Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 356
  1. - Top - End - #121
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Ogres are sapient (INT 3 or higher) and therefore people. Even if a government "takes away people's legal status" allowing them to be killed with impunity, it can still be morally murder, whether or not it is legally murder in that government's eyes.

    Plus not all bandits are outlaws. To be an outlaw, one must have had a writ of outlawry passed on them.

    Otherwise, one is more likely to be a highwayman-type - a "solid citizen by day, who sneaks off in a mask to rob people by night".

    And plenty of governments could be passing those writs unjustly.

    Robin Hood is the archetypal "Good-aligned outlaw" who has had a writ of outlawry passed on them.

    Yet I could see plenty of DMs saying

    "because Robin is the good guy, and because you snuck up on him in his sleep and stabbed him - it's murder. I don't care that the Sheriff of Nottingham had him outlawed - that doesn't change the moral status of the situation".



    3.5e's DMG2 makes it clear that once an adventurer has successfully captured an outlaw - they should still deliver them to the local authorities for trial - killing outlaw prisoners is not actually sanctioned, and can still be murder, in any case.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  2. - Top - End - #122
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Ogres are backwoods hillbilly sexual predators who eat people, not Robin Hood sorts.

  3. - Top - End - #123
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    Unless this is some unusual setting where ogres are citizens of some actual nation (instead of a collection of murderous tribes), with real citizen's rights, it's not murder.
    The whole "if you're a member of a tribe, and not a nation, then, being not a citizen, you're not a person" idea,


    has a very ugly history. Best for DMs not to stray in that direction. Gygax did - but D&D moved away from Gygax long ago.


    This is the OOTS board, after all - and The Giant has made it crystal clear in the past, that he sees goblins as people. Similar principles apply to other "monstrous races" - like ogres.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    Ogres are backwoods hillbilly sexual predators who eat people, not Robin Hood sorts.

    While it's true that average ogres are not "Robin-Hood sorts" - so what? A human who's a cannibal, is still a person.

    If the party are living in a fictionalised version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and they successfully capture Leatherface - why should they believe that they are entitled to execute him?
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-09-08 at 11:15 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  4. - Top - End - #124
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    The whole "if you're a member of a tribe, and not a nation, then, being not a citizen, you're not a person" idea,


    has a very ugly history. Best for DMs not to stray in that direction. Gygax did - but D&D moved away from Gygax long ago.




    While it's true that average ogres are not "Robin-Hood sorts" - so what? A human who's a cannibal, is still a person.

    If the party are living in a fictionalised version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and they successfully capture Leatherface - why should they believe that they are entitled to execute him?
    ...Because he's a cannibal murderer and horror movie monsters are well known for improbably escaping captivity and continuing their crime spree?


    Usually, killing the monster in one of these films is considered a heroic act for a reason.
    Last edited by Rynjin; 2020-09-08 at 11:15 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #125
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Killing him in self-defence (or defence of another that he's in the process of attacking) is fine.

    But intelligent monsters are always people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    Usually, killing the monster in one of these films is considered a heroic act for a reason.
    Usually, the monster isn't tied up.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-09-08 at 11:17 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  6. - Top - End - #126
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    Killing him in self-defence (or defence of another that he's in the process of attacking) is fine.

    But intelligent monsters are always people.


    Usually, the monster isn't tied up.
    Which is usually why they're so much harder to kill.

  7. - Top - End - #127
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    lacco36's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Slovakia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    A bit of both. It is not the DM's job to dictate to the player what the player's character is willing or unwilling to do. That's just a kind of railroading.
    Correct.

    You are only their characters' eyes, ears, taste buds, the thingies in your nose that smell stuff... also, in some games, you are their memory and experience.

    Meaning: Game of Shadowrun. The player knows nothing about yakuza etiquette. But their character lived in Tokyo for 20 years and has Etiquette skill maxed out. Little chance they'd not know what "face" or "save face" is. Right?

    It's also a matter of risk management and making decisions based on in-character knowledge. Would a level 1 character attack a group of wights? If not, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Thats sort of a tricky thing. "Are you sure?" is fairly well known DM slang for "this is going to go very badly for you, in a way that you can probably predict." In a lot of veteran tables, that really is all they need to hear to reconsider.
    It's a matter of training and experience.

    There is one player in my RL group who reacts to "Are you sure?" with loud "Oooooh, $#!&! You messed up." He also knows the (t)ropes well enough to know when to do the "stupid" thing (which may bring an interesting complication).

