Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 356
  1. - Top - End - #211
    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 ImNotTrevor View Post
    Going off Mutazoia's research into it:
    I went through the Gygax thread, thoroughly, and could not find any other statements about the ogre's actions, besides in the very first post.

    If you want to try and find more info - you can:


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


    but I'd be a little surprised if I missed that much.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  2. - Top - End - #212
    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 hamishspence View Post
    I went through the Gygax thread, thoroughly, and could not find any other statements about the ogre's actions, besides in the very first post.

    If you want to try and find more info - you can:


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


    but I'd be a little surprised if I missed that much.
    I wouldnt. When i ran through that thread, half the freaking pages just entirely skipped loading for me and went on to the next one, without announcement or label. It took a considerable amount of brute force for me to get them all to load. I dont know what it is about that site that doesnt want to work, but it is decidedly non-cooperative.

    Also, the fact that the ogre is attacking travelers is self evident, on account of the group of travelers that is the PCs being attacked by it and its buddies.
    Last edited by Keltest; 2020-09-14 at 06:54 AM.
    “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.”

  3. - Top - End - #213
    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 Keltest View Post
    I wouldnt. When i ran through that thread, half the freaking pages just entirely skipped loading for me and went on to the next one, without announcement or label. It took a considerable amount of brute force for me to get them all to load. I dont know what it is about that site that doesnt want to work, but it is decidedly non-cooperative.

    Also, the fact that the ogre is attacking travelers is self evident, on account of the group of travelers that is the PCs being attacked by it and its buddies.
    Yup. Even if the thread doesn't spell it out, it can easily be inferred by surrounding evidence.

    Since we have no reason to assume the campaign has "redeeming mooks" or "monsters are as complex as people" as central themes, regarding the ogre as nothing more or less than Badguy #312 is perfectly reasonable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorsa View Post
    I doubt you could find a less sensitive person on these boards than ImNotTrevor.

  4. - Top - End - #214
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Also, the fact that the ogre is attacking travelers is self evident, on account of the group of travelers that is the PCs being attacked by it and its buddies.
    The PCs were not travellers, but defenders of a keep on patrol and the ogre was part of an assault group attacking the keep.

    That is more akin to soldiers of different sides in a war.

  5. - Top - End - #215
    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 hamishspence View Post
    Imagine that, in every instance, the word "ogre" was replaced with "human" - but nothing else was changed.


    It's safe to say that people would be a lot less sympathetic to the paladin, and a lot less inclined to believe the worst about the prisoner.

    A textbook example of how the text in the MM, is used to justify pre-judging the prisoner as "deserving of death".
    Might I remind you that the actual PC actions involved were irrelevant to the player conflict? Yes, you and some posters have been arguing about the morality of the Paladin's actions, however this would still have been a player conflict if the Paladin had been a Blackguard instead, or if the Ogre had been an oak table, or if the paladin's horse had been a druid hireling.

    The players had an OOC disagreement and attempted to resolve it through IC actions. To prevent this in the future the DM should preempt it and force an OOC conversation between all players. To address this incident going forward the DM should force an OOC conversation to get all sides to understand the concerns of the other and to establish how you are going to preempt these issues in the future.

  6. - Top - End - #216
    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 Satinavian View Post
    The PCs were not travellers, but defenders of a keep on patrol and the ogre was part of an assault group attacking the keep.

    That is more akin to soldiers of different sides in a war.

    That distinction doesn't make a significant difference unless this is one of those Gray Morality, Both Sides Are Justified sort of war.stories as opposed to "Good guys vs Bad Guys."

    Since we have no reason to assume gray morality as a central theme, and good vs evil is the more common theme, I'll assume it's the latter.

    Bearing that in mind, we now have two options:
    1. The Ogre is part of the Bad Guys. If so, he's evil, and being a mook, has no little blonde ogre children at home who will become orphans forever. Killing him is not a big deal.
    2. The Ogre is not part of the Bad Guys? Ergo, he is part of the Good Guys, ergo the PCs are the Bad Guys and such actions are to be expected of Bad Guys, so killing the ogre is again not a big deal.

