|
5 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2008 - 8:27PM
#31
|
|
|
I'm not sure why it is a widespread contention that killing the helpless cleric was the smart, tactical option for the Ghoul.
[INDENT]As an aside, this leaves entirely untouched whether this was a fair or unfair thing to do to the character.[/INDENT]
I mean, tactically, for the DM who wants to do the most damage to the party, killing the PC is a better tactic.
Tactically, for a necromantic overlord controlling the ghouls, killing a helpless party member is a better tactic.
For the actual ghoul, I don't see how this is a better tactic. If you are fighting an equal number of opponents (four ghouls vs. four heroes) and one of the heroes goes down, that means that you are now still fighting three active, dangerous heroes. Why would you spend your time savaging the one who is down and helpless, when you are still vulnerable to attack from three other heroes? Dropping the still dangerous foes, or driving them off, would seem to be a better tactical option for an intelligent monster.
Think about it as a fight between two gangs of four people. If someone in the first gang knocks a member of the second unconscious, should he continue to attack that unconscious guy, or help the other members of his gang "gang" up on the now outnumbered second gang?
If you just knock someone down, or stagger them, it's probably better to take them out of the fight, so you are sure they can't come back. If they are actually out of the fight, like paralyzed, aren't they no longer a threat?
Heck, I suspect that a pack of hyenas, attacking a calf and its mother, would continue to focus on the mother who was attacking them back, rather than eat the unconscious calf (if, of course, they couldn't carry off the calf).
This may have been the source of party anger. The ghoul focused its attacks, not on the active threat of the other party members, but on the completely helpless downed character. The ghouls should probably value their own "unlife" more than the goal of killing a character. If they do, why did they ignore the threat to their own lives, to kill a character? I wouldn't be surprised if many players would think that was because "the DM wanted to kill my character".
I'm not saying you were wrong, but I can see how another reasonable person could think that your actions were unjustified, without being a whiny cry-baby.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2008 - 8:30PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
What's your opinion experienced dm's?
I think it was rather brutal, but perfectly justified if your aiming for a deadly physically tough campaign. Considering they where under attack by other PCs and the cleric was already paralyzed, it takes a pretty ruthless and cool fighter to stop and finish off the non-threat character.
Most DM's I know probably wouldn't have gone for the kill before killing or driving off the rest of the party. However, as long as the danger level in the campaign was spelled out ahead of time, I would have no problem with it. Though I would expect the players to whine a bit if taken so suddenly in a minor encounter.
Hopefully they learn something about keeping the cleric back in deadly games.
Jay
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2008 - 8:32PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Oct 10, 2007
|
You're a wuss who can't stand having a character die. Yes I said it. You're bad.
I've retired in my 16 years of playing more characters then most people roll up. The DM asked if it was unjust. Yes it is. I would not do that to a player. The 120 players in my group would not do that to a player.
The player was paralyzed. It was unable to fight, for many minutes. MINUTES. More then enough time for the ghouls to either finish the rest of the party making their meal safe to eat. Or leaving to stalk them later in the night when it made more sense to attack, if they were grossly outgunned.
The DM played the creatures as a throw away fodder, and because he did this, he made sure to "take" out the damn cleric to.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2008 - 8:37PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2008
|
The player was OUT OF THE FIGHT. The CDG should have happened afterword, not in the middle of combat with other threats. In the real world, if I was charging the line of the enemy and grenade went off near the enemy and blew both his arms off, IE he is no threat to me. I would not stop if their were other combatents near by and shoot this armless guy in the face.
I would not. The average non-sociopathic person would not and if by some deprived out look on life you did. You'd get a court martial asap.
Ghouls aren't average non-sociopathic people. Ghouls are average sociopathic walking corpses.
The combat was not over, had the ghoul critting a non-paralyzed player and killed him, npnp. But, you as the GM made the decision not an above average intelligent creature that would want to preserve it's life. If the Ghoul had a 1 intelligence and didn't know it was paralyzed absolutely, but hell even animals with paralyzing venoms, make sure they are in no danger to themselves before they partake of a paralyzed meal. Don't believe me, toss two flies in a spider web, and see if the spider doesn't paralyze them both before eating.
Ghouls have already had death fail to end them at least once. Things like self-preservation and danger suddenly take on new meanings when death doesn't really mean anything to you.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2008 - 8:39PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2008
|
I've retired in my 16 years of playing more characters then most people roll up. The DM asked if it was unjust. Yes it is. I would not do that to a player. The 120 players in my group would not do that to a player.
