When you don't fit in

[Pocciani]

This response is, quite possibly, the worst definition of neutral alignment I have ever seen in the history of gaming. So, neutral characters can torture with no issue as long as it doesn't cause any major harm (i.e. limb and death?) Nice...

Also, how does the Geneva Convention enter into a fantasy roleplaying game?

...

Find a new group Simm... please, for your own sanity and mine, as a hapless observer who has been following this thread in quiet up to... this.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

You read my mind exactly. I too have been observing quietly but this seems to have degenerated into an argument of ridiculous proportions. While neutral can be defined in a variety of ways, standing by while some murders someone classifies you as evil. And if you do bring the Geneva Convention into an RPG you may want to look closely at the judgments given military commanders who failed to prevent "heinous" acts from being committed against POWs in recent times.

I for one would find it difficult to be a part of a group with players who consider themselves or their actions IC as autonomous.

 

[knightofround]

Wow. You know, its kinda sad that with all the years of playing experience in that group, it still sucks. It seems like you all want to play radically different versions of D&D. I think you guys should split up or just scrap it &_&

Edit: I don't mean to harsh but really...

 

[Maldor]

Ioun is a unaligned god of knowledge, skill, and prophecy
he tells his fallower to seek knowledge as a unaligned god this meens that he has no problem with you disecting a living intellgent being to try and figger out what makes it tick trying to say that letting a "possable" informant die breaks his knowledge seeking tenit is like saying he MUST do a detailed questioning of EVERY person he meets so that the knowledge they might have is not lost or kept secret.

as for the "murder" or exacution of the "bandits" or murders that kill, rape, and rob inocent travlers, wemon, and childen you need to think about the world not only is this most likly not a crime but they can proablily get a reward with proof of the deaths at the local constable's.

as for the pushing into the pit that not what your DM siad happened it sounds like the fey touched warlock got behind you and said "boo" the DM decide along with sevral bad die rolls that this should make fall into a pit. that not the same as "I walk up behind the pally and shove him into the pit to battle the monster for my amusment."

 

[The Thayan Menace]

RE: Party Fratricide

Man, this thread really takes me BACK ....

I hope you guys can work things out peacefully.

-Samir

 

[CleverNickName]

The problem isn't you. The problem is those two other players. The warlock should have been evil-aligned for pushing you down a shaft, and doubly so for the gelatinous cube. The DM should have spoken to that player out of game and told him to stop being such a jerk. Actually, he should have just booted him from the game for that. The fact that the dingus is experienced and that he should know better only means that he's going to keep doing this stuff.

This.

The problem with paladin isn't that "OH GREAT MORALITY POLICE NOW WE HAVE TO ALL BE LAWFUL GOOD." The problem with paladin is that some players see it as an obscene challenge to be the biggest dickhead they can. You can be neutral in a party with a paladin. Sure, you might find being evil to be problematic, but quite frankly if you're just twisting your moustache while killing random people and talking about how EVIL and RANDOM you are, you should be sucker punched in real life.

And this.

This response is, quite possibly, the worst definition of neutral alignment I have ever seen in the history of gaming.

And this too.

Kill them. They aren't expecting it.

No, seriously, they've shown themselves to be evil and harboring evil. Both of them should be dropped to it for killing unarmed, surrendered prisoners. It's your duty to uphold the law and the good. Kill them. It's perfectly in character and you know it'll make you feel good OoCly when they whine about it off the game, and you can just smile and say "Choices and consequences. Maybe next time you'll think things through."

But especially THIS.

Playing "the good guy" does not mean you have to be spineless. If you are openly and fiercely opposed to evil, and your companions are behaving in an evil manner, well...they have made a dangerous enemy.

I say arrest them for murder, and hand them over to the authorities. If they resist, kill them. If they escape, hunt them down and kill them. If they overpower you, return to your Order, gather reinforcements, hunt them down, and kill them. Send a clear message to all such "neutral" people across the land, that evil deeds will be answered with swift justice.

Don't just be a paladin. Be a badass paladin.

 

[kk14]

I'm being little defensive about my game here. I hope Simm doesn't take any drastic action like leaving, but that is entirely up to him.
I don't think that alignment differences (or differing opinions of an alignment) make for a bad game. 3K073jMSi6 is allowed his version of the neutral alignment, but it may or may not apply that way in my game, depending on if it agrees with mine. In general I try not to limit characters' actions, and kicking them out of the game for making decisions that are stupid seems wrongheaded, and so does kicking them out for disagreeing with or going against a paladin's ideals (which is, let's face it, pretty easy, and not uncommon).


I want to entertain some debate about Ioun's principles, because I am unsure if my version (below) makes sense.
To my mind the reason Ioun would be mad is because there was a person captured for the sake of information, which the cleric allowed to be killed, and then hid the fact. To my mind this makes the cleric in violation of his tenets twice: first, when he deliberately allowed the removal of an important source of information to the party (perhaps shaky ground there...), and secondly for keeping secrets (from his friends and party members) which Ioun is directly opposed to. The CDG was actually passed accross the table in a note, with the Warlock and Cleric's written discussion on the issue above. (Which was actually a pretty funny discussion...)

I believe that 3K073jMSi6 is joking about the Geneva convention. But his point is that Good characters should uphold the ideals presented in the convention, whether or not it exists in game.

 

[Loonook]

I'm being little defensive about my game here. I hope Simm doesn't take any drastic action like leaving, but that is entirely up to him.
I don't think that alignment differences (or differing opinions of an alignment) make for a bad game. 3K073jMSi6 is allowed his version of the neutral alignment, but it may or may not apply that way in my game. In general try not to limit characters' actions, and kicking them out of the game for making decisions that are stupid seems wrongheaded, and so does kicking them out for disagreeing with or going against a paladin's ideals (which is, let's face it, pretty easy, and not uncommon).

...

I believe that 3K073jMSi6 is joking about the Geneva convention. But his point is that Good characters should uphold the ideals presented in the convention, whether or not it exists in game.

If you're finding it very easy to break a paladin's tenets... you're doing it wrong. Lawful good != Lawful Stupid or Lawful Uptight.

Simm, considering the DM himself is rolling over on this one... again, I reiterate, for your sake and mine, find a group where it isn't 'HAHAHA paladins SUCK! LET'S KILL HOSTAGES!'

This whole group is on cool cruise control.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[CleverNickName]

Well, did you game this weekend? How did things turn out?

 

[NN]

My suggestion.

Have a word with the warlock player.

"I want to play a Paladin. Can you play your Warlock in such a way that we both have fun?

Ie.

- Dont prat around (eg the pit incident)
- Keep your characters "evil deeds" secret from my character
- Accept that if my character discovers your character doing something really bad, they will fight.

If you cant accept these conditions: fine, I will start again with a new PC.

If you do agree to them, but then break them deliberately or without discussing OOC, I will "IRL" be really offended.

"

 

[Mallus]

Have a word with the warlock player.

"I want to play a Paladin. Can you play your Warlock in such a way that we both have fun?

This.

Though I'd add "And help me figure out how can I keep from stepping on your Warlock's toes".