    Make this real life and things change. EVERYONE has a backstory and motivations and is a full person in reality.
    In D&D land, some things come from nowhere, and have no backstory, and are plot devices. Thus, getting in a tizzy about the morality of its execution is... very, very odd.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    Might I remind you that the actual PC actions involved were irrelevant to the player conflict? Yes, you and some posters have been arguing about the morality of the Paladin's actions, however this would still have been a player conflict if the Paladin had been a Blackguard instead, or if the Ogre had been an oak table, or if the paladin's horse had been a druid hireling.

    The players had an OOC disagreement and attempted to resolve it through IC actions. To prevent this in the future the DM should preempt it and force an OOC conversation between all players. To address this incident going forward the DM should force an OOC conversation to get all sides to understand the concerns of the other and to establish how you are going to preempt these issues in the future.
    And thank you for keeping us on track. This is my most basic position. DM flubbed this, this was an OOC problem played out IC instead of OOC, where it should be solved.
    Last edited by ImNotTrevor; 2020-09-14 at 07:54 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorsa View Post
    I doubt you could find a less sensitive person on these boards than ImNotTrevor.

  7. - Top - End - #217
    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 Democratus View Post
    I'd say that is purely on the Lawful spectrum. And thus would be appropriate behavior for LE, LN, or LG.

    It's well within idiom for a LG Paladin to be sworn to slay all ogres, goblins, and other "evil creatures".
    I think The Giant said it best:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerlis View Post
    except its not (or could be argued as such) racism or genocide. As they are fictional creatures. and -NO MATTER- what they may -REPRESENT- the FACT that they are NOT real creatures NEVER changes.

    I would equate looking down on someone for allowing people to kill goblins "because they are goblins" with looking down on someone because they decided to have their character kill another one without a fair trial or any proof the person WOULD threaten them in the future (and just testimony).

    Yes it would be reprehensible for the character, but the character did it not the player. and the player is not guilty for the crimes of his character because those crimes are not his crimes. and also the crimes are make believe.
    and as such that there is no racism and genocide because the only person committing or feeling that doesnt exist.

    the only crime committed is possibly lazy roleplaying or a -game- that doesnt take into account real life morals. I mean i'd love to play in a dark gritty game where we where faced with real life decisions and where deeply attached to our characters. But you cant fault someone for glossing over something irrelevant to the game just because you want damage dealing bags of experience to have some semblance (<--emphasis)of life .
    The crime, such as it is, occurs when the people who roleplayed those actions then say, "And that character is Good." When they take those events and rather than saying, "Yeah, my character is a real piece of *******, but I have fun playing him," they say, "My character is a hero." When they transfer the lessons of the game into their metagame analysis of it. Because that's when the fourth wall is broken and the stuff that happens in your game affects the real world.

    If you want to play a psychopath who kills orcs because they're orcs, awesome. Good for you, have fun. But don't write, "Good," on your character sheet. Or "Neutral." And don't expect me to write a 900+ page story condoning it.

    Also:


    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    I would point out that the target of my critique is not the people living in a medieval fantasy world—it's the D&D player who lives in the air-conditioned home. I don't care what your D&D character thinks is right or wrong, I care what you think is right or wrong. Whether you then choose to reflect that lesson back into your D&D games is not really my concern.

    In other words, it is perfectly acceptable to say, "My D&D character is sort of racist against goblins," and then play the character accordingly. It's not acceptable to say, "My D&D character is not racist against goblins, he just kills them on sight because they're all Evil."

    Quote Originally Posted by ImNotTrevor View Post

    Since we have no reason to assume gray morality as a central theme, and good vs evil is the more common theme, I'll assume it's the latter.

    Bearing that in mind, we now have two options:
    1. The Ogre is part of the Bad Guys. If so, he's evil, and being a mook, has no little blonde ogre children at home who will become orphans forever. Killing him is not a big deal.
    2. The Ogre is not part of the Bad Guys? Ergo, he is part of the Good Guys, ergo the PCs are the Bad Guys and such actions are to be expected of Bad Guys, so killing the ogre is again not a big deal.
    I tend to agree with The Giant when he says D&D isn't that black-and-white, and really shouldn't be.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd_Paladin View Post
    Two, D&D is a world of black and white morality, in most cases. Even the concept of shades of grey was codified in neutrality, really an idea that's just as simple and straightforward (albeit annoyingly hard to actually implement) as good and evil. Trying to apply your real world morals to it (often resulting i the self-inflicted discomfort you're feeling) is like trying to determine the morality of a lion eating a gazelle; they're just not compatible.
    The primary purpose of Redcloak's characterization is to specifically prove that this point is completely and utterly wrong. That D&D cannot and should not begin and end at black-and-white, and indeed already doesn't, if everyone would just learn to look at things a little more complexly.