The player was paralyzed. It was unable to fight, for many minutes. MINUTES. More then enough time for the ghouls to either finish the rest of the party making their meal safe to eat. Or leaving to stalk them later in the night when it made more sense to attack, if they were grossly outgunned.
The DM played the creatures as a throw away fodder, and because he did this, he made sure to "take" out the damn cleric to.
In my 12 years of playing, I've learned that random arbitrary death is a fact of life in the adventuring profession.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2008 - 8:43PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2008
|
Well, people that are sore losers will generally throw tantrums when.. they lose. And that is how dying is percieved by most people. And, since a "friend" is the arbiter of the game.. it is a personal attack. Furthermore.. how DARE this person kill my character. He didn't have to.. he could have given me a thousand experience instead.. but, he did it. Clearly, he has a personal vendetta.
Look, scenarios like character death show a picture of what a person is really like. It may come down to the fact that if your players throw tantrums every time they die that you are not the DM for them. Give them the reigns to the adventure.. make them put all the work and effort into it.. and you can relax with your easily made one character.
I have reminded my players nearly every game session that "Death is a possibility." That I WILL let the dice determine a death. That I WILL kill your character if I deem it is what an NPC would do. That I AM willing to allow a TPK. Reminding them of this.. I have had one character death in a monthly gaming session that has lasted about 8 months. And this was due to a character pretty much looking to die (as in, I would have had to come up with a contrivance for him staying alive).
I have found in my experience that computer/tabletop gamers never did the "Losing with Grace" education of the sports players. So, they pout. They've played games all their lives where they always win. Where there is always a save to go back to.. a way to restart. And since video games have been single player for the longest time.. they were always the winner. In something like sports.. doesn't work that way. People lose.. and when you do.. you SHOULD do it with grace.
Anyway.. a PC death at any level isn't "unjust" just because the character died. If I were a hungry ghoul.. and I just tagged my meal.. AND I know it will wake up eventually.. I'd kill it before moving to the next thing. OR, I'd kill it and just start eatting my fill... because who knows, if my other ghoul friends don't take down the rest of the party.. I'll at least have taken a few bites.. and I can flee.
Note: And if "I" the DM were REALLY roleplaying the ghouls.. I wouldn't be thinking "Oh, I'm a nasty devious ghoul.. I have 1DX minutes until he awakens. Thankfully.. my internal clock will inform me of the proper time." No, I would be thinking.. "Food is down. Food CAN wake up. There IS a way to make sure food doesn't wake up."
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2008 - 8:46PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2006
|
Ghouls aren't average non-sociopathic people. Ghouls are average sociopathic walking corpses.
Ghouls have already had death fail to end them at least once. Things like self-preservation and danger suddenly take on new meanings when death doesn't really mean anything to you.
Ummmm....what?
All intelligent undead, Int 13 counting as intelligent, have a survival instinct. In fact in any fluff or role-playing sense they should have a magnified survival instinct because no undead creature goes "well I escaped death once, that must mean I am invincible" they either became undead in order to avoid death(liches are an example of this) or "lucked" out and sidestepped fate for a while saying "wheeeew, that was close, I don't want that to happen to me again".
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2008 - 8:48PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2008
|
Have none of you people ever heard of the term "Focus Fire"?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2008 - 8:50PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2008
|
I have found in my experience that computer/tabletop gamers never did the "Losing with Grace" education of the sports players. So, they pout. They've played games all their lives where they always win. Where there is always a save to go back to.. a way to restart. And since video games have been single player for the longest time.. they were always the winner. In something like sports.. doesn't work that way. People lose.. and when you do.. you SHOULD do it with grace.
That is a pretty good point you have made. Most of the video gamers who play D&D probably enjoy CRPGs when they play video games. CRPGs are horribly bad for the notion of being designed to have the player win in the end. At least Counter Strike or Madden players lose sometimes.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 08, 2008 - 8:55PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2008
|
Ummmm....what?
All intelligent undead, Int 13 counting as intelligent, have a survival instinct. In fact in any fluff or role-playing sense they should have a magnified survival instinct because no undead creature goes "well I escaped death once, that must mean I am invincible" they either became undead in order to avoid death(liches are an example of this) or "lucked" out and sidestepped fate for a while saying "wheeeew, that was close, I don't want that to happen to me again".
You know how many teenagers have this notion that death only happens to other people until someone close to them dies and then suddenly they realize their own mortality?
Well, undead are the opposite.
|
|
|
