Evil Acts in LFR

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
Over the six months I've played/judged LFR, I've run into one or two people who not only skirt the edge of Unaligned, given the chance, they'd dive headfirst into Evil. Obviously, this is against the spirit of the RPGA guidelines, as the PCs are the heroes of the story, and heroes shouldn't be doing dispicable acts like torturing prisoners unnecessarily, murder, and so on.

I've dug through the documentation to get an idea on what to do with these people that insist on such acts, and while I have given them warnings, I couldn't find anything on what to do if people persist in such acts. What options do I have?
Over the six months I've played/judged LFR, I've run into one or two people who not only skirt the edge of Unaligned, given the chance, they'd dive headfirst into Evil. Obviously, this is against the spirit of the RPGA guidelines, as the PCs are the heroes of the story, and heroes shouldn't be doing dispicable acts like torturing prisoners unnecessarily, murder, and so on.

I've dug through the documentation to get an idea on what to do with these people that insist on such acts, and while I have given them warnings, I couldn't find anything on what to do if people persist in such acts. What options do I have?

Keeping in mind that the current RPGA Rules are due to be revamped Soon⁚ you could possibly use the existing rules and warn them about "Unsporting Conduct."

Other options include simply refusing to GM for those players, or simply disregarding their "evil" actions or using DME (albeit a variant that will be undoubtedly much debated) to "tone-down" their actions, or even flat-out deny them acts of evil.

In the long run, your best bet is to discuss it with the players, point out that this is a non-evil campaign, and try to see if THEY feel their actions are evil - and if so, find out why the insist on continuing.
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

Ok, the following is not nice…

But, if you talk to them again, and they continue to do it, set your next adventure in a town like Waterdeep or Baldur’s Gate. Then when they break the law with one of their evil acts, have them thrown in jail for an encounter or 2. Don’t give them the XP for the encounters they did not participate in.
Subtlety is not your friend here. Players like this tend to benefit from subtle hints by "failing to recognize them". They are violating the spirit of the game, most likely with the intent of maximizing their fun at the expense of the other players and DM.

You have to act decisively. Tell them, flat out, that evil action are not acceptable and if you see any future evil actions from their characters, they will be prevented from playing any future LFR games. Worst case scenario: they leave or you kick them out. Best case scenario: they shape up. I would bet on the first. Good riddance.

-SYB
When you say torture, are you just talking about waterboarding or something serious like pulling out fingernails? And for murder, was it just an annoying gnome or kobold, or something serious like a higher mammal?
:P
I'm talking about definite torture, with the hot iron brands and everything. I'm playing an Unaligned Paladin, so I've no real problem with "rendition," especially against the people that attacked us. Additionally, in a different part of the same adventure, we took some prisoners from a different fight, and after getting information from them, he wanted to dispatch them in less-than-humane ways. Live burials came up, very briefly, at which point I put them to the sword.

I might not have a problem with extracting information, but there's some things you just don't do.

Show

As for what was attacking us, we were playing "At the Foot of the Lighthouse." The encounters in question were the first combat and the skill challenge in the town. There's a tiny bit of a grey area, given who these people work for, but I believe he crossed the line with his suggestions.


These are not isolated incidents, either. His first choice for deities was Asmodeus, followed by Bane and Cyric until he finally settled for Jurgal. The only reason he changed is because we told him his character was illegal otherwise.
DMs for LFR adventures who have to deal with players who want to play their PCs as doing evil acts do face the dilemma of whether to allow it, ignore it, to just say no, or what. Previous versions of D&D did at least somewhat address the question of alignment change or drift, but in a Living Campaign, this has always been one of the more difficult issues to deal with.

I recommend two spots to be your benchmark. In PH, page 20, from the description of Evil Alignment and Chaotic Evil Alignment, I would ascribe deliberate torture to achieve some gain to be Evil, and deliberate torture for no purpose other than to just cause pain and destruction to be Chaotic Evil.

Repeated behavior is pretty clear, but then in a Living Campaign, a DM might not witness repeated behavior. And gamer opinions about the impact of one act of Evil when the 4E rules do not explicitly touch on that will vary widely.