    Obviously, I still have work to do on that point.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-09-14 at 09:23 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  8. - Top - End - #218
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    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
    That distinction doesn't make a significant difference unless this is one of those Gray Morality, Both Sides Are Justified sort of war.stories as opposed to "Good guys vs Bad Guys."

    Since we have no reason to assume gray morality as a central theme, and good vs evil is the more common theme, I'll assume it's the latter.

    Bearing that in mind, we now have two options:
    1. The Ogre is part of the Bad Guys. If so, he's evil, and being a mook, has no little blonde ogre children at home who will become orphans forever. Killing him is not a big deal.
    2. The Ogre is not part of the Bad Guys? Ergo, he is part of the Good Guys, ergo the PCs are the Bad Guys and such actions are to be expected of Bad Guys, so killing the ogre is again not a big deal.

    Make this real life and things change. EVERYONE has a backstory and motivations and is a full person in reality.
    In D&D land, some things come from nowhere, and have no backstory, and are plot devices. Thus, getting in a tizzy about the morality of its execution is... very, very odd.
    And here we come to the gazebo thread... You have certain assumptions about what is and is not okay in gaming, and how things should play out. Specifically, you think that if playing "Good Guys vs. Bad Guys", it's no holds barred on the Bad Guys.

    Which is a totally fine way to play but it is not universal truth. And likely, this is the root cause of the issue.... the paladin having this assumption, while the dwarf didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by ImNotTrevor View Post
    And thank you for keeping us on track. This is my most basic position. DM flubbed this, this was an OOC problem played out IC instead of OOC, where it should be solved.
    The GM flubbed this in multiple ways. First, by allowing the "kill the Ogre" action to be simultaneous, and secondly (and frankly a bit harder to catch in the moment) by not recognizing that this was an OOC issue around those assumptions, and clarifying them.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  9. - Top - End - #219
    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
    Imagine that, in every instance, the word "ogre" was replaced with "human" - but nothing else was changed.


    It's safe to say that people would be a lot less sympathetic to the paladin, and a lot less inclined to believe the worst about the prisoner.

    A textbook example of how the text in the MM, is used to justify pre-judging the prisoner as "deserving of death".



    But players will always be more careful with humans or demi-humans, than "monsters". Despite the fact that all 3 are in some Monster Manuals.
    Not really? Murderous scum are murderous scum. The party are not within the bounds of a state and are not obligated to accept a monopoly of force, they are well within their rights to kill the cannibal murderer.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  10. - Top - End - #220
    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 Tvtyrant View Post
    Not really? Murderous scum are murderous scum. The party are not within the bounds of a state and are not obligated to accept a monopoly of force, they are well within their rights to kill the cannibal murderer.
    The presumption that they're a cannibal murderer, comes entirely from the fact that they're an ogre. There is nothing in the original post, that says anything about the prisoner having committed cannibalism or murder - only "attacking a keep".
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-09-14 at 09:25 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  11. - Top - End - #221
    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
    The presumption that they're a cannibal murderer, comes entirely from the fact that they're an ogre. There is nothing in the original post, that says anything about the prisoner having committed cannibalism or murder - only "attacking a keep".
    If I found people attacking a random keep I would kill them too. They are the aggressor in this scenario, fiction is full of "drive off the invading whose its." Heck the first Ice Wind Dale stores is exactly this scenario using humans.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  12. - Top - End - #222
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    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
    If I found people attacking a random keep I would kill them too. They are the aggressor in this scenario, fiction is full of "drive off the invading whose its." Heck the first Ice Wind Dale stores is exactly this scenario using humans.
    There is also a difference between what you need to do to creatures that are actively attacking, and what to do with creatures that have surrendered or otherwise been made a non-threat - at least potentially. And, clearly the dwarf thinks there is.

    Which again gets back to "the GM screwed up and should be clear about what type of game this is".
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  13. - Top - End - #223
    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 Tvtyrant View Post
    If I found people attacking a random keep I would kill them too. They are the aggressor in this scenario, fiction is full of "drive off the invading whose its." Heck the first Ice Wind Dale stores is exactly this scenario using humans.
    Adventurers.

