What would you do?

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
One of my favorite pastimes as a DM is to present my party with horribly unenviable moral dilemmas. At the end of my last session, one of the party's closest and strongest allies presented to them his secret plan: kill all of the tieflings in the world in order to ensure that the infinite demonic legions of the Old World can never invade the New World again (because of the way the setting is, yes, this plan will work).

Now, none of the PCs are tieflings, nor do they have any tiefling friends, so that's not an issue. However, they are basically having to weigh the implications of security for the entire world, and genocide. It's been made clear that, without this action, it's only a matter of time before the demons break through the barriers that have been erected to keep them out, whether it happens in a year's time, 10 year's time, or centuries from now... it WILL happen. ONLY by killing every last tiefling in the world can the original barrier created by one of the gods of the setting be reestablished, which is absolute, permanent protection.

The NPC proposing this isn't actually asking for the party's help, just their silence. He doesn't need them to participate in the genocide; he's just asking them not to interfere.

So I put it to you of the D&D community: how many of your characters take the more pragmatic path, and how many would take the moral high road? And if you like, what would YOU do? (But I'm more interested in polling what people's characters would do.)

EDIT: As icing on the cake, one of the PCs has a demon familiar who can't lie, and who has also confirmed that the plan WOULD work.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

Any of my characters would just assume that it was a "too good to be true" idea to begin with, and would err on the side of dealing with known problems (Demons) instead of unknown problems (the consequences of genocide of a magical race in a magical world).
Fire Blog Control, Change, and Chaos: The Elemental Power Source Elemental Heroes Example Classes Xaosmith Exulter Chaos Bringer Director Elemental Heroes: Looking Back - Class and Story Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Xaosmith (January 16, 2012) Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Harbinger (May 16, 2012) Check out my Elemental Heroes blog series and help me develop four unique elemental classes.
What do you mean by "too good to be true?" It's been confirmed by multiple sources that the plan WOULD work. There is no uncertainty about the mechanics of the situation. The only thing stopping them is that damned morality: the fact that most of the tieflings killed would be innocents, murdered for the "greater good."

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

My general assumption in any fantasy setting is that doing unspeakable things to stop unspeakable things leads to even worse unspeakable things down the road CAUSED by the unspeakable thing you did.
Fire Blog Control, Change, and Chaos: The Elemental Power Source Elemental Heroes Example Classes Xaosmith Exulter Chaos Bringer Director Elemental Heroes: Looking Back - Class and Story Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Xaosmith (January 16, 2012) Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Harbinger (May 16, 2012) Check out my Elemental Heroes blog series and help me develop four unique elemental classes.
Honest answer? I'd leave the game. I despise it when DMs invent ludicrously contrived 'moral dilemmas' that give their players no choice but to have their characters commit evil acts (or turn a blind eye to evil acts or whatever). IMO, a good DM will always ensure there is a third option (even if it's a very difficult one) that gives the PCs at least the option of actually being heroes rather than merely villain protagonists.

This is just my personal taste in RPG campaign style, of course. If your players like this sort of thing, then go for it.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

Honest answer? I'd leave the game. I despise it when DMs invent ludicrously contrived 'moral dilemmas' that give their players no choice but to have their characters commit evil acts (or turn a blind eye to evil acts or whatever). IMO, a good DM will always ensure there is a third option (even if it's a very difficult one) that gives the PCs at least the option of actually being heroes rather than merely villain protagonists.

This is just my personal taste in RPG campaign style, of course. If your players like this sort of thing, then go for it.


I've got to disagree with you about what constitutes "ludicrously contrived" (nor could you determine contrivity from the information I've provided), and I must point out that this is in no way a "no win" moral dilemma. There is a clear right and a clear wrong answer, from a moral standpoint: genocide, the mass slaughter of innocent lives, is always wrong, no matter what the reason.

The issue is not that the party is forced into an evil act, it's that they're being given the choice between the evil, pragmatic act, and the morally upright act that MIGHT leave more people dead in the long-run. It is, in a way, a very realistic portrayal of how something so terrible and clearly evil might be made a tempting option. The party knows it's wrong, but the benefits MIGHT JUST outweigh the costs.

Plus, the party's not exactly made of paladins. They're a very mercenary group. Regardless, I'm asking for your in-character responses, just because I'm interested. I have a feeling I know which way my party is going to go on this. 

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

Genocide? I feel a story brewing of the last Tiefling avenging the slaughter of his people by opening the gates between the new and old world, unleashing the demon hordes upon the world in firy retribution.

For that reason alone most characters would not go along with it. Not only do you have a race capable  of breaching the barrier, you're actually giving them a reason to figure out how to do it.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
Genocide? I feel a story brewing of the last Tiefling avenging the slaughter of his people by opening the gates between the new and old world, unleashing the demon hordes upon the world in firy retribution.

For that reason alone most characters would not go along with it. Not only do you have a race capable  of breaching the barrier, you're actually giving them a reason to figure out how to do it.