    But even a veteran can easily go for "Yes." if they see the scene differently. Especially if you switch games or game worlds, the assumptions they have can be easily wrong. "We can take them!"

    So yes, it's a useful tool in GM's toolbox, if you train your group - it shortens the discussion in many cases. But for new players - use wisely. And follow up if they go for simple "Yes." Questions like "What do you want to accomplish with this?" or "What do you expect happens?" or "What is your character thinking/why are they doing this?" may give you background.

    Sometimes the player just wants to spit into king's face. Maybe they know they won't get away with it and are okay with it. Or they misunderstood, have different expectations or view of the scene.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Precisely.

    "Are you sure" asks the player to re-evaluate based on their current knowledge and assumptions... and if those are enough to realize that it's a bad idea, then it can work. But, experientially and based on the number of horror stories, it often doesn't.

    "Name the possible consequences and ask" handles that case - but it also handles the case where the player is unaware of something (that the character would know) or has a misconception about something (that the character would know).

    I really don't get the whole "give as little information as possible" style of GMing.
    It has its time and place. There are whole games that run on it, and are fine. For example, the oD&D - no character skills, no lore - the "your character knows only what you know" was very much baked into the premise. And it was fine.

    The "get to know the world or die" was part of the game, part of its charm and also a mechanic.

    Not so much now. And that is fine. For example in Fate - when you have a Lore skill, you can basically create a lore. In other games, here can be a Folk lore skill - letting you know that if you throw salt over your left shoulder, you will ward off evil spirits.

    Would the player know about the salt-throwing protection vs. evil? Nope. Probably not. But their character would.
    Call me Laco or Ladislav (if you need to be formal). Avatar comes from the talented linklele.
    Currently recruiting for Brűtâl Racing, postapocalyptic semi-comedic cannonball run across the Europe in worst cars you can imagine. Sign up and get ready to burn.
    Formerly GMing: Riddle of Steel: Soldiers of Fortune

  8. - Top - End - #128
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    This is how it works in most of my groups.


    Player declares something completely out of character for the PC or utterly stupid in the eyes of the GM.

    GM "Are you sure ?"

    possible answers :

    "Yes" -> Player declares with that that he understands how stpid or strange it is and wants to do it anyway. Maybe for drama or character development etc.

    It gets done

    "No" -> Player declares that he does not understand why the GM thinks that action is strange or stupid.

    Then the GM explains why. When both are certain that they have the same idea about the situation, the game resumes. And of course the player is free to do the action anyway.

  9. - Top - End - #129
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    possible answers :

    "Yes" -> Player declares with that that he understands how stpid or strange it is and wants to do it anyway. Maybe for drama or character development etc.

    It gets done

    "No" -> Player declares that he does not understand why the GM thinks that action is strange or stupid.

    Then the GM explains why. When both are certain that they have the same idea about the situation, the game resumes. And of course the player is free to do the action anyway.
    This. Very much this.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  10. - Top - End - #130
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    lacco36's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Slovakia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    "Are you sure?" is a closed question. There are two possible answers. Use it when you want to speed up the process but don't really care about result.

    "Why...?" is an open question. Use that one instead. It helped me a lot.

    Clears a lot of confusion & has the added value of showing you whether this is IC or OOC issue. It also tends to push the player into the character's mind and helps other players understand the character.
    Call me Laco or Ladislav (if you need to be formal). Avatar comes from the talented linklele.
    Currently recruiting for Brűtâl Racing, postapocalyptic semi-comedic cannonball run across the Europe in worst cars you can imagine. Sign up and get ready to burn.
    Formerly GMing: Riddle of Steel: Soldiers of Fortune

  11. - Top - End - #131
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by lacco36 View Post
    More in the wrong, less in the wrong. What difference does it make in this case?

    They are either both wrong (because they decreased the entertainment value of the game for each other based on their decision) or both right (because they created a really interesting RP situation, which they can now try to handle.