    Adventurers are "people attacking a random keep."

    Building a castle does not denote moral authority. Bad guys build castles too.
    If you like my thoughts, you'll love my writing. Visit me at www.mishahandman.com.

  14. - Top - End - #224
    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 Friv View Post
    Adventurers.

    Adventurers are "people attacking a random keep."

    Building a castle does not denote moral authority. Bad guys build castles too.
    Very rarely will a bad guy castle be a "random" keep. The point of a castle is to exert authority and power in the surrounding area. If Bad Guys are living there doing Bad Guy Things, enough that adventurers are going after them, theyre going to be moderately notorious, locally if nothing else.
    “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.”

  15. - Top - End - #225
    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 tend to agree with The Giant when he says D&D isn't that black-and-white, and really shouldn't be.
    I think neither he nor you has the authority to say what D&D is or isn't. (It operates on a system of Objective Morality with exactly 3 states: Good, Evil, and Neither. The Law/Chaos bit is more about approach than morality. In my book, that's pretty dang black and white.)

    I don't think you or he has the authority to dictate what D&D SHOULD BE, either.

    This is a case of elevating someone's preference to the level of "everyone should agree with this position because it is the correct one."

    Which for my imaginary elf games, anyone telling me my game SHOULD be one thing will be told to go suck a tailpipe because my campaign is none of their business unless they're in it.

    Ie, stop being a moral busybody and let people have fun how they want to. You don't find me telling you that nobody SHOULD have morally gray scenarios in their campaigns. But I have said that, generally speaking, that is not a common take for D&D campaigns and assuming this campaign is part of the larger group is a safe bet given no evidence to the contrary.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    And here we come to the gazebo thread... You have certain assumptions about what is and is not okay in gaming, and how things should play out. Specifically, you think that if playing "Good Guys vs. Bad Guys", it's no holds barred on the Bad Guys.

    Which is a totally fine way to play but it is not universal truth. And likely, this is the root cause of the issue.... the paladin having this assumption, while the dwarf didn't.
    Which is all well and good. I just see no indication that this campaign has that kind of moral depth.

    Granted, I don't think it's No Holds Barred, but "inconvenienced by rope" does not take a Bad Guy down to the level of victim. Now, if the PCs were putting in the thumb screws and mutilating limbs and organs, feeding the guy his own liver and other such atrocities, that'd be another thing.

    This ain't that, nor close to it.


    The GM flubbed this in multiple ways. First, by allowing the "kill the Ogre" action to be simultaneous, and secondly (and frankly a bit harder to catch in the moment) by not recognizing that this was an OOC issue around those assumptions, and clarifying them.
    YES. I mentioned this before multiple times, but yes. This.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorsa View Post
    I doubt you could find a less sensitive person on these boards than ImNotTrevor.

  16. - Top - End - #226
    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 kyoryu View Post
    There is also a difference between what you need to do to creatures that are actively attacking, and what to do with creatures that have surrendered or otherwise been made a non-threat - at least potentially. And, clearly the dwarf thinks there is.

    Which again gets back to "the GM screwed up and should be clear about what type of game this is".
    Quote Originally Posted by Friv View Post
    Adventurers.

    Adventurers are "people attacking a random keep."

    Building a castle does not denote moral authority. Bad guys build castles too.
    I would definitely have gotten info before execution and conversed with the party about it, I don't think the Paladin did the best thing. I don't think it was evil in character, but all of the players did a bad job here. Party cohesion comes first.

    On defending the keep: if you see someone getting assaulted you don't get to stand there and wonder if maybe they are assaulting a bad guy and are a hero, evil through inaction is still evil. Life is too fast to wait around for perfect information, you save the keep first and then work from there.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  17. - Top - End - #227
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    30.2672° N, 97.7431° W
    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 DarkWhisper View Post
    Can we ? Could the dwarf / paladin ?
    Logically, yes. A creature with a 5 int and 7 wisdom is not going to suddenly have an epiphany and rethink his life choices. If anything else it's going to get more dangerous and take its frustrations out on weaker beings.


    [QUOTE=DarkWhisper;24708655]emphasis added/[QUOTE]

    If we assume that the ogre does not suddenly have a crisis of faith and devote itself to the path of good, we can only assume that the ogre will either join a new tribe, or form a new one. You seem to be placing a lot of human traits onto a monster of evil intents. For that matter, people seem to be placing a lot of real world ideologies into a high fantasy game about killing monsters in a pseudo-medieval world.