I think the RPGA DM should first try to follow the troubleshooting suggestions in the DMG, see page 32, under Problem Player/Out of Control Player. The second paragraph says first to talk to the player about the kind of campaign we are running. In the case of LFR, it is clearly a non-evil campaign in so far as PCs. You may be heroic, or you may be the "show me the money" type of mercenary, but you should not be "I like to cause pain, death and destruction, slobber, slobber,..." type of PC. If that does not curb the unwanted behavior, then you progress to the second part of that paragraph where you tell the player they are being disruptive and the rest of the table needs that player to be part of the team. The disruptive word is the cue that RPGA sanctions could follow. How disruptive is the player being to the play or are they willing to drop it so the play can continue?

Many players do like to play "edgy" characters and it is sometimes hard to figure out where the line is. Mostly, if the other players are becoming uncomfortable, then you have likely passed a line of acceptability.

My (good) paladin of Selune will generally be the pragmatic fighter of evil and doer of good, but if an adversary worships Shar, my character will show them no mercy. He won't torture them; just no prisoners.

If you really know the player's desire was to play an evilly aligned character, then someone certainly needs to have a private conversation with them as to what is acceptable and not acceptable in this campaign.

Keith
Keith Hoffman LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
Mostly, if the other players are becoming uncomfortable, then you have likely passed a line of acceptability.

I think that's a good benchmark to use.

Obviously, this is against the spirit of the RPGA guidelines, as the PCs are the heroes of the story, and heroes shouldn't be doing dispicable acts like torturing prisoners unnecessarily, murder, and so on.

Maybe I'm just naughty but I enjoy my players being bloodthirsty and horrible people :P I also don't mind playing the occasional one myself ;)

For example they tortured someone into gaining information. When I flat out told them that additional torture will not gain any new information and that he has told them everything he knows, they carried out the threat anyway.

I didn't find anything overly wrong with that. And that's also the worst I've seen anyone do.

Our most recent game had a few of our PCs capturing humanNPCs, intimidating them to gather information and then slitting throats depending on whether the PCs liked the answers or not, and on too many occasions just for the fun of it.

After the first couple of post-encounter murders, a few of the other PCs felt uncomfortable and began to wearily eye their cohorts.  They started trying to settle the murderous PCs down and began making comments to them trying to convince them murder was the wrong action to take. 

Right or Wrong here is how I handled it:

First, the group began seeing WANTED (for Questioning) posters with their sketched faces on them all over town.  This brought on a -2 to all social checks in the town.

Secondly, when that didn't work, they were brought in for questioning.  They tried to BLUFF their way through it with the ole 'I did it in self-defence and here are my witnesses' bit.  They were advised that they would be watched closely from that point on.

When it happened again, the perpetrators were docked 50% XP for the encounter(s) in which they continued their evil acts.

Next game is part two in this mini-campaign.  We'll see if the murderous acts have been curbed or not.

Dock gold, not xp. Docking xp actually advances them in the gold to xp ratio, but docking gold hurts them in the long run, and can represent fines, bribes, or bail paid to town officials. 

Docking gold makes sense, yeah. I think you can dock either depending on what you think the players will notice more, but docking gold is definitely more of an impact and easier to justify in-game. However, some players will react better to docking XP.

Over the six months I've played/judged LFR, I've run into one or two people who not only skirt the edge of Unaligned, given the chance, they'd dive headfirst into Evil.

I would probably just explain that the CCG* says that PC's cannot be evil and that you are not really comfortable allowing evil activety by PC's.

*p.1:"Character alignments must be unaligned, good, or lawful good."
Over the six months I've played/judged LFR, I've run into one or two people who not only skirt the edge of Unaligned, given the chance, they'd dive headfirst into Evil. Obviously, this is against the spirit of the RPGA guidelines, as the PCs are the heroes of the story, and heroes shouldn't be doing dispicable acts like torturing prisoners unnecessarily, murder, and so on. I've dug through the documentation to get an idea on what to do with these people that insist on such acts, and while I have given them warnings, I couldn't find anything on what to do if people persist in such acts. What options do I have?



Use the distraction rules from the DMG2. If the player choses a coarse of action that the character would have moral or ethical problems with, then the character is distracted.

Distraction can include: Daze effects, -2 atk, -X dmg, grants combat advantage, provokes oppertunity attacks, etc...

That being said, LFR has already given more than enough NPC's that the players help in modules that are very bad people of very bad gods. I wonder if there is a single truely good person in the DALE modules sometimes, (a little hyperbole). Kyra has a holy symbol of Loviatar and is later described loosely as worshiping her. One of the Buyar's Seven is a Priestess of Malar that you have to help repeatedly. If you aren't familiar with Malar, take a read and ask yourself if you can still consider your good character, good for helping her. It is a judgement call. 

The modules are asking players to test their stances on things for their characters, but the modules do so a bit underhanded in that if you say, "This isn't right, I am walking away." It is time to go get lunch for four hours while your friends play. My point here is simply that we have to be a bit careful when we say that LFR is a "good" campaign because evil people have heroes too.

Just because it takes place in a world that is fairly dark with only points of light.. *cough cough*.. does not make LFR any less of a "good" campaign.  But those modules and the shades of gray vs black & white have been debated endlessly in the LFR adventures thread already. 

Simple story is NPC's get to be and act evil. PC's do not. But every now and then an outside influence in an adventure can make the PC edge into questionable territory. I think that is fine. Players choosing to have their PC be evil, not so much.

It can be very tricky though when you are playing a PC with some personal demons. I try with one of my characters (well ok, more a gimmick than real personal demons) and while he was young (i.e. lvl 1) I had a hard time finding the balance and slipped into evil territory once or twice. Getting called on it helped me get a feel for where the line is. 

I personally think letting people know that line is crossed is important, and subtlety, as others stated, indeed wont work as well. Done or purpose, or drifted in to it, by the time it goes across the border the players tends to be caught up in it. Clarity is key.
Wanting to skirt close to that line at time is understandable but if nobody draws it for you, how can you learn where it is. Let alone get a feel for the fact that the line is in a different place from table to table..

 
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;

I am 100% with Keith's post.

For some players, evil is fun.  That's their choice, and it's a choice they have a right to make.  Yet, it is not a choice that is allowed to player characters in LFR.

It's just that simple.  No "distraction", no gold penalty, no XP penalty, just toe the line.


Commenting on other posts:


Agreed that GP penalties hurt.  Personally, I would actually be grateful if I were allowed to take an XP penalty in some situations, but GP always hurts.


Helping priestesses of Malar, etc. - that just left a bad taste in my mouth.  I would have walked from one table, except the DM said "Malar changed after the Spellplague, now he's uh, OK".  I had to laugh.  Similar for adventures that have you helping NPCs for no reward, etc. etc. etc.  Why some of these adventures that are written force the players to make their characters play out of character is beyond me.

Issues of "evil acts" are as old in the RPGA as is the RPGA.

We can sit down and academically talk about what is and what is not and evil act and we will not ever be able to truely define it, but that is ok because neither have philosophers much more in tune with this idea.

In the RPGA "evil" changes. At one time if you used poison you were commiting an evil act. Now you can use poison fine.

My experience is that players commiting the subjective "evil acts" are acting out. It is normally a symptom not the disease.

I think if we stop looking at the act itself and start looking at the overall we will find better paths to a fun play experience. In general, tables don't want to go on and on for 10 minutes listening to a person torture an NPC. It narrows the game to 1 player and 1 DM and leave 5 people sitting there doing nothing.

Don't give the player acting out a spotlight.

Not saying any of you are, but how many of you are meta gaming when it comes to who worships who? Is your characer trained in religion? Are you making a roll to see if you are even aware of who said God/Goddess is? Granted, several major Gods may be known, but I don't really consider it a stretch to say my Half Orc barbarian who I play with an 8 Int wouldn't care who so and so worships as he isn't even familiar with the deity, and franky, wouldn't even consider the deity to exist.

I have a fighter that worships Kelemvor. He thinks other people's Gods are false. As he sees bad guys wearing symbols of this one or that one, he then proceeds to dislike those guys. But at lvl 1, no, he is not familiar with every major and minor LFR God.
Imo, it is always a good act to help someone who is in trouble, regardless of their alignment.
It may not always be smart, and it may not be evil to walk away, but helping someone because they are in pain is always good, because it shows you have compassion.

Obvious evil acts - torture, murder, or ****, are imo really something you need to stop in a RPGA game. It has no place there.
Murder, now that can be a difficult one.
There are plenty of adventurers of the shoot first questions later variety and thus murder is an oft perpetrated act. Generally it works out as righteous or justified murder, but murder nonetheless. 

Torture, also not as black & white. While 110% agree when it comes to physical torture, psychological torture by way of the intimidate skill is fairly commonplace amongst adventurers.

