Bring 'Um Back Alive?

[MarkB]

Oh, sure, because there is nobody in the D&D world who'd throw over a tyrant. These sort of things happen exactly as frequently as in reality. Nevermind, I don't know, the six adventurers per square meter in every tavern.
Now really, it's silly to say that totalitarianism works the same way it does in our world. In D&D, there are powerful people who sell their swords, murder by the thousands or play the hero and get away with it without trouble. There is magic in the air. Divinations get by every mundane wall. Guilds, houses and organizations scheme endlessly. And all of them will have adventurers only their payroll if they know what's good for them. A king needs good publicity at least among the people of his kind. Respect from his peers, his church, his family, those of similar alignment, whichever. One wrong step in the wrong direction, only one more enemy than what his own adventurers can take on, and he's as good as dead. None will see them coming.
The king may not realize that(my whole 'only laid back people can think of this crap' theory is responsible for this assumption), but clerics have positive Wisdom modifiers. They will keep the idiot safe at least from themselves. Unless his demise could turn out to be useful, naturally. Yay for intrigue.

Right, because whoever heard of successful tyrannical regimes in any D&D setting?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm pretty sure the king has a "rezzer" on staff. On the other hand, I'm sure he's going to cancel the contract on groups that keep needing it. Bringing him something dead is basically admitting to failure.

 

[Dozen]

Right, because whoever heard of successful tyrannical regimes in any D&D setting?

Of course there are.(And great loss it would be if they weren't! The regime has to exist for the heroes to save the world!) What's your point? I didn't say there aren't any. I said they are more careful out of necessity.

 

[MarkB]

Delete

 

[Dozen]

Delete

Not fair Getting me all worked up, then you won't use your accidental doublepost to talk back to me! Who am I going to argue with tonight? *proceeds to huff*

 

[Dandu]

Dozen, you are coming up with very specific objections to my idea based on how things would operate in a game world you are not part of and have no knowledge of.

Also historically, tyranny and oppression has been the most common form of government throughout human history. They don't get overthrown as often as you'd think, not even in the modern age.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Now I have no idea where this thread went.

This is all conceptual stuff for either a portion of a campaign or a series of adventures for fun. King, no king, zoo, no zoo, government, etc, wasn't really my point. I used the king & zoo concept as a framework for my question, which was "How would you play if your objective was not to kill, but to capture and keep alive creatures?

Feeding them, containing them, keeping them from those who wish to take them from you, or kill the abominations you are trying to keep alive, retaining the fay when the creature's kin try to mount a rescue to free her (Yes, in a sense you're a slave trader, not for the Lawful Good alignment!). How might players design an character and use tactics differently when you can't win by just killin stuff.

That was the point of this thread.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The Shrink Item spell is your friend. Get as much of the gear shrunk, saving encumbrance. Then, on top of that, shrunken taps can also be effective.

 

[Dozen]

Also historically, tyranny and oppression has been the most common form of government throughout human history. They don't get overthrown as often as you'd think, not even in the modern age.

Where do you get these ludicrous ideas? When did I say they are often overthrown? Bullpies. With adventurers on both side? Nothing remotely relating to adventurers is ever easy, and throwing over a government is hard by definition. If anything, it only became harder, what with the king's parties having the advantage of familiar ground.
And you're talking about me having no knowledge of the world? You're ignoring what you know, rather. OP wants to mess around the hard way, not raise them from the dead.

"How would you play if your objective was not to kill, but to capture and keep alive creatures?

But I didn't say what you said has nothing to do with the topic. No, I sat down and tried to argue with you properly. I argued RUMBLETiGER's idea makes sense and yours doesn't. And all I got in trade is bullsh*tting.
I'm trying to put the thread back on rails, and everyone gets butthurt because that's not what they wanted, then outing me as a hypocrite to boost their ego instead of admitting they're wrong, or hey, disprove what I'm saying based on logic and knowledge instead of more baseless accusations and trick questions than you see on Fox News. "Winning" an argument when you make sense is just as satisfying, try it. You could might as well turn out to be right, but we won't find out until you're pointing your fingers at me and expect me to not bite them off! I'm not someone you're supposed to pick a fight with. Nor am I picking a fight with you, no matter how much you'd like me to.
I did agree that stealing the scrolls of Raise Dead would be fun though. Let's compromise, if this hypothetical campaign gets on our table - and I'd have no problem playing with you, as long as I'm not the DM. Your trolling skills and book mastery frighten me -, we'll do both, depending on which is more logical at the moment.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Skills might play a more important role in such a campaign- hello, wizards, rogues & rangers- especially KS, History, Survival...anything dealing with habitats of targeted critters.

Alchemical and other nonlethal weapons would be of greater importance. Of special use would be tanglefoot bags, debilitating gas grenades, etc.- get your sling handy!