    [QUOTE=DarkWhisper;24708655]emphasis added/[QUOTE]

    All the "don't tarry" line that you highlight just goes to show that the dwarf was being malicious.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWhisper View Post
    The killing of the horse wasn't (only) retaliation or revenge; it was a way of ensuring that the paladin wouldn't be able to keep up with the rest of the party as they make their way to the highfolk, of, essentially, kicking the paladin from the group (at least for a time).
    So the dwarf was the person in charge of who can and can't be a member of that party, eh? And that justifies animal cruelty in your eyes?

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWhisper View Post
    the possessive pronoun implies that the dwarf considers the ogre 'his' prisoner - which the paladin had just slain, presumable without so much as a discussion with the rest of the party and certainly without everyone's consent.

    Since it has been established that the horse was not the "Paladin's Mount" but just a 'normal' one, we have the slaughter of an intelligent being vs the slaughter of an animal, with the latter being the paladin's possession and the former in the dwarf's (at least from the dwarf's point of view). So... mutual property damage .

    As to whether there having been a prior relationship with the ogre or not - the dwarf seems to have assumed responsibility for it ("my prisoner"). Killing a prisoner that someone has taken responsibility for isn't ok - certainly not without prior discussion with all involved parties (which didn't happen).
    Yes, yes. I'm sure the Dwarf captured the ogre single handed while the rest of the party sat back and played pinochle and sipped cherry cordials. This, naturally gave the dwarf full ownership of the ogre. Regardless, this is a situation where a rational person would talk to the offending person, not go and immediately kill a defenceless animal.

    All in all, all you are doing is defending the Dwarf player starting in-party conflict by trying to morally justify him killing a defenceless animal because he was mad at the Paladin player.
    "Sleeping late might not be a virtue, but it sure aint no vice. The old saw about the early bird and the worm just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."

    - L. Long

    I think, therefore I get really, really annoyed at people who won't.

  18. - Top - End - #228
    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 Tvtyrant View Post
    On defending the keep: if you see someone getting assaulted you don't get to stand there and wonder if maybe they are assaulting a bad guy and are a hero, evil through inaction is still evil. Life is too fast to wait around for perfect information, you save the keep first and then work from there.
    The ogre tribe was fought (and one prisoner taken) two days after the keep was attacked.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  19. - Top - End - #229
    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
    The ogre tribe was fought (and one prisoner taken) two days after the keep was attacked.
    The Ogres who ambushed the party? Gee, I wonder if invading forces randomly ambushing strangers might be dangerous to the people around them. Almost villainous of them wouldn't you say?

    The only issue I see is the party should have talked about what kind of campaign they planned on running first, and made some work towards being harmonious.
    Last edited by Tvtyrant; 2020-09-14 at 11:43 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  20. - Top - End - #230
    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

    Thread's been interesting, and I've learned a lot - but I think it's time for me at least, to bow out for the time being. With thanks to everyone who's been helpful.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  21. - Top - End - #231
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    30.2672° N, 97.7431° W
    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
    The ogre tribe was fought (and one prisoner taken) two days after the keep was attacked.
    And then they went out and ambushed travelers. What's your point?
    "Sleeping late might not be a virtue, but it sure aint no vice. The old saw about the early bird and the worm just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."

    - L. Long

    I think, therefore I get really, really annoyed at people who won't.

  22. - Top - End - #232
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    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
    I would definitely have gotten info before execution and conversed with the party about it, I don't think the Paladin did the best thing. I don't think it was evil in character, but all of the players did a bad job here. Party cohesion comes first.

    On defending the keep: if you see someone getting assaulted you don't get to stand there and wonder if maybe they are assaulting a bad guy and are a hero, evil through inaction is still evil. Life is too fast to wait around for perfect information, you save the keep first and then work from there.
    In some games, with some assumptions, the paladin would be absolutely correct. The paladin assumed they were playing that game.

    In some games, with some assumptions, the paladin would have been wrong. The dwarf assumed they were playing that game.