    What is the added value of "more wrong"/"less wrong" in this case? And I'm not just asking you, I'm asking also the OP.
    This is all table dependent, and that post was based on this being a player-driven question rather than a character-driven question. I can only work with what the OP said, but based on what they said:
    • The paladin killed the ogre out of convenience*. They were trying to benefit the party, but should have asked OoC first.
    • The dwarf killed the paladin's horse out of spite. They were not trying to benefit the party — the dwarf (and the dwarf's player) wanted the paladin (and the paladin's player) to respect to the dwarf's ownership of the prisoner.
    What the characters did — the morality of killing a captive ogre vs. an unsuspecting horse — isn't what I'm discussing. It's how the players responded to things. The paladin player's motivation was to progress the game. The dwarf player's motivation was to punish the paladin's player. I'll reiterate here that I'm sure that I'm missing some relevant details, but I'm working with what I've seen in this thread. This is not a matter of black and white. The OP didn't say specifically what his table's expectations are, but as far as my table is concerned, killing a mount/familiar/whatever is way further over the line than killing a prisoner, regardless of whether the other players agreed to the killing of the prisoner.

    *: This would not fly for most paladins. Super setting-dependent, but killing a helpless enemy is frowned upon in almost all paladin codes. That's a whole thread unto itself, though.
    Last edited by Elysiume; 2020-09-09 at 04:57 AM.

  12. - Top - End - #132
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    But intelligent monsters are always people.
    Nope. To give two examples, undead (e.g., ghasts, ghouls, vampires) and aberrations (e.g., beholders, mind flayers) are all intelligent monsters, but I don't think very many people would consider them to be people.

  13. - Top - End - #133
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by HappyDaze View Post
    To give two examples, undead (e.g., ghasts, ghouls, vampires) and aberrations (e.g., beholders, mind flayers) are all intelligent monsters, but I don't think very many people would consider them to be people.
    I would. There's a lot of fiction out there with undead protagonists. Not quite so much fiction with aberration protagonists - but I suspect there's some.

    One can recognise them as people - without suspending morality.


    Simply take the approach that they are often (mostly due to their attitudes and their actions) really nasty people, who do a great many immoral deeds - and it all works out.


    I'm mostly taking my cue from The Giant here. "Monsters are people" is a really strong theme in OOTS - especially in the non-online OOTS media.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-09-09 at 05:44 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  14. - Top - End - #134
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lvl 2 Expert's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Tulips Cheese & Rock&Roll
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    "Are you sure?" needs to be accompanied with clarifying info.

    Player: "I insult the king!"
    GM: "Are you sure?"
    Player: "Of course!"
    GM: "The king has his guards summarily execute you."

    Note that per the gazebo thread, this is a mismatch of assumptions - the player doesn't think this act is suicide, and the GM does. Of course the player won't change their mind based on "are you sure?" They're already making the right decision based on what they believe and know.

    Better:

    Player: "I insult the king!"
    GM: "Are you sure? Your character would know that the monarchs don't take kindly to that. There was in fact a hanging last week because somebody called the King's sister ugly."
    Player: "Um, okay, maybe not."

    (Note that ideally you can convey this information in-character).
    Worse but lots of fun:

    Player: "I insult the king!"
    GM: "Roll intelligence."
    Player: "2."
    GM: *Obvious evil smirk* "You see absolutely nothing wrong with that action, what's the worst that could happen?"

    (The reason this is worse is that as a general trend it gets less effective the better your players are. Most people will get the hint, but many an inspired role player will take the failed roll as "I get it's bad now, but my character doesn't, so even if I wasn't curious what would happen, I have to push on now.")

    (I like the "Why?" or "Explain" option by the way. Good way to get someone thinking without at least too much of an impression that you're leading them.)
    Last edited by Lvl 2 Expert; 2020-09-09 at 06:21 AM.
    The Hindsight Awards, results: See the best movies of 1999!

  15. - Top - End - #135
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    I would. There's a lot of fiction out there with undead protagonists. Not quite so much fiction with aberration protagonists - but I suspect there's some.

    One can recognise them as people - without suspending morality.


    Simply take the approach that they are often (mostly due to their attitudes and their actions) really nasty people, who do a great many immoral deeds - and it all works out.


    I'm mostly taking my cue from The Giant here. "Monsters are people" is a really strong theme in OOTS - especially in the non-online OOTS media.
    "Monsters are people" is non-universal as a take, and unless we know it applies to this game, we can't really make a call.

    I'm much more practical than these lofty ideals. Part of the moral weight once you're a cannibalistic milti-murderer is your cost to the society you're cannibalistically murdering. If your cost is too high, you gotta go. Sorry. I'm under no obligation to keep an enduring threat around just because it's currently tied up.

    I don't grok the logic, really.
    >Mass murderer, evil, ready and willing to kill you where you stand if given the opportunity and previously tried to = OK to kill.
    >Mass murderer, evil, ready and willing to kill you where you stand if given the opportunity and previously tried to, but now tied up = an innocent, whose murder will forever stain your hands.

