Results 121 to 150 of 356
-
2020-09-08, 10:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
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
-
2020-09-08, 11:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
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.
-
2020-09-08, 11:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
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.
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
-
2020-09-08, 11:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
Last edited by Rynjin; 2020-09-08 at 11:15 PM.
-
2020-09-08, 11:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-09-08 at 11:17 PM.
Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
New Marut Avatar by Linkele
-
2020-09-08, 11:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
-
2020-09-09, 01:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
- Location
- Slovakia
- Gender
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
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?
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.
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.
Formerly GMing: Riddle of Steel: Soldiers of Fortune
-
2020-09-09, 02:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
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.
-
2020-09-09, 03:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
-
2020-09-09, 03:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
- Location
- Slovakia
- Gender
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.
Formerly GMing: Riddle of Steel: Soldiers of Fortune
-
2020-09-09, 04:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
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.
*: 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.
-
2020-09-09, 05:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2018
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
-
2020-09-09, 05:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
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
-
2020-09-09, 06:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
- Location
- Tulips Cheese & Rock&Roll
- Gender
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
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!
-
2020-09-09, 07:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
"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.
-
2020-09-09, 07:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
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.
-
2020-09-09, 08:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
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.
-
2020-09-09, 02:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
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.
-
2020-09-09, 02:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
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
-
2020-09-09, 02:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
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.
-
2020-09-09, 03:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
-
2020-09-09, 04:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Gender
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
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.
-
2020-09-09, 04:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Location
- Germany
- Gender
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.
-
2020-09-09, 05:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
"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.
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.
-
2020-09-09, 05:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
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.
-
2020-09-09, 05:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
“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.”
-
2020-09-09, 05:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2018
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
-
2020-09-09, 05:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
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.
-
2020-09-09, 05:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
“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.”
-
2020-09-09, 07:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
Re: In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wr
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.
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.
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.
#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.