Good point. The assumption of the NPC proposing this is that he has the power to see it done, and frankly, it's a pretty safe bet (he has the power of the nation's entire military at his command). But then there's always the possibility that ONE survivor slips through unnoticed, and causes trouble later. Presumably, divinations would be employed to ensure the removal of any stragglers, but even so, magical divinations are never 100% reliable.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

It's one of the more common basic plots for fantasy stories Tongue Out And it never works.

The evil empire destroying an entire kingdom/planet/race/whatever and then one heroic survivor who swears vengeance for the wrongs done to his people... the characters might not know but as a player I'd realise that this kind of thing always backfires.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
I realise I probably misread your OP. I'd assumed the inevitable eventual demonic invasion was intended to be unwinnable - i.e. that you were forcing the PCs to choose between "genocide" or "allowing the whole world to be destroyed". If it's actually meant to be a choice between "genocide, but we prevent a big threat in the future" or "at some point we're going to have a big war against a demonic horde", then I withdraw my objections completely.

In that case, my genasi bard, Shahvir, would be trying to come up with a way to trick the NPC into revealing his genocidal plans to the world. Preferably while said NPC is surrounded by a large number of tieflings. Callopea, the dead eladrin sorceress who lives in Shahvir's head and gives him some of his magical powers (Unseelie Agent theme), would at least consider the relative merits of letting the NPC proceed with his plan, but even she would consider genocide abhorrent. She'd probably vote for just quietly killing the NPC in question.

Shahvir's cousin, Asura, (mechanically a monk, fluffwise just a barmaid who's really good at unarmed fighting) would also attempt to expose the NPC's plans, though in her case it would be less to do with a moral objection to genocide itself and more due to her dislike of keeping secrets and generally law-abiding nature. She'd be more likely to just report the NPC to the proper authorities and let them sort it all out, though, rather than taking matters into her own hands or trying to trick him. She'd outright tell him to his face that she was going to expose his plans, in any case.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

The main problem is that it is functionally impossible to hunt down every tiefling.  The game world is probably the general size of Earth.  In most game settings, there is also a vast underdark that increases the usable area of the world.  Once the hunt begins there are going to be tieflings that hide themselves from magical and mundane detection.  Every tiefling turned to stone or otherwise trapped would also have to be tracked down.  If all of the tieflings are killed there is still the chance one will come from Sigil, or other planar location, and thus create the situation where the demons break through.  

What you have proposed is not really a moral dilemma for the players.  The only choice is to change the allies mind, stop their plans, or kill them. As a player, I would have my character cut all contact with this obviously deranged and/or idiotic ally.

I realise I probably misread your OP. I'd assumed the inevitable eventual demonic invasion was intended to be unwinnable - i.e. that you were forcing the PCs to choose between "genocide" or "allowing the whole world to be destroyed". If it's actually meant to be a choice between "genocide, but we prevent a big threat in the future" or "at some point we're going to have a big war against a demonic horde", then I withdraw my objections completely.


Well, the war would be unwinnable. There's a reason they're called the Infinite Demonic Hordes, and it's not because they'll eventually run out of troops. The only way the mortals can exist is to prevent the demons from reaching the New World in any substantial numbers. However, that doesn't mean that this is the ONLY way to stop the war. There are other barriers, and other means of enforcing those barriers... they just aren't perfect, nor are they as permanent as the one being suppressed by the existence of tieflings (it has to do with the race's origin story).

In that case, my genasi bard, Shahvir, would be trying to come up with a way to trick the NPC into revealing his genocidal plans to the world. Preferably while said NPC is surrounded by a large number of tieflings. Callopea, the dead eladrin sorceress who lives in Shahvir's head and gives him some of his magical powers (Unseelie Agent theme), would at least consider the relative merits of letting the NPC proceed with his plan, but even she would consider genocide abhorrent. She'd probably vote for just quietly killing the NPC in question.

Shahvir's cousin, Asura, (mechanically a monk, fluffwise just a barmaid who's really good at unarmed fighting) would also attempt to expose the NPC's plans, though in her case it would be less to do with a moral objection to genocide itself and more due to her dislike of keeping secrets and generally law-abiding nature. She'd be more likely to just report the NPC to the proper authorities and let them sort it all out, though, rather than taking matters into her own hands or trying to trick him. She'd outright tell him to his face that she was going to expose his plans, in any case.


The one problem with the "go to the authorities" plan is that this NPC... basically is the authority. He's the Highguard of the nation that the PCs are in, which makes him the right-hand and personal bodyguard of the king, and commander of the royal armies (so he's kind of a big deal). They could go to the king directly, since they are recognized and decorated national heroes at this point in the campaign, but it would be tough to say whether or not the NPC could convince the king that they're lying. Still, whether they succeed in persuading the king or not, it would irreparably harm the NPC's plan, since he needs the king's support to execute his plan, and raising suspicions about his motives would impair that.