    Sorry, guy. If you've actively tried to kill me and my friends, and I have no reason to assume misunderstanding, AND you've got a confirmed past of killing innocents, AND I have no reason to believe you're planning to stop killing innocents, then your being temporarily inconvenienced by ropes is not going to sway my call on whether taking your head off is suddenly evil now. Your continued personhood privileges will be revoked by the end of this interaction either way. Literally the only question is how useful to us you're going to be before that. But I'm not going to risk you going on to kill more people after I leave. I'd rather have your evil blood on my hands than the blood of those innocents.

    Literally the only consideration is "Is there something we can gain from keeping you around temporarily of greater net value than ending your continuing murderous tendencies?"

    If the answer is yes, I will utilize you. If the answer is no, I will ice you. Ropes or no doesn't make a meaningful impact on the fact you do murder as a hobby. End of the day, you gotta go. Nobody owes you the resource costs required for you to have a redemption arc. Least of all someone you were trying to kill 10 minutes ago.

    Making it about sapience and being tied up is like fretting about whether to put out the housefire because the flames are just in this one corner now and look a bit sad about it. It's an imminent threat. Once you've ended enough people, your personhood in the math is forfeit, because their personhood sure didn't matter to you, and hey, if I can securely, 100% guarantee that you won't kill anybody else for the low low price of a sword swing... that's a good deal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorsa View Post
    I doubt you could find a less sensitive person on these boards than ImNotTrevor.

  16. - Top - End - #136
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by HappyDaze View Post
    Nope. To give two examples, undead (e.g., ghasts, ghouls, vampires) and aberrations (e.g., beholders, mind flayers) are all intelligent monsters, but I don't think very many people would consider them to be people.
    I consider them to have moral status. Consequences that affect them can have a moral weight for their own sake.
    I would even consider them to be moral agents. They have the capability to make choices that carry a moral character. In game we have confirmation of this fact.

    However, this is really off topic so I am not very invested in this tangent. I do not see how the moral character of the PC's actions could be relevant to discussing the conflict AND how to handle similar cases in the future. To be fair, the PC's actions are barely relevant in the first place.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-09-09 at 08:03 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #137
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    I consider them to have moral status. Consequences that affect them can have a moral weight for their own sake.
    I would even consider them to be moral agents. They have the capability to make choices that carry a moral character. In game we have confirmation of this fact because they have non "unaligned" alignment (even some True Neutrals are moral agents, but deer are not).

    However, this is really off topic so I am not very invested in this tangent. I do not see how the moral character of the PC's actions could be relevant to discussing the conflict AND how to handle similar cases in the future. To be fair, the PC's actions are barely relevant in the first place.
    I agree, despite my rant, that this is pretty off topic.

    Like I said, I think the DM carries the biggest burden, but this is an OOC problem with IC implications.

    Paladin's player was a doofus and didn't think about the other players. That's about the full extent of his sins.
    Dwarf's player got his blood hot and decided to do some petty stuff to punish the pally. That's the full extent of his sins.

    Pally player is guilty of being foolish.
    Dwarf player is guilty of being petty.

    Foolish is less infuriating to deal with than petty, so... I know where I'd start.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorsa View Post
    I doubt you could find a less sensitive person on these boards than ImNotTrevor.

  18. - Top - End - #138
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2010

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    "Monsters are People" is an interesting theme, but one could argue that the principle not being the default is one of the things that makes OoTS a self-aware parody.

  19. - Top - End - #139
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    In Eberron, many (not all) monsters are treated as people in some locations. In Sigil in the Planescape setting, pretty much all monsters present in the city are treated as people.


    Same appears to be the case in BoED.


    It seems to me like, since 1e, things have shifted a lot.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  20. - Top - End - #140
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    A place near Boulder.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Its weird how different this debste looks when viewed from a player angle vs a character angle.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  21. - Top - End - #141
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    Example (was derailing an OOTS thread, so I took it here):

    https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/v...11762&start=60


    Is it the dwarf player who's being a jerk for killing the paladin's horse (later clarified as a regular nonmagical one)? The paladin player for not talking it out with the dwarf before killing the party prisoner? A bit of both?

