Search results

But the evidence we have is that they are not reasonable players - they turned a fistfight into a murder spree after all. So, "expedience" = "good"? And I'd dispute that there are no other ways to reliably resolve conflicts. There are lots of other ways to resolve conflicts than violence and...

preferred by a Dm who is dismayed that his players seem to want to be murderous thugs and still be considered "good". No, in game consequences, as long as they make sense, are the best way to go. They reinforce that the actions of the PCs have consequences, and that the players are free to...

No, he's actually wrong. He's correct that dueling was common. He's incorrect that dueling and other brutal activities were ever considered moral or good. One only has to look at the writings left to us by the wide variety of religious leaders condemning dueling, killing peasants, and other...

Yeah, because the nonevil response to someone flipping you off is to kill them. Seriously, killing someone who annoys or insults you because you are powerful enough to get away with it is pretty much a textbook definition of "evil" as described in the game books, and through most of western...

I think your knowledge of history leaves something to be desired. Almost every society condemned duels under almost all of these circumstances - and tightly controlled when those duels that were allowed were conducted. Even under Scandanavian pre-Christian culture when dueling was a way to gain...

Even if the agent did that. I can't think of any western society in which killing the agent of the ruler was ever considered a valid nonevil response in the circumstances described, even if they insulted someone. And in the case presented, it is hard to see an "honor" question in the situation...

Which is why the DM needs to not let things slide early, so the PCs will know what is considered good and what is considered evil. In the case at hand though, I'm not sure there has ever been a culture in which killing the chosen agent of the apparently nonevil king was ever considered anything...

Not according to the game rules - "good" is pretty much defined in the PHB. And the defiinition pretty much excludes killing people because they called you a poopy head. And even in the middle ages, it wasn't "good", and was clearly against the moral code of the dominant religion in Europe to...

Well yes, but given this group, that may be the preferred option. The real key is to never let things get to the point where the PCs expect you to excuse murderous mayhem. There probably should have been some consequences much eariler in the campaign which would have given the players feedback...

Yes, there are certainly people like that. No one is disputing that fact. Normally, however, we call those who kill people in response to an insult "evil". The fact that they are knights or nobles doesn't make their callous murdering ways any less evil.

Only unreasonable players would view it the way you have suggested, since it assumes all kinds of wacky mental contortions. The only truly reasonable interpretation a player could draw from the facts given is pretty much: "the government agent who is the arbiter of law and has the authority of...

The tyrant who we work for has an agent. Who is the arbitor of law. Who it has never been established at any point is evil. Or that the tyrant is evil. Or that the "tyrant" is, in fact, a tyrant, rather than just a run-of-the-mill fantasy king employing adventurers. But sure, this arbiter of the...

True. It actually sounds a lot better than what actually happened: "the government agent who is the arbiter of law and has the authority of the king, and who we have no reason to believe is evil or engaged in any wrongdoing, asked for his child to be turned over to him - kill him!".

What do you mean "tempt them to do evil"? They don't need tempting. Attacking and killing people because they are rude to you pretty much gets you there. Attacking and killing an envoy of the ruler because he asked to claim his child makes sure you are way over the line (unless, for some odd...

I'm in the middle of a Clarke run. Just finished Glide Path. Currently, I'm on A Fall of Moondust. After that Dolphin Island. Then, more Clarke.

If you want to read the "classics" of Clarke's lexicon, then start with 2001, Rendezvous With Rama, The Fountains of Paradise, Childhood's End, and Imperial Earth.

Network meddling had a major part in killing Crusade - there is an infamous points letter in which, among other things, a network executive stated that JMS should look to professional wrestling as a guide for how to write action scenes and develop characters through conflict. The network also...

I often see claims like this and have to point out that this sentiment is simply off-base. LotR had serious movie development interest long before D&D was even a glimmer of a thought in Gygax and Arneson's minds. Both LotR and The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe were sought after movie...

Well, maybe. While it is important to give Gygax his due, I don't think even he would have denied that D&D followed the rise in popularity of fantasy fiction rather than preceded it. In point of fact, much of D&D wouldn't exist had it not been for the fantasy fiction antecedents: the Dying Earth...

No, it was actually intended to follow 2e AD&D as a continuation of the AD&D line of products. The designers were quite clear about why the "A" tag was dropped, but also clear that they were building on what was the previously called the AD&D line. You may not like the decisions they made, but...