****, well that is a simple one. Even hinting at it would be a definite NO!.

I know I am nitpicking on the murder and torture issue and I am sure given a situation we would easily agree on what is on the good and the wrong side of the line.  It is just not easy to catch in simple terms. D&D can be a complicated game when dealing with the social issues, and alignment tends to be all about the social

What is and is not acceptable varies from table to table and the only thing we can do is make sure people feel free to draw their line as players and as DMs. 
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;

Please don't introduce claims of psychological torture from intimidate into this discussion.  That someone sounds menacing and is a threat to you, is not torture.  If we considered it was, we would have to ban all sinister threats, etc. as being evil.

While we can't give a 100% definition for acceptable kills, there should be some common shared considerations.

1. Defending yourself from deadly force is not murder and may be justified.
2. The "knocking creatures unconscious" rule makes the argument it was necessary to kill people to stop a bar fight or a bunch of drunks unreasonable.
3. In story terms, we should use the terms "people" and "monster" to distinguish between those the local culture thinks should have the right to a trial and those who might be killed out of hand.   Still not a guarantee of ultimate goodness and you might missed an opportunity to turn an adversary into an ally.
4. To a great extent, you also need to consider if you are in a realm with a legal system, where you could take prisoners and bind them over for justice, or in the wilderness where there is no legal system.  If you are uncertain, ask IC and ask the DM OOC. 
5. Their punishment should fit the crime (what is called a proportional response).   If someone picks a pocket for a few coins or slaps you in the face, death is way harsh.



Keith




Keith Hoffman LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
Also, when it comes to the civilized races (humans, elves, etc), you may not always be certain that someone is evil, and that you are therefor justified to kill. You can create a rationale for it, but that only goes so far.
My experience is that most players make their PCs kill their opponents (especially those they captured alive) because it is easier than dealing with live prisoners - not because it is the ' right'  thing for their character to do  - unless their character is a  homocidal maniac, of course, and that may well apply to most adventurers...

Gomez
@Imperius -
Ironically, the people meta gaming are most likely the ones that say, "I wouldn't know who major or minor god X is". One thing that is hard for many people, is that our culture is monotheistic in religious views. We then take that lens and try to see what a polytheistic culture is like. Often players pick one god and treat that one god as their monotheistic god, which is not how that would work. If your character worships in the general pantheon of FR, your character probably knows at least a little about each of major and minor gods and would know what their holy symbol is. There are real world examples that would prove this point but I won't mention them on the forum.

At the begining of every table I run, I express to my players that this is a polytheistic world. Umberlee is an evil goddess. However, if you are taking a sea voyage and give a tribute to Umberlee for safe travel, you are not commiting an evil act. You are being smart.

@Gomeztoo -
Murder is a legal definition. This is not a semantic thing. For example, soldiers don't murder other soldiers on the battlefield, they kill them. In LFR we do not have a codified set of laws for every place we adventure and so murder becomes a HUGE grey area.

Please don't introduce claims of psychological torture from intimidate into this discussion.  That someone sounds menacing and is a threat to you, is not torture.  If we considered it was, we would have to ban all sinister threats, etc. as being evil.



Oh 75% of intimidate uses are indeed merely menacing or sinister threats. Some of the stuff people come up with would easily fall under mental torture though. But that is how I view it, YMMV.
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;

Please don't introduce claims of psychological torture from intimidate into this discussion.  That someone sounds menacing and is a threat to you, is not torture.  If we considered it was, we would have to ban all sinister threats, etc. as being evil.

While we can't give a 100% definition for acceptable kills, there should be some common shared considerations.




Though you are asking nicely not to introduce claims of psychological torture of intimidate, it is by it's nature a psychological assault upon the NPC. A PC is forcing an NPC to give up information or be cowed. In the real world, the threat of violence against the person being intimidated is torture in our culture. If person A has person B tied up and brings in the daughter of person B and says, "If you don't tell me about the beholder I will disfigure your daughter's face." That is pretty tortuous. The threat, the psychological assault is the torture.

1. Defending from deadly force usually means that something is in the process or has been done directly to the person that they must now defend against it. Should a surprise round by the PC's be a evil act? Is winning Iniative and going first and evil act? The concept of self defense is sound, but how you execute that concept is really hard.
3. When you say "local culture" you are also omitting that the "monster" could have their own culture and society because in "story terms" the "local culture" is usually Human, Elf, or Dwarf in LFR. Kobolds have a culture, so do goblins. What happens when their is a culture clash? If the PC's decide that the Kobold and Goblins are in the right, what happens to the PC's gold, treasure, and XP? If we take those things away we punish the PC's for being "good". If the PC's fight the "monsters" anyway for the rewards are they committing "evil acts"?
4. Though I might be in a realm with a legal system, I am 90% of the time in a module with an author that doesn't make allowances taking prisoners.
5. Waterdeep destroys the equalitarian arguement of proportional response. We can't simply just say that crime X is proportional to punishment Y. Instead, crime X against a commoner is punishment Y and Crime X against a noble is punishment 2Y. Crime X against a royal is punishment 3Y.

Also, since the PC's do have crimes that are committed upon them, may a PC use the legal system to in essence sue the NPC to recieve compensation above the gold cap in the module, since the legal system can be used in the adventure to take away from the PC's?
Oh 75% of intimidate uses are indeed merely menacing or sinister threats. Some of the stuff people come up with would easily fall under mental torture though. But that is how I view it, YMMV.



They way we resolve part of this at home in my LFR groups is that we basically have the nice intimidate and the not nice intimidate.

Nice Intimidate is like intimidating beauty. The person is so kind or nice or beautiful to the other, they feel they just HAVE to give them what they are asking for. Item bonuses from tools in this case can be food, drink, a soothing touch, healing, a gift. ((In the real world this is very evident if you are a professional salesman in the Law of Reciprocity. A person feels compelled to do something for someone that does something nice for them. With no hyberbole there are peole that purchases cars because a salesman brought them a cup of coffee.))

Not nice intimidate is usually used when I travel though because DM's don't believe that nice intimidate can work. I am not going to get in an arguement at the table. I am simply going to have my character make a not nice intimidate check. I will seek to use a tool though and gain an item bonus. Depending on the table, my rogue has used hot oil to burn off a gang member's, gang tattoo so they are disgraced and can't go back to that gang, then ask with my not nice intimidate check...and a +2 bonus to the roll.

On a quick sidenote, bear in mind that in LFR indimidate checks are usually markedly higher DC's in LFR. This is not good practice, in my belief. Instead of being a deterent for higher checks, eventually people will simply escalate. If you make the check harder, then people will seek tools and bonuses to make the attempt easier. With intimidate, torture is the tool to success...that is if you don't allow nice intimidate.
4. Though I might be in a realm with a legal system, I am 90% of the time in a module with an author that doesn't make allowances taking prisoners.


Most adventures do contain a line or two on what the prisoners know. Ultimately it is up to the DM to decide on what the PCs can do with their prisoners though.

Also, since the PC's do have crimes that are committed upon them, may a PC use the legal system to in essence sue the NPC to recieve compensation above the gold cap in the module, since the legal system can be used in the adventure to take away from the PC's?


Above the gold cap? No. Of course, you are also assuming the NPCs even have the huge amount of gold that a typical adventurer earns. Most humanoid opponents in lawful territory are simple thugs.

I've dug through the documentation to get an idea on what to do with these people that insist on such acts, and while I have given them warnings, I couldn't find anything on what to do if people persist in such acts. What options do I have?

fwiw: the problem isn't neccesarily restricted to 'evil' acts. There is some non-evil activety that DM's (and other players) might be similarly uncomfortable handling. Indeed, at least evil acts are easy to shut-down simply because 'no evil' is codified (at least to some degree) into the rules.


Use the distraction rules from the DMG2. If the player choses a coarse of action that the character would have moral or ethical problems with, then the character is distracted.


This does seem to be a good halfway point between putting up with a behavior and kicking someone out of the module. Plus it's a core rule. I was going to come into the thread and suggest it if it wasn't mentioned before.

It's a case by case basis I've got a Drow Storm Sorcerer who is totally in that Vic Mackey mold he's a complete two faced S.O.B. and is just soooo much fun to play because with an 11 diplomacy and a 13 intimidate he can be both the "good cop" and the "bad cop"  (he perfers bad cop ). Rule number one when playing a charactor with such a trecherous nature ALWAYS ask the fellow party member before making the attack 2. My Storm Sorcerer has Lightning Strike as an At Will so it's very tempting to attack a party member and deal the auto damage to my real opponent and a Drow would totally pull that tactic in a fight. 3. Try to attack the party member with resistance that matches the type of damage your dealing in my Drow's case he's dealing lightning damage with Lightning Strike. So if I've got a party member who can soak up lightning damage it's well worth hitting his lower Reflex, deal the auto damage to the enemy caster, and remain safely out of melee combat (he's a Drow taking cheap shots and looking good are in his DNA).                      