I did identify the NPC as an ally of the party, but that doesn't mean that it must stay that way, and in fact, at SOME point in the campaign, even if not now, the party will be forced to come to blows with him and his henchmen over a difference of opinion. He's a good guy in the sense that he fights against all the bad guys, but his methods are questionable at best, and his allegiences are not as straightforward as they might at first appear.

If you don't like the idea of an NPC giving the party a moral dilemma, you could then think of it as a future villain giving exposition on his "nefarious" plot, and asking the party to take part in it. It just so happens that his scheme is grounded in good intentions, and the "villain" is more misguided than evil.

I try to make my major NPCs complicated people, and the world of my campaign is not a simple place to be a hero. There are some tough choices to be made, and some of them will invariably shape the future of the world. My campaign world exists as it does today because the heroes in my last campaign made those tough choices.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

The main problem is that it is functionally impossible to hunt down every tiefling.  The game world is probably the general size of Earth.  In most game settings, there is also a vast underdark that increases the usable area of the world.  Once the hunt begins there are going to be tieflings that hide themselves from magical and mundane detection.  Every tiefling turned to stone or otherwise trapped would also have to be tracked down.  If all of the tieflings are killed there is still the chance one will come from Sigil, or other planar location, and thus create the situation where the demons break through.

What you have proposed is not really a moral dilemma for the players.  The only choice is to change the allies mind, stop their plans, or kill them. As a player, I would have my character cut all contact with this obviously deranged and/or idiotic ally.


That's not an issue in my setting. The campaign takes place only 150 years after a demonic invasion drove the mortal population out of the old continent and into the new one. The tiefling race is only 130 years old, as they were created during the Second War, which took place on the new continent, and very nearly their entire population lives in one country that's about 300 miles to a side (so roughly 90,000 square miles of area). The underdark is JUST getting started, and isn't populated by humanoids yet. The setting doesn't have any connection to other planes, or at least, not any that are populated by humanoids.

The New World is a continent roughly the size of Europe, and 99.999% of the tiefling population is in an area roughly the size of the United Kingdom. That's the hunting ground. Big, but not as impossibly big as it might be in other settings.

As I said before, the task of tracking down the last few survivors might just be a difficult, bordering on impossible, task, but that's an issue to consider later. The POINT of the question assumes that the task CAN be done. 

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

My character would probably take the information to a tiefling leader of a group of tieflings that would be opposed to unleashing the demonic hordes on the world.  He would then work with the tiefling leader to remove the NPC from power.  He would lead tiefling opposition to this plan and maybe even gather other races or cities that have large populations of tieflings or good relations with tiefling nations.  This would hopefully result in a huge battle against the forces of the NPC.  The defeat of the NPC.  Then the tieflings with guidance from somewhere will create a new barrier that as long as tieflings oppose the unleashing of a demonic horde on the world will be equally effective at preventing the demonic horde from entering.  In the end my character is eternally remembered for destroying the genocidal kingdom.  Also the kingdom if it somehow continues to exist is eternally remembered as the kingdom that tried to commit mass genocide of a race.

Though I have to say in fantasy mass genocide doesn't really seem to be as large of a deal as in the real world.  You have to remember most fantasy doesn't seem to have a problem with the slaughtering of every orc, goblin, kobold, etc. a person comes across.  What makes tieflings special that people should look at them differently than those races.  Is it that they are civilized?  Are tieflings in your world somehow able to procreate with other races?  I mean basically if the party just goes to town and hears there is a tribe of orcs that live 40 miles north of town.  The townfolk are worried about them living there.  Would you go kill them for us and bring the leaders head back to us.  I will give you 2000 gold for doing this.  If you read this and think your party will go along with that and take the mission go slaughter the tribe of orcs just based off this information.  Then why should they care if all tieflings are killed.  How is that morally different than hunting down a tribe of orcs that a town is worried about.  I didn't state that the orcs have been killing people or stealing or anything just that the town was worried about them.  If your party would have been like sounds good and gone off slaughtering then they should have no trouble even helping the NPC kill off the tiefling.  It is just larger scale.
i don't think this would go over well at a table. It does appear to fit the trope of allowing an evil atrocity for the greater good.

As a PC, unless the tone of the entire campaign is intended to be a dark, grim holocaust of all tieflings (including children and infants), I would prefer to risk the possibility of demon invasion. In fact, I'd prefer the destruction of all other residents of the world by demon invasion to sleep at night knowing I'd opposed genocide and atrocity.

It is likely my own morals and religious beliefs seeping into my playstyle.

What say the gods of your world? Is there no god that would be moved against the horror and send forth crusaders? Is there a god hoping to capitalize on the genocide?

Is not the PC's demon familiar a possible barrier crossing? If the tieflings are still so new, is that PC in danger of becoming one for his association with the demon familar?

I think on other facet of the dillemma is whether it is going to become the de facto new quest that occupies the next howevery-many levels or simply going to be a background event which they occassionally hear rumors of?