    In my opinion, the "jumping in" started the whole quarrel, and the retaliation, while a little excessive, is an improvement on just going straight to PVP.
    Make them play Rock Paper Scissors and whoever loses sucks it up. It doesn't matter who is right and wrong, it's paving over the conflict and preventing a new one that matters.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  22. - Top - End - #142
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Friv's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by ImNotTrevor View Post
    I don't grok the logic, really.
    >Mass murderer, evil, ready and willing to kill you where you stand if given the opportunity and previously tried to = OK to kill.
    >Mass murderer, evil, ready and willing to kill you where you stand if given the opportunity and previously tried to, but now tied up = an innocent, whose murder will forever stain your hands.
    On a certain level the problem here is not the killing itself; it's the taking prisoners who you intend to kill the instant that their usefulness is expired.

    The simple answer is that if someone is evil enough that you are going to kill them, you kill them. You don't tie them up in the first place.* If you are tying someone up who deserves death and using their knowledge to your advantage, secure in the belief that you will kill them afterwards, you are treating them as a resource, and treating people as resources is wrong. If you are choosing to extend the life of an evil fiend purely for your own benefit, you are either deceiving them about their continued existence, which is cruel, or you're torturing them for information, which is very cruel.

    Is it the most efficient course of action? Probably not. Good doesn't always get to take the most efficient course of action. They're supposed to be held to higher standards than that.

    And to be honest, "you are a threat and threats are not worth the resources required to turn them into assets" is not a Good attitude. I wouldn't call it Evil either; it's an extremely Neutral way of looking at the world. Good people are expected to expend effort to redeem others, within reason.

    * - There are two exceptions to this, and both of them preclude cutting someone's throat as soon as you're done with them. The first exception is that you don't know if they're evil or not. In this case, you can't kill them on suspicion and still be good. The second case is that you believe you can redeem them or offer them atonement. In this case, you can't kill them the moment that becomes inconvenient, although you could arguably execute them if redeeming them eventually proves impossible.
    Last edited by Friv; 2020-09-09 at 04:15 PM.
    If you like my thoughts, you'll love my writing. Visit me at www.mishahandman.com.

  23. - Top - End - #143
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    @Friv: I agree with the whole of your post, but there is a third exception; transfer to a court of law for a proper trial.

  24. - Top - End - #144
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by Tvtyrant View Post
    Make them play Rock Paper Scissors and whoever loses sucks it up. It doesn't matter who is right and wrong, it's paving over the conflict and preventing a new one that matters.
    "Paving over" a problem does not fix the problem, explicitly. This will just breed resentment and not cause any of the underlying problems (like the dwarf player being a high-handed prick) to be solved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Friv View Post
    On a certain level the problem here is not the killing itself; it's the taking prisoners who you intend to kill the instant that their usefulness is expired.

    The simple answer is that if someone is evil enough that you are going to kill them, you kill them. You don't tie them up in the first place.* If you are tying someone up who deserves death and using their knowledge to your advantage, secure in the belief that you will kill them afterwards, you are treating them as a resource, and treating people as resources is wrong.
    Treating people as resources is the base status of any system of political or military power. Given Paladins can be the leaders of organizations, and even kings, I'd dispute that.

  25. - Top - End - #145
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    "Paving over" a problem does not fix the problem, explicitly. This will just breed resentment and not cause any of the underlying problems (like the dwarf player being a high-handed prick) to be solved.
    That's the opposite of true. Think about the issues you have with anyone you live with, any little pin or needle that annoys you regularly. How often have you actually resolved those issues? How often does your partner change how they load the dishwasher, or stop popping their gum, or your coworker stop microwaving fish?

    The vast majority of conflicts aren't resolved, they are moved past. This is true in all aspects of life, gaming isn't different.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  26. - Top - End - #146
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by Tvtyrant View Post
    That's the opposite of true. Think about the issues you have with anyone you live with, any little pin or needle that annoys you regularly. How often have you actually resolved those issues? How often does your partner change how they load the dishwasher, or stop popping their gum, or your coworker stop microwaving fish?

    The vast majority of conflicts aren't resolved, they are moved past. This is true in all aspects of life, gaming isn't different.
    I cannot feasibly stop my coworker from eating fish. I can absolutely stop playing with somebody who tells me my character isn't allowed to be in the same party as his. Ignoring a problem like that is just putting a delay on the escalation.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  27. - Top - End - #147
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by Berenger View Post
    @Friv: I agree with the whole of your post, but there is a third exception; transfer to a court of law for a proper trial.
    Abdicating the decision to others is not inherently better. There is no guarantee that a trial will produce a more "good" outcome than the on-the-spot judgement of one person. You've just turned the struggle from good vs. evil into lawful vs. chaotic.