    That's the problem to fix. Everything else comes after that.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  23. - Top - End - #233
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    DarkWhisper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006

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

    Preface about blame:

    I don't disagree with the notion that the GM is to blame, at least in part, for the situation. In my opinion, however, Paladin, Dwarf and every other player at the table is also to blame, at least in part, for whatever happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by ImNotTrevor
    Let's examine the evidence again: (...)
    1: Yes
    2: Moot; the PCs have been trying to kill the ogres (and unless the PCs have never used surprise attacks / ambushes, being ambushed doesn't change anything).
    3+4: BadWrongFun or GoodRightFun; we don't know the playstyle of the original story's group.
    5: Assumptions / projections; we don't know whether the ogre tribe has been assaulting humans before. We only know that they assaulted the keep a couple of days ago and ambushed the party. But... point.
    6: As per the original story, the ogre is the last survivor.

    Ogre = Evil, there's no reason to assume that putting rope on this ogre has significantly affected the morality of the issue
    So a paladin walking through a town, stopping every now and then to use Detect Evil, is justified in slaying everyone that pings ?
    If that's fine for you and your table - it's your game and your table and if you and your players are having fun - all good.
    But every table that doesn't consider this acceptable is not having BadWrongFun by default.

    Yeah, I'm sure if I shot your dog (...)
    With the tiny difference that I didn't torture a prisoner moments before and, because it would have been too much of a hassle to bring that prisoner to the authorities, cold-bloodedly murder the helpless prisoner.

    I put primary blame on the DM, unironically.
    - The GM (for allowing it to happen without the chance of intervention (or so it seems)
    - The Paladin (for the unilateral decision)
    - The Dwarf (for escalating)
    - The Dwarf and the other players (for not intervening, either IC or OOC)

    Since it DID happen, killing the ogre 5 minutes after killing all the other ogres is not elevating "shoulda asked, bro" to the level of "Psycho killer who deserves to have his animals slaughtered."
    I don't think the dwarf was justified - but neither was the paladin.

    I (and many of my characters) would have serious concerns in being in a group - which includes trusting your life and well-being, among other things - into the other members' hands together with a paladin that unilaterally decides to kill a prisoner because other courses of actions are... inconvenient. Had there been a clear and present danger (e.g. during a combat) or a "real" reason (e.g. a time limit, like an impending attack the party bears warning off), maybe.
    Of course, I (and many of my characters) would have similar issues in being in a group with the dwarf...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mutazoia
    Logically, yes. A creature with a 5 int and 7 wisdom is not going to suddenly have an epiphany and rethink his life choices. If anything else it's going to get more dangerous and take its frustrations out on weaker beings
    Except that it was part of a band before and is now alone - and not the biggest, baddest thing around. It's not a troll with superior regeneration or an adult dragon but a CR3 creature. Presumably, it even has 10+ Intelligence (unless someone in the group speaks Giant) and thus enough brainpower to realize that alone, it's vulnerable.

    Will it lead the life of a peaceful hermit, going forward ? Probably not but slaying any helpless prisoner (unless they are quite literally made of Evil like demons or devils) merits more than a unilateral 'nah, too much hassle, I kill it', in my games.

    You seem to be placing a lot of human traits onto a monster of evil intents.
    Uhm... likewise ?
    I'm no expert on Giant Psychology (and have serious doubts any expert that can explain giant thought and decision-making processes can be easily found) but I assume some basics remain unchanged (e.g. self-preservation).

    So the dwarf was the person in charge of who can and can't be a member of that party, eh? And that justifies animal cruelty in your eyes?
    The dwarf gets to decide who he travels with, yes. Of course, saying "I won't travel with you any longer" and leaving (with the possibility of asking the other members of the group to choose a side) would have been a better solution.

    Also, animal cruelty, after this line ?
    placing a lot of real world ideologies into a high fantasy game about killing monsters in a pseudo-medieval world.
    Yes, yes. I'm sure the Dwarf captured the ogre single handed while the rest of the party sat back and played pinochle and sipped cherry cordials. This, naturally gave the dwarf full ownership of the ogre.
    Now, this is pure conjecture but the "my prisoner" line likely came from somewhere.
    It might have been that the dwarf had been the only one to deal subdual / nonlethal damage (thus enabling the capture), it might have been that the paladin didn't want to be part of the torture (because evil act) and thus was 'occupied elsewhere' during the actual torture, it might have been that the dwarf took responsibility for the prisoner - "Consequences, on my head they shall be" - and thus the torture, allowing the paladin to remain 'pure' or one of countless other scenarios.