I would be far less interested in accepting this NPC's intended plan if it were to be a background event spoken of in whisper and gossip. If it were to become the primary quest, then the tone and premise of the entire campaign would have to be. 'evil PCs on a quest to wipe out a good or innocent race to serve their own desire to bar powerful demons from ever threatening their growing empire of evil.'
However, that doesn't mean that this is the ONLY way to stop the war. There are other barriers, and other means of enforcing those barriers...


So there are 'third options' aplenty, even though they're difficult and/or unreliable. That's fine, then. That's (IMO) how these sorts of moral dilemmas should be presented. I do think you could have been more clear in your OP that this was the case, though.

If you don't like the idea of an NPC giving the party a moral dilemma,


On the contrary, I think presenting real moral dilemmas where there are several possible resolutions is a good thing. It is presenting a simple choice between two different flavours of evil and claiming it's a moral dilemma (and twisting the 'physics' of the setting to make the choice work that way) that I object to. But I now realise that's not what you're doing here.

and the "villain" is more misguided than evil.


'Evil' and 'misguided' are not mutually exclusive. For what it's worth, my own villainous NPCs almost always have what seem to them to be good and logical reasons for their evil acts. The Big Bad of the campaign I'm currently running is a deva who is trying to free Tharizdun to annihilate Reality itself. Why? Because, after thousands of lifetimes, he just can't stand to witness any more suffering and the only way he can guarantee nobody will ever feel pain or sorrow again is to return all of Creation to the Void. He's still chaotic evil, though, even though he'd be genuinely appalled at the label.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

My character would probably take the information to a tiefling leader of a group of tieflings that would be opposed to unleashing the demonic hordes on the world.  He would then work with the tiefling leader to remove the NPC from power.  He would lead tiefling opposition to this plan and maybe even gather other races or cities that have large populations of tieflings or good relations with tiefling nations.  This would hopefully result in a huge battle against the forces of the NPC.  The defeat of the NPC.  Then the tieflings with guidance from somewhere will create a new barrier that as long as tieflings oppose the unleashing of a demonic horde on the world will be equally effective at preventing the demonic horde from entering.  In the end my character is eternally remembered for destroying the genocidal kingdom.  Also the kingdom if it somehow continues to exist is eternally remembered as the kingdom that tried to commit mass genocide of a race.


It's not the kingdom as a whole that wants to kill all tieflings, it's this one guy, who doesn't LIKE the idea of genocide, but will do what he thinks he must to protect his king, and will engage in elaborate deception to frame the tieflings as dangerous and vile, so as to make it easier for the people to accept their erradication. The kingdom as a whole is pretty much the quintiessential good-guy kingdom, and the king is actually sympathetic to the tieflings, and wants to help remove their negative social stigma. The kingdom isn't poised to destroy tiefling-kind at the drop of a hat, but must be conned and goaded into it.

Though I have to say in fantasy mass genocide doesn't really seem to be as large of a deal as in the real world.  You have to remember most fantasy doesn't seem to have a problem with the slaughtering of every orc, goblin, kobold, etc. a person comes across.  What makes tieflings special that people should look at them differently than those races.  Is it that they are civilized?  Are tieflings in your world somehow able to procreate with other races?  I mean basically if the party just goes to town and hears there is a tribe of orcs that live 40 miles north of town.  The townfolk are worried about them living there.  Would you go kill them for us and bring the leaders head back to us.  I will give you 2000 gold for doing this.  If you read this and think your party will go along with that and take the mission go slaughter the tribe of orcs just based off this information.  Then why should they care if all tieflings are killed.  How is that morally different than hunting down a tribe of orcs that a town is worried about.  I didn't state that the orcs have been killing people or stealing or anything just that the town was worried about them.  If your party would have been like sounds good and gone off slaughtering then they should have no trouble even helping the NPC kill off the tiefling.  It is just larger scale.


Funny you should mention that. There aren't actually any "sentient vermin" races in my setting. Orcs are part of civilized society... kind of. Goblins, kobolds, and whatnot either were wiped out in the First Invasion or never existed in my setting. There's still racism, but there aren't any sentient Kill-On-Sight races.

But you're right. In a medieval fantasy setting, there tends to be less thought toward actions that we would classify in modern thought as genocide. If I were writing this campaign as a story, that aspect of medieval thought would probably make a greater impact than I think it will. Ultimately, the players will inevitably impart their own morality on their character's decisions, at least in part. That's why I'm pretty certain all but one of the PCs will reject the offer.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

What say the gods of your world? Is there no god that would be moved against the horror and send forth crusaders? Is there a god hoping to capitalize on the genocide?


The gods of my setting are strangely quiet. In fact, one of the divine characters had a brief crisis of faith due in part to the apparent uninvolvement of the deities in general. Only one member of the pantheon has shown any measurable involvement in the affairs of the mortals, direct or indirect, and he is currently restricted by an agreement, and cannot interfere in events right now.