It's a case by case basis I've got a Drow Storm Sorcerer who is totally in that Vic Mackey mold he's a complete two faced S.O.B. and is just soooo much fun to play because with an 11 diplomacy and a 13 intimidate he can be both the "good cop" and the "bad cop"  (he perfers bad cop ). Rule number one when playing a charactor with such a trecherous nature ALWAYS ask the fellow party member before making the attack 2. My Storm Sorcerer has Lightning Strike as an At Will so it's very tempting to attack a party member and deal the auto damage to my real opponent and a Drow would totally pull that tactic in a fight. 3. Try to attack the party member with resistance that matches the type of damage your dealing in my Drow's case he's dealing lightning damage with Lightning Strike. So if I've got a party member who can soak up lightning damage it's well worth hitting his lower Reflex, deal the auto damage to the enemy caster, and remain safely out of melee combat (he's a Drow taking cheap shots and looking good are in his DNA).



I would not call any of that remotely related to evil.
Showing off? Yes. Evil? Nah. Maybe naughty at best.

I think the evil referenced in this thread mostly relates to players acting evil in ways that make other people at the table uncomfortable. Or that they would consider acts totally out of character for the heroes the PCs in LFR are meant to be. 
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
It's a case by case basis I've got a Drow Storm Sorcerer who is totally in that Vic Mackey mold he's a complete two faced S.O.B. and is just soooo much fun to play because with an 11 diplomacy and a 13 intimidate he can be both the "good cop" and the "bad cop"  (he perfers bad cop ). Rule number one when playing a charactor with such a trecherous nature ALWAYS ask the fellow party member before making the attack 2. My Storm Sorcerer has Lightning Strike as an At Will so it's very tempting to attack a party member and deal the auto damage to my real opponent and a Drow would totally pull that tactic in a fight. 3. Try to attack the party member with resistance that matches the type of damage your dealing in my Drow's case he's dealing lightning damage with Lightning Strike. So if I've got a party member who can soak up lightning damage it's well worth hitting his lower Reflex, deal the auto damage to the enemy caster, and remain safely out of melee combat (he's a Drow taking cheap shots and looking good are in his DNA).



I would not call any of that remotely related to evil.
Showing off? Yes. Evil? Nah. Maybe naughty at best.

I think the evil referenced in this thread mostly relates to players acting evil in ways that make other people at the table uncomfortable. Or that they would consider acts totally out of character for the heroes the PCs in LFR are meant to be. 

  
Gotcha you mean stuff like baby eating, skull ____ing, **** and other foul acts that are not just disgusting but have no place in any game setting at all.   
 

It's a case by case basis I've got a Drow Storm Sorcerer who is totally in that Vic Mackey mold


3. Try to attack the party member with resistance that matches the type of damage your dealing in my Drow's case he's dealing lightning damage with Lightning Strike. So if I've got a party member who can soak up lightning damage it's well worth hitting his lower Reflex, deal the auto damage to the enemy caster, and remain safely out of melee combat (he's a Drow taking cheap shots and looking good are in his DNA).                      




Except that Storm Sorcs PIERCE lightning resist.


My Human Battle Captain from Thay always talks about raising an Army of Undead for the glory of Thay and Himself.
My Human Battle Captain from Thay always talks about raising an Army of Undead for the glory of Thay and Himself.



That's not evil, that's just common sense...
Yeah, but his Epic Destiny is to be an Archlich.
Well, archlich used to mean a lich that is Lawful Good.
Well, archlich used to mean a lich that is Lawful Good.

"Are you a good Lich, or a bad Lich?" - Vecna, the Archlich of the North


It's a case by case basis I've got a Drow Storm Sorcerer who is totally in that Vic Mackey mold


3. Try to attack the party member with resistance that matches the type of damage your dealing in my Drow's case he's dealing lightning damage with Lightning Strike. So if I've got a party member who can soak up lightning damage it's well worth hitting his lower Reflex, deal the auto damage to the enemy caster, and remain safely out of melee combat (he's a Drow taking cheap shots and looking good are in his DNA).                      




Except that Storm Sorcs PIERCE lightning resist.




Your right I completely forgot about that aspect  
Sign In to post comments