    Regardless, this is a situation where a rational person would talk to the offending person, not go and immediately kill a defenceless animal.
    Regardless, this is a situation where a rational person would talk to the other persons, not go and immediately kill a defenceless animal prisoner.

    All in all, all you are doing is defending the Dwarf player starting in-party conflict by trying to morally justify him killing a defenceless animal because he was mad at the Paladin player.
    No. What I'm doing is pointing out that there is a lot of information we don't know, information we now that isn't being considered and provoking, maybe, people at taking another, deeper look. A certain amount of defending the dwarf player is part of that, simply because that player has been relegated into the role of 'bad guy' while the paladin player's part has been painted as 'could have acted better but hey, he's a paladin, the orge's evil, killing it - unilaterally - was all fine and dandy'.

    Everybody has been at fault in that situation, as outlined above and of, as has been mentioned somewhere in the thread, for breaking the social contract of the game (i.e. collaboration) for paladin/dwarf and GM, to a degree.
    Irrevocable and group-affecting decisions in situation without some sort of pressure that limits discussion shouldn't be made unilaterally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tvtyrant
    I would definitely have gotten info before execution and conversed with the party about it, I don't think the Paladin did the best thing. All of the players did a bad job here. Party cohesion comes first.
    +1
    Last edited by DarkWhisper; 2020-09-14 at 03:50 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #234
    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 DarkWhisper View Post
    Preface about blame:

    I don't disagree with the notion that the GM is to blame, at least in part, for the situation. In my opinion, however, Paladin, Dwarf and every other player at the table is also to blame, at least in part, for whatever happened.

    - The GM (for allowing it to happen without the chance of intervention (or so it seems)
    - The Paladin (for the unilateral decision)
    - The Dwarf (for escalating)
    - The Dwarf and the other players (for not intervening, either IC or OOC)


    Everybody has been at fault in that situation, as outlined above and of, as has been mentioned somewhere in the thread, for breaking the social contract of the game (i.e. collaboration) for paladin/dwarf and GM, to a degree.
    Irrevocable and group-affecting decisions in situation without some sort of pressure that limits discussion shouldn't be made unilaterally.
    Yes.

    Almost every detail in this story was irrelevant to adjudicating the conflict.
    The vast majority of the argument in this thread was irrelevant to the conflict.

    There was a unilateral decision, that another player objected to. Rather than address that OOC disagreement, everyone involved allowed it to play out and escalate IC.

  25. - Top - End - #235
    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 players will always be more careful with humans or demi-humans, than "monsters". Despite the fact that all 3 are in some Monster Manuals.
    Your players might. My players would not. They use the full-on old-school Cobra Kai plan for dealing with things they encounter in dark places. If something is not hostile, the burden is on it to prove that before it gets dead. Things in safer places get more benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't matter what race they are--ogres in cities are obviously ones that likely know how to behave and are more likely to be allowed to live than dwarves skulking around in a dungeon.

  26. - Top - End - #236
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    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
    Might I remind you that the actual PC actions involved were irrelevant to the player conflict? Yes, you and some posters have been arguing about the morality of the Paladin's actions, however this would still have been a player conflict if the Paladin had been a Blackguard instead, or if the Ogre had been an oak table, or if the paladin's horse had been a druid hireling.

    The players had an OOC disagreement and attempted to resolve it through IC actions. To prevent this in the future the DM should preempt it and force an OOC conversation between all players. To address this incident going forward the DM should force an OOC conversation to get all sides to understand the concerns of the other and to establish how you are going to preempt these issues in the future.
    I am not surprised to see that you have a very level-headed view of this thread. Kudos!

    Quote Originally Posted by Friv View Post
    Adventurers.

    Adventurers are "people attacking a random keep."

    Building a castle does not denote moral authority. Bad guys build castles too.
    Thank you for that laugh!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mutazoia View Post
    Yes, yes. I'm sure the Dwarf captured the ogre single handed while the rest of the party sat back and played pinochle and sipped cherry cordials. This, naturally gave the dwarf full ownership of the ogre. Regardless, this is a situation where a rational person would talk to the offending person, not go and immediately kill a defenceless animal.
    1) actually, IME, when taking down a *group* of creatures, yes, it usually *is* a single person who is responsible for taking a prisoner.