  28. - Top - End - #148
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    I cannot feasibly stop my coworker from eating fish. I can absolutely stop playing with somebody who tells me my character isn't allowed to be in the same party as his. Ignoring a problem like that is just putting a delay on the escalation.
    Sure, if a player wants to walk that's their prerogative. But the DM isn't going to fix things, and it doesn't matter who is in the right. Very few people like hypocritical paladin players, and no one likes the team killer people. Presumably the DM has a reason for not closing down the game, such as them being friends with the players or it being a paid game. In which case they basically have to patch it over and move on.

    What is never good advice is for the DM to become the group therapy leader.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  29. - Top - End - #149
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by Tvtyrant View Post
    Sure, if a player wants to walk that's their prerogative. But the DM isn't going to fix things, and it doesn't matter who is in the right. Very few people like hypocritical paladin players, and no one likes the team killer people. Presumably the DM has a reason for not closing down the game, such as them being friends with the players or it being a paid game. In which case they basically have to patch it over and move on.

    What is never good advice is for the DM to become the group therapy leader.
    Disagreements that are ignored are going to just keep recurring and accumulating until they boil over. Ignoring the issue is unhealthy for the group.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  30. - Top - End - #150
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr

    Quote Originally Posted by Friv View Post
    On a certain level the problem here is not the killing itself; it's the taking prisoners who you intend to kill the instant that their usefulness is expired.

    The simple answer is that if someone is evil enough that you are going to kill them, you kill them. You don't tie them up in the first place.* If you are tying someone up who deserves death and using their knowledge to your advantage, secure in the belief that you will kill them afterwards, you are treating them as a resource, and treating people as resources is wrong. If you are choosing to extend the life of an evil fiend purely for your own benefit, you are either deceiving them about their continued existence, which is cruel, or you're torturing them for information, which is very cruel.
    Once you've killed enough people, I'm not really concerned about being sufficiently nice to you. You are right that I would treat them as a resource. Because at this point, that's the only potential good they can put back into the world: helping me stop his murdering buddies.

    Is it the most efficient course of action? Probably not. Good doesn't always get to take the most efficient course of action. They're supposed to be held to higher standards than that.
    I never claimed to hold lofty ideals. I'm very pragmatic. Good, to me, is just as much about trying to increase the net peace and goodness in the world. Sometimes that requires being a callous A-hole.

    And to be honest, "you are a threat and threats are not worth the resources required to turn them into assets" is not a Good attitude. I wouldn't call it Evil either; it's an extremely Neutral way of looking at the world. Good people are expected to expend effort to redeem others, within reason.
    The trouble there is, they aren't held to that expectation AT ALL. Otherwise the Paladin would have therapy notes instead of a Smite.

    Maybe I'm very old school, but there is a definite air of "that which is evil gets put to the freakin' sword and it's feelings aren't part of the equation" to the Paladin aesthetic. I'd much rather be a Paladin who has free reign to be a bit of a bastard so long as the target is evil than one who has to tie their own hands in a way that puts more people at risk.

    Let's break it down to a variant of the trolley problem:
    Killing the ogre outright saves 10 lives.
    Getting the information and letting him go saves 50.
    Getting the information and killing him saves 70. (He'd go on to kill 20 more if let go)

    I'm thinking I'm gonna take option 3, my dude.

    * - There are two exceptions to this, and both of them preclude cutting someone's throat as soon as you're done with them. The first exception is that you don't know if they're evil or not. In this case, you can't kill them on suspicion and still be good. The second case is that you believe you can redeem them or offer them atonement. In this case, you can't kill them the moment that becomes inconvenient, although you could arguably execute them if redeeming them eventually proves impossible.
    I already covered #1 in my post.

    #2 is perfectly fine.

    Granted, all this assumes that every person is entitled to equally good treatment regardless of their crimes. Which I disagree with. Having worked with the victims of a wide variety of abuse, there are certain actions which, in my opinion, make you eligible for de-personhood.

    Yeah, it sure does suck you were tied up, tortured, and lied to. But it also sure did suck to be all the people you've killed, tortured, and eaten. So I'm thinking my empathy is 0 in this case.

    Again, maybe in this particular regard I'm very neutral. But there's a hard line beyond which society is no longer obligated to tolerate your continued existence, nor give a crap about your feelings on the matter. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorsa View Post
    I doubt you could find a less sensitive person on these boards than ImNotTrevor.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •