, in fact, one of the main class features of the paladin, a -good- aligned only class, is to "Smite" evil. It doesn't say anywhere that the damage dealt with a smite deals non-lethal. Fight against someone like "Merciles Mike" where their intent is your death (and they ain't shy about showing it) and they won't stop until they're dead (and maybe not even then.)

Oh, his only problem is killing people who aren't evil.
Because, after all, Evil is so much worse than wanting you dead.
Waiiiit...

[Rutee]

Tengu's intent is spot on, IMO, but the practice to follow it is far too far, to me. I can agree that a good-aligned group would TRY not to kill well-intentioned misguided folk, but not to the poitn where they sacrifice their own skin. At the least, you need to stabilize them at negs..

[Tengu]

Right, a note. Because, you know, the monster he was just fighting can certainly be trusted to tell the truth in writing.
And he found you the first time, diddn't he?


Maybe some of his companions will show him the truth, after they realize you actually aren't doing anything evil. It's much harder when you murder every peasant with a pitchfork that tries to defend his village from you.
And losing pursuit isn't that hard for a competent party.



What do you plan to do, run all across the countryside until you find an evil town where you're free to kill people?


How hypocritical. Good and evil aren't restrained by laws, only a Lawful Stupid character would do something like that. A good character will try to keep a low profile and try to look for a way to remove his curse.



What happened to alignment beign background enough that it wasn't good vs good= evil good vs evil= good evil vs evil=easier

I have trouble reading the second part of this statement, so I can only guess what do you mean. However...
Screw DND's alignment system - good and evil exist even if you play an alignment-less game. And good vs good is such a rare scenario because good people will rarely kill each other willingly - war is the only scenario when that might really happen.


Oh, his only problem is killing people who aren't evil.
Because, after all, Evil is so much worse than wanting you dead.
Waiiiit...

The first part is true (Nero24200 needs to, as the WoWkids say, l2read), the second part is partially true - to be evil, you have to do evil deeds, like murder, rape, torture. Killing someone who does that is justified.

[ZeroNumerous]

Funny thing: I'm playing a good character in my IRL game who does nothing but kill his enemies. He then uses part of the loot from their broken corpses as donations to local orphanages and peasant farmers. This is, of course, after he violently crushes his enemy's body with a goliath greathammer. :smallamused:

[Leliel]

LA isn't just for comparing characters to one another but to the challenges they face. LA, RHD, and class levels sum to give you the ECL. A party of ECL X is supposed to face challenges of EL X as their "normal" encounters. ECL determines wealth and experience.

So, your eighth-level fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric, all of them afflicted, say, werewolves, are all still as balanced against one another as if they were just normal eighth-level characters (nominally; as has been pointed out, the mêlée-types get more from lycanthropy). However, they are stronger and thus merit stronger challenges. So, you use their ECL as the guide for what CR to throw at them.

They also would be presumed to have more XP and WBL than non-lycanthropic characters. The WBL will probably be important given the tougher challenges.

The long and the short of it is: you still need to keep track of LA, in order to know how tough the game considers them to be, and how much to reward them. Don't forget the racial hit dice of their were-form, either.


edit: Some clarification, because the SRD is a terrible resource to try to learn this from.

Bob is an eighth-level fighter. He is also an afflicted werewolf. Fred is also an eighth-level fighter, but a normal human.

Obviously Bob has the edge over Fred, which is represented by his higher ECL. Fred's ECL is just 8, equal to his class level because he has no Level Adjustment or Racial Hit Dice. Bob on the other hand has +2 Level Adjustment as an afflicted lycanthrope and 2 HD from his wolf form (these are animal HD granting animal skills, HP, saves etc.). Bob is an ECL 12 character.

Thus, while Fred would join with three other ECL 8 characters to face challenges of Encounter Level (EL) 8 most of the time and receive appropriate awards, Bob is tougher. He has more XP (as a twelfth-level character) and more wealth (again, as a twelfth-level character). His "appropriate" challenges will be EL or CR 12.

If you treat Bob as being 8th level because he and his friends all have the same LA and RHD, then he will still have to fight 12th level challenges or he will walk all over everything. He'll only have 8th level wealth, though, so he'll be a full +1 behind on most things. He'll also get XP as if he was an 8th level character defeating a 12th level challenge, which is a lot of XP, much more than he deserves for how hard the challenge would actually be to him.

Sorry if much of this was already known/obvious to you! I just realized that my initial response might not make much sense, acronym-filled as it was.

Ah. I will count the LA then.

And please, could we stop with the alignment flamewar? This is supposed to be about the idea and how could somebody could improve it. I'll circumvent the problem by saying that the guys sent after the PCs are evil mercs, and that problem will only pop up once the PCs are strong enough to face the actual members of the church (and not on every corrupt member either: some of them have truly gone too far and have crossed the line into Evil).

[Tengu]

Tengu's intent is spot on, IMO, but the practice to follow it is far too far, to me. I can agree that a good-aligned group would TRY not to kill well-intentioned misguided folk, but not to the poitn where they sacrifice their own skin. At the least, you need to stabilize them at negs..

Well, is you stabilize their wounds, you don't kill them.
Which leads us to another point - dealing non-lethal damage is extremely easy in DND. It's hard to kill someone who's on full health with one blow unless you're an ubercharge monster, and to deal non-lethal damage you only have to take -4 on your attack bonus - enough to hit a lightly-armored weak opponent anyway.


Funny thing: I'm playing a good character in my IRL game who does nothing but kill his enemies. He then uses part of the loot from their broken corpses as donations to local orphanages and peasant farmers. This is, of course, after he violently crushes his enemy's body with a goliath greathammer. :smallamused:

Fun, but I wouldn't call him good if he does the same to, for example, pickpockets.

--------------

"I can kill in self-defense even though these guys haven't really done anything and are just misguided, and I can dispatch of them without killing them" is the first sign that you will jump off the slippery slope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JumpingOffTheSlipperySlope). A really good character will resist the temptation and stick to his morals.

[MeklorIlavator]

Leave him a note after beating him up. Don't let him find you again afterwards. If he manages to anyway, beat him and his friends up, or escape if you're too weak.

Being good is not an easy path. Watch Trigun.

That isn't good. That's exalted. There's a whole book devoted to, and it gives a lot of very small bonuses to those who act this way.

I'd say there is a line for all alignments where if you cross this line they have justification for killing you. For vile, this line is existence. For Evil, this is line is attracting attention. For neutral, this is trying to harm them in any way. For Good, this trying to deal lethal harm to one/others who good/neutral(in general). For exalted, this is being vile/very evil.

Or, at least that's how I see it.

[Tengu]

That isn't good. That's exalted. There's a whole book devoted to, and it gives a lot of very small bonuses to those who act this way.

True, but Wolfwood, who's still good but certainly not exalted good, didn't kill good guys that he fought against - even though that might have been easier sometimes.

[Leliel]

Once again: WILL YOU PLEASE STOP WITH THE ALIGNMENT ARGUMENT!?

You are going way off topic!

[Indon]

Merciles Mike the FIghter thinks you are evil. He attacks you with a greatsword. You are bleeding. His intent is to kill. You are a monster to him. You use non-lethal attacks, rendering him unconcious. Next week, he does it again, but with friends.

Take their adventuring gear. Not only do you essentially neutralize everyone coming your way, but you become pretty rich, pretty fast.

Theft is chaotic, mind you, not evil.

[Tengu]

Once again: WILL YOU PLEASE STOP WITH THE ALIGNMENT ARGUMENT!?

You are going way off topic!

I didn't start. People who argued with me did. Weren't you among them?

But okay. We can move this argument to another topic, if anyone is interested. I am not terribly so, though.


Take their adventuring gear. Not only do you essentially neutralize everyone coming your way, but you become pretty rich, pretty fast.

Theft is chaotic, mind you, not evil.

Good thinking there.

[Rutee]

For a subvillain? Maybe someone insane trying to find a way to bring them under his control?

[Leliel]

I didn't start. People who argued with me did. Weren't you among them?

But okay. We can move this argument to another topic, if anyone is interested. I am not terribly so, though.


Then move it!

And no, I was yelling at everyone involved in it. I was, but I am now trying to put some order back into it. ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT?

[Tengu]

Man, take a deep breath, stop yelling and chill out a bit. You're not a drill sergeant and the forums haven't suddenly become your property when you made this thread.

And on topic, you can use that lengthy argument to actually make a LBEG for the players - a former hero who also got cursed with lycanthropy, and who tried to act good at first but when he found out nobody sees anything nut a monster in him now, slowly started losing himself - not to the curse's mental effects, because as you said there aren't any in your campaign, but to the desire to use his newfound strength, force and lethal means to get what he wants. Tragic villains are more interesting.

[Leliel]

Man, take a deep breath, stop yelling and chill out a bit. You're not a drill sergeant and the forums haven't suddenly become your property when you made this thread.

And on topic, you can use that lengthy argument to actually make a LBEG for the players - a former hero who also got cursed with lycanthropy, and who tried to act good at first but when he found out nobody sees anything nut a monster in him now, slowly started losing himself - not to the curse's mental effects, because as you said there aren't any in your campaign, but to the desire to use his newfound strength, force and lethal means to get what he wants. Tragic villains are more interesting.

Sorry about yelling. I was getting tired of watching the topic becoming completely debased from the original discussion, and I thought I could shock the forums into going back on it.

And thank you for finally, finally, posting somthing relavant to the topic's original purpose.