Long story short: The mortals are on their own for right now.

Is not the PC's demon familiar a possible barrier crossing? If the tieflings are still so new, is that PC in danger of becoming one for his association with the demon familar?


There is no chance of the PC becoming a tiefling, but yes, his familiar is present in defiance of existing barriers, because as I mentioned, the working barriers are imperfect.

I think on other facet of the dillemma is whether it is going to become the de facto new quest that occupies the next howevery-many levels or simply going to be a background event which they occassionally hear rumors of?

I would be far less interested in accepting this NPC's intended plan if it were to be a background event spoken of in whisper and gossip. If it were to become the primary quest, then the tone and premise of the entire campaign would have to be. 'evil PCs on a quest to wipe out a good or innocent race to serve their own desire to bar powerful demons from ever threatening their growing empire of evil.'


In all liklihood, the party would not be directly involved in executing the plan. The NPC is not asking for their help, just that they don't try to stop him (he recognizes the party as heroes of fate, and does not want them as enemies). The campaign has its dark turns, but it's not regularly gruesome. The execution of the tieflings would be mostly a background thing, as the party turns their attention to either of the two wars that the country is involved in right now, or one of the several side-quests they've put off til later.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

I'd have a chat with the DM about the various shades of gray, and where I prefer a game to lie. This reminds me of Dark Herasey's black vs black and I'm not really into that. 

If forced into the situation (Awkward to leave the game) my PC would be focused on the idea that "there has to be something better than the current situation, and doing evil never leads to good". Essentially fighting to prvent the genocide, while attempting to keep the demons back. Seeking an alternative way. (which based on what you have said, there is none)

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"                                                  "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"

I'd have a chat with the DM about the various shades of gray, and where I prefer a game to lie. This reminds me of Dark Herasey's black vs black and I'm not really into that. 

If forced into the situation (Awkward to leave the game) my PC would be focused on the idea that "there has to be something better than the current situation, and doing evil never leads to good". Essentially fighting to prvent the genocide, while attempting to keep the demons back. Seeking an alternative way. (which based on what you have said, there is none)


If I've somehow insinuated that the demonic invasion is imminent, and this is a last-ditch, last minute effort to stop it, and the only alternative is to let everyone be slaughtered by demons, that's not what's going on here.

The issue is that, EVENTUALLY, possibly hundreds or thousands of years from now, the magical barriers that protect the new world will fail. It's just inevitable that at some point, either a weakness will be found, or something will happen to them to allow the demons entry. It doesn't matter to the Infinite Legions how long it takes; they have all of eternity to wait. The NPC in this scenario is merely attempting to circumvent the possibility by reestablishing the absolute barrier that was in place originally, but which the presence of tieflings (mortals tainted by demonic power) prevents. He's acting in the now, but thinking in the VERY long-term.

Also, this kind of situation is not a regular ocurrance in my games. I'm not constantly forcing my players to balance the lives of innocents against the greater good of society. There have been precious few Sophie's Choices in my campaign. This was a major turning point in the story of my campaign, which has been running off-and-on for the last 2-3 years. I'm not running a grimdark doom-for-everyone campaign. This decision is markedly deep, and the weight of it is such that I left the party's decision to be made in the next session, giving my players a few weeks to think about it and discuss amongst themselves.

Let me make this very clear: EVERYONE AT THE TABLE IS COOL WITH THIS SITUATION, BECAUSE IT'S JUST A FREAKING GAME. Their characters are undoubtedly very uncomfortable, but no matter which way this goes (and I strongly suspect the party will "do the right thing"), no one's going to be losing any sleep over imaginary people.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

In all liklihood, the party would not be directly involved in executing the plan. The NPC is not asking for their help, just that they don't try to stop him (he recognizes the party as heroes of fate, and does not want them as enemies). The campaign has its dark turns, but it's not regularly gruesome. The execution of the tieflings would be mostly a background thing, as the party turns their attention to either of the two wars that the country is involved in right now, or one of the several side-quests they've put off til later.

Considering this is the case, I think my answer stands. I would be uncomfortable ignoring such a large genocide--he is even hoping to keep it secret from the king. 

Since you are not pulling a grim, dark campaign of prusuing evil deeds, I assume that i'd be playing a good character who would value sentient life over the unknown, though much believed, possibility of infinite hordes of demons. Even with the sources that are confirming that the infinite hordes will wait patiently and will someday bypass existing imperfect barriers, I'd perfer to fight that fight when it comes and give every tiefling a chance to understand the weight of the matter regardless of the choices they make in their lives.

If the NPC seems wholly sincere, I would also take the matter to others and hopefully open a chance to remove the NPC from his position of power over military forces capable of fulfilling his wishes (no matter how long it takes). If the removal from power is insufficient to derail his intent, I'd work toward causing his death. I would rather kill one man to save the many tieflings, than kill the many tieflings to save the world's many people.