    2) even when that isn't the case, when a group of PCs cooperated / coordinated to take a prisoner, each member who participated will still call the prisoner "theirs", just not exclusively.

    3) even if they did not participate in the capture, someone who engages in interrogation / torture of the prisoner will typically call the prisoner "theirs".

    4) the dwarf's player may well be role-playing someone who is not rational. Thor knows *most* PC dwarves I've seen were not rational!

    5) "being irrational" is not an excuse for being incompatible with the player-level social contract.

    -----

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant
    The crime, such as it is, occurs when the people who roleplayed those actions then say, "And that character is Good." When they take those events and rather than saying, "Yeah, my character is a real piece of *******, but I have fun playing him," they say, "My character is a hero." When they transfer the lessons of the game into their metagame analysis of it. Because that's when the fourth wall is broken and the stuff that happens in your game affects the real world.

    If you want to play a psychopath who kills orcs because they're orcs, awesome. Good for you, have fun. But don't write, "Good," on your character sheet. Or "Neutral." And don't expect me to write a 900+ page story condoning it.
    Very much this.

    Look, I'm batting for team Lawful Evil. IRL, I've looked at stories (like "Those who Walk Away from Omelas") and missed the moral imprecations, choosing the Evil path and thinking it Good, or at least Acceptable.

    I'm fine with Evil PCs. I play with and as them all the time.

    But it's rather terrifying to hear attempts to justify some of these actions as real-world Good.

    Also, whether they're good acts or not is completely irrelevant to the real issue here, which is about the players, and the social contract.

    So… unless you disagree, and want to explain why you feel that a determination of the real-world morality of the characters' actions is somehow both germaine and necessary to resolve what I will insist is an OOC issue, can we not make claims of real-world goodness of these actions? (Real-world legality is, IMO, fine). (Note: I am *not* a mod; I'm just making a personal request, both for myself, and for my suspicions of what might get the thread closed. Apologies if I'm completely off base.) (EDIT: in retrospect, it's probably not only good but better to also not *demonize* their actions in irl morality, too. Sorry for my myopic PoV)
    Last edited by Quertus; 2020-09-14 at 07:43 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #237
    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 Quertus View Post
    Look, I'm batting for team Lawful Evil. IRL, I've looked at stories (like "Those who Walk Away from Omelas") and missed the moral imprecations, choosing the Evil path and thinking it Good, or at least Acceptable.
    To be fair, the short story "Those who Walk Away from Omelas" explicitly implies 3* responses characters could make to the revelation. And it condones none of those 3 paths. The story can be used to see how aware one is of moral implications, but I could never say I knew my answer was "right". Even back then when I could still see black & white, Omelas was only shades of black.

    *Some readers will see a 4th path that is also troubling, but the author does not reference it explicitly.

  28. - Top - End - #238
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    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
    To be fair, the short story "Those who Walk Away from Omelas" explicitly implies 3* responses characters could make to the revelation. And it condones none of those 3 paths. The story can be used to see how aware one is of moral implications, but I could never say I knew my answer was "right". Even back then when I could still see black & white, Omelas was only shades of black.

    *Some readers will see a 4th path that is also troubling, but the author does not reference it explicitly.
    Sigh. My reference / attempt to explain was poor. I *meant* that I had "chosen paths" in examples like that story which, in retrospect, *I* found abhorrent.

    I *meant* to further imply(?) that it is probably bad to fight over IRL morality, *especially* if it makes sides more entrenched rather than open to "see with eyes included by hate", but also because I *think* that's bad form around here.

    Granted, I think it's not easy, given the bad labels on D&D team jerseys.

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to try to clarify my poor, uh, speak skill stuff.

  29. - Top - End - #239
    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 Quertus View Post
    Sigh. My reference / attempt to explain was poor. I *meant* that I had "chosen paths" in examples like that story which, in retrospect, *I* found abhorrent.
    You have my sympathy that you gained that wisdom through experience. I will end that aside here.

    I *meant* to further imply(?) -snip-
    Yeah you were quite clear on that the first time, and I agree.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-09-14 at 09:57 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #240
    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

    I took the dwarf calling the prisoner his to mean that, as a member of the capturing party, they were all morally responsible for the ogre’s treatment. Thus the paladin’s actions didn't just affect the ogre and the paladin, but also stained the dwarves conscience / honor / soul etc.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

Posting Permissions

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