|
3 years ago ::
Feb 18, 2010 - 5:26AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2005
|
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
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 18, 2010 - 6:51AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2009
|
@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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 18, 2010 - 7:05AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
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;
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 18, 2010 - 7:40AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2009
|
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?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 18, 2010 - 8:05AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 18, 2010 - 8:20AM
#26
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 18, 2010 - 10:31AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 24, 2010 - 1:36PM
#28
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2010 - 9:46PM
#29
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2010 - 10:00PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
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;
|
|
|