It is an interesting dilemma to place. If i were going to place such a dilemma, i'd make sure that the choice for or against it was a quest for the players to engage in. If they didn't want to engage the quest, it goes on without their hinderance or involvement. If they wish to join, it pushes the campaign toward a long road of systematic genocide. if they wish to oppose, it becomes a brief quest to unseat the NPC from power and possibly permanently end his influence via death.

It appears currently that you only want it wo be a piece of information and don't feel it is worthy of being an adventure hook for the PCs. Under such a circumstance, I think it allows the PCs to be far too passive. I would feel pretty bored with that as a player.  

That's perhaps what i find most defining about it. I would make sure the decision was not a, "this guy simply wants you to know about this, yet pretend you don't know about it." Instead, I would ensure the decision is more, "I'm going to seek to do this; join me! If not, you are truly my enemy; I will prevent you from interfering."

At that point, the players are faced with a more dynamic choice that disregards the issue of whether the plan would truly be effective (as you've established it will be). It says, "Here is something happening in the game world; you could be involved in what is happening by choice. If you don't get involved, it will still happen, and the impact may still effect the PCs."

The PCs can respond, "I will join you in this effort (Hooray! Quest!)," or, "I will oppose you fulfilling this intent (Hooray! Quest!)," or, "I want nothing to do with this for either side; I have my own goals (Hooray! Quest!)." In any case, the PCs must accept that the NPC will seek his own goal also and that can be an ongoing event after the players have declared their interest in this being a quest or not. 
My group would completely resent being put in this sort of situation. We're a pretty casual play group, though. Unfortunately, we have some thin skinned players, so party conflict doesn't go over very well. I consider you very lucky.

Knowing the players in my group, most(if not all) would want to stop the genocide - if there are other plans that may work, try all of them. Besides, the players wouldn't believe that the genocide would stop the invasion utterly. There's always a loophole somewhere.

 
Besides, the players wouldn't believe that the genocide would stop the invasion utterly. There's always a loophole somewhere.


I think it's strange that everyone seems to assume there's some catch. Some kind of "gotcha" backstab that will ruin everything for them if they go along with the plan... as if having to commit genocide ISN'T enough of a catch. I know full well the weight of what the NPC is asking. It's a terrible, horrible price to pay. That's the entire point. No one, not even the NPC who is proposing this, wants to do it. That's why it hasn't already been done.

In fact, that's why the Infinite Legions haven't taken any actions to prevent it from happening, even though they're aware of the possibility. They're confident that the heroes will do the right thing, which is to the demons' advantage.

It seems, from the answers thus far, that almost everyone agrees that genocide is an unacceptable price for absolute protection. I find that interesting. I had expected more of a mixed bag of answers. 

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

I think it's strange that everyone seems to assume there's some catch. Some kind of "gotcha" backstab that will ruin everything for them if they go along with the plan...


It's not strange that everyone is considering those implications.  Given the extremely weighty situation of this particular issue, the Highguard better be damn sure that he can pull this off 100%, else it will actually make things worse and turn a possibly inevitable demon invasion thousands of years from now into an absolutely inevitable demon invasion tomorrow.  Genocides aren't exactly simple to accomplish, and are rarely 100% effective, as human history shows.

One of my former characters, Rokiden, a Human samurai, would carry out the Highguard's orders if that is who he served, then commit seppuku -- if he didn't serve the Highguard, he would almost immediately warn the King.

One of my former characters, Kayen, a Changeling mage, would try to convince the Highguard to control the population of tieflings, rather than commit genocide.  Either way, Kayen would keep quiet about it.  Kayen is in the notable position, out of my former characters, of having sacrificed his own life to commit an ensured genocide, which wound up being the goal for the entire campaign based on how the rest of the players played things out.  For a number of real-life years, we as a group still considered the possibility that it wasn't even 100% effective, though -- eventually, we decided that story was closed.

One of my other former characters, Silence, an Elf assassin would have supported the Highguard, up until he had his crisis of conscience and became Echo -- notably because of him quite nearly assassinating two children that he had effectively adopted prior to that (he was stopped only by a different party member, his crisis of conscience was him realizing what he almost accomplished).

The rest of my characters would not be anywhere near as nuanced in their support/non-support of the Highguard.  They would all inform the King, or at least attempt to talk the Highguard out of it.

One thing that would motivate most of those decisions is the fact that the non-existence of Tieflings didn't prevent the demons from forcing the sapients into the New World in the first place.  Any character that I would hypothetically have in your game would find the assertation dubious at best that non-existence of the Tieflings today would be a guaranteed stop to any future demon invasion.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
Besides, the players wouldn't believe that the genocide would stop the invasion utterly. There's always a loophole somewhere.


I think it's strange that everyone seems to assume there's some catch. Some kind of "gotcha" backstab that will ruin everything for them if they go along with the plan... as if having to commit genocide ISN'T enough of a catch. I know full well the weight of what the NPC is asking. It's a terrible, horrible price to pay. That's the entire point. No one, not even the NPC who is proposing this, wants to do it. That's why it hasn't already been done.

In fact, that's why the Infinite Legions haven't taken any actions to prevent it from happening, even though they're aware of the possibility. They're confident that the heroes will do the right thing, which is to the demons' advantage.

It seems, from the answers thus far, that almost everyone agrees that genocide is an unacceptable price for absolute protection. I find that interesting. I had expected more of a mixed bag of answers. 



I'd let it happen anyways. One of my characters, a Deva with the Angel Epic Destiny, had a defining feature of viewing good in it's long-term repercussions, and never short-term. His plan once the campaign story had ended was to proceed with single-handedly commiting genocide on the entire Drow race, because he definitly had time to accomplish this. Sure it was a simplistic mindset free of any moral dilemma. And out of game a couple people chimmed in with what I call the Drizz't defense. 

As for your current situation however, there are two elements which are different: The genocide is that of Tieflings, which are not one of those "They're 99.9% evil" races. Yet the stakes are higher with the whole "not doing it will most probably cause infinite demons". It's the "most probably" which seems to be what people are grasping at, looking for a third option and debating the outcome of this plan in general. Also, this is a game about heroes, and the term hero and genocide generally don't mix well, so I can definitly see where most people are comming from.
Assuming for the sake of simplicity we're talking about my preferred charrie, kick the NPC's ass, then find a way to teleport myself through the breach and spend the next few years seeing if this legion is as infinite as they claim. Because [Debutantes avert your eyes] yeah defenders!

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
Besides, the players wouldn't believe that the genocide would stop the invasion utterly. There's always a loophole somewhere.


I think it's strange that everyone seems to assume there's some catch. Some kind of "gotcha" backstab that will ruin everything for them if they go along with the plan... as if having to commit genocide ISN'T enough of a catch. I know full well the weight of what the NPC is asking. It's a terrible, horrible price to pay. That's the entire point. No one, not even the NPC who is proposing this, wants to do it. That's why it hasn't already been done.

In fact, that's why the Infinite Legions haven't taken any actions to prevent it from happening, even though they're aware of the possibility. They're confident that the heroes will do the right thing, which is to the demons' advantage.

It seems, from the answers thus far, that almost everyone agrees that genocide is an unacceptable price for absolute protection. I find that interesting. I had expected more of a mixed bag of answers. 



I think its strange to assume that genocide would actually solve the problem - you can't actually defeat evil, only postpone it.

You have set up a dubious moral quandry, at best. I was originally avoiding making a judgement statement about it, but you seem so offended at anyone actually questioning the situation. That's what players should do - question the situation thoroughly before they make a decision.

No offense, but you seem to be taking people's answers really personally. You asked for honest input, and you got it.
f I've somehow insinuated that the demonic invasion is imminent, and this is a last-ditch, last minute effort to stop it, and the only alternative is to let everyone be slaughtered by demons, that's not what's going on here.

The issue is that, EVENTUALLY, possibly hundreds or thousands of years from now, the magical barriers that protect the new world will fail.



I understood that. This is why most decently aligned PCs wouldn't go along with the genocide. "You want to be a terrible evil guy now, to prevent some future terrible evil that may take thousands of years". "No thanks, I'll stop you, and then deal with that later you nut".

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"                                                  "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"

Assuming my character is either good or unaligned (or I was playing a moral character) I would try to find a third option.  If the group agrees with me, then I would hope my DM would help us to create that option, if he wasn't willing to do so, then I would realize that we have different ideas about the game and probably find a different group.

If my characters were evil, (or I was playing an unethical character) I would look at how things benefit me, assuming my character is willing to go that far.

There is never only two choices, just like in real life. 
One of my favorite pastimes as a DM is to present my party with horribly unenviable moral dilemmas. At the end of my last session, one of the party's closest and strongest allies presented to them his secret plan: kill all of the tieflings in the world in order to ensure that the infinite demonic legions of the Old World can never invade the New World again (because of the way the setting is, yes, this plan will work).

Now, none of the PCs are tieflings, nor do they have any tiefling friends, so that's not an issue. However, they are basically having to weigh the implications of security for the entire world, and genocide. It's been made clear that, without this action, it's only a matter of time before the demons break through the barriers that have been erected to keep them out, whether it happens in a year's time, 10 year's time, or centuries from now... it WILL happen. ONLY by killing every last tiefling in the world can the original barrier created by one of the gods of the setting be reestablished, which is absolute, permanent protection.

The NPC proposing this isn't actually asking for the party's help, just their silence. He doesn't need them to participate in the genocide; he's just asking them not to interfere.

So I put it to you of the D&D community: how many of your characters take the more pragmatic path, and how many would take the moral high road? And if you like, what would YOU do? (But I'm more interested in polling what people's characters would do.)

EDIT: As icing on the cake, one of the PCs has a demon familiar who can't lie, and who has also confirmed that the plan WOULD work.



Moral high ground, every time for me.  I only play Good and Lawful Good characters.

While killing every tiefling in the world may reinforce the previous barrier ... who's to say there isn't another way to set up a different barrier?  Plan a defense.  Since we know demons are coming, specific defenses can be designed around that.  Heck, if we're talking epic PCs here, invade them first.  Since gods definitely do exist in this game world, go talk to 'em, ask if we can borrow an army of angels and such, hit up as many big power players in the Natural World as possible and hit them before they hit us.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
So I put it to you of the D&D community: how many of your characters take the more pragmatic path, and how many would take the moral high road? And if you like, what would YOU do? (But I'm more interested in polling what people's characters would do.)



One of my first 4e PCs was a tiefling named Tyr (short for Tyranny), a warlord who venerated Bane.  He lived up to his name, believing the best way to protect the weak was to take charge. 

Tyr was a dictator, so he would take the most pragmatic approach but at the same time, he was a tiefling, so . . . Ultimately he'd find another way, possibly eliminating the 'threat' that his one-time ally now posed.

= = =

As for myself, even a make-believe holocaust is out of the question.  Fantasy simply cannot handle real life horrors like that.  Or shouldn't, at least in my opinion.
/\ Art
I would have to kill the teflings, as horrible as it is. But I don't think it is very nice of you to do this to the players. The holocost was far too real.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
Lawful Good Character: Stop the guy's plan within the context of the country's laws.

Good: Possibly kill him.  With something sharp and pointy.

Unaligned: See which side will pay me more to help, or harm the other's side.

Evil: Extort him.  For as long as that NPC lives.

Chaotic Evil: Welcome the chance for my demonic overlords to rush over the lands, searing and crushing all in their path. . . BLOOOOOOOOOOD!!!


There you go, my answers.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
No-win scenarios are bad? What, did no one like the Kobayashi Maru? :P
No-win scenarios are bad? What, did no one like the Kobayashi Maru? :P



Not especially, no.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
No-win scenarios are bad? What, did no one like the Kobayashi Maru? :P



Not especially, no.



Well, it has a cool name, at least.
If I was playing my senile dwarf (only 2 days from retirement) who talks to an inanimate chaotic brick. I would probably either try to negotiate with the demons or become the leader of the tieflings take them to another kingdom and prepare for war on the kingdom we were just in.

If I was playing a younger dwarf. I'd prepare all kingdoms and people for war and assault the demon lands.

Though a question you said tieflings were created. After this genocide were to occur what happened to all the knowledge they had. Or the knowledge of there creators. It would seem more then genocide is needed. As long as one person knows about tieflings it seems given human nature of being curious and driven to knowledge that some how the demons can come back.
No-win scenarios are bad? What, did no one like the Kobayashi Maru? :P



Not especially, no.



Well, it has a cool name, at least.



It does indeed. 

I feel a bit ashamed to admit I had to look it up.  I was never much of a Trekkie.  I much preferred "fantasy" to "science fiction".

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
No-win scenarios are bad? What, did no one like the Kobayashi Maru? :P



Not especially, no.



Well, it has a cool name, at least.



It does indeed. 

I feel a bit ashamed to admit I had to look it up.  I was never much of a Trekkie.  I much preferred "fantasy" to "science fiction".




I think it's the whole sailing and exploration themes that do it for me. It's not really about the Science as much as it is exploring space. Same with pirates and the like. Also, time travel. I love time travel.

Back on topic, my Half-Elf Bard would at first be enraged at even the consideration of genocide. Then, though an over-complicated plan with many failings, and even more improv, and a whole lot of magical techno-babble, he'd keep the two sides from fighting and banish the demons to another realm, never to be seen again. Or, at least, till the next time he's in town.
No-win scenarios are bad? What, did no one like the Kobayashi Maru? :P



Not especially, no.



Well, it has a cool name, at least.



It does indeed. 

I feel a bit ashamed to admit I had to look it up.  I was never much of a Trekkie.  I much preferred "fantasy" to "science fiction".




I think it's the whole sailing and exploration themes that do it for me. It's not really about the Science as much as it is exploring space. Same with pirates and the like. Also, time travel. I love time travel.

Back on topic, my Half-Elf Bard would at first be enraged at even the consideration of genocide. Then, though an over-complicated plan with many failings, and even more improv, and a whole lot of magical techno-babble, he'd keep the two sides from fighting and banish the demons to another realm, never to be seen again. Or, at least, till the next time he's in town.



I totally enjoy those too.  I just focus them towards future fantasy, like Star Wars, vs. Science Fiction with technobabble.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
No-win scenarios are bad? What, did no one like the Kobayashi Maru? :P



Kirk didn't believe in the no-win scenario. Neither do I when it comes to creating scenarios.
Sign In to post comments