Dragon Article: To Live Defeated

[MrMyth]

That said, I am sure that must be a ritual to cure blindness or something.

Sidebar: "The Remove Affliction ritual is a common means by which characters free themselves from ailments like those they are able to inflict. It should not be so easy for the characters’ enemies to escape these punishments when the heroes choose to apply them. As with enemies the heroes imprison or kill, the DM should see that these conditions are overcome only—if ever—as the story demands it."

For myself, I like the concept of the article - reminding players that there are other options than killing enemies is good.

But I'm very disappointed with the execution, so to speak. (No pun intended).

The biggest thing is that the article just needs a lot more guidance. Reminders to the players that these results are at DM discretion. Labels on what sort of characters might be able to pull these off - Transmogrification might suggest a Paragon level caster, Torn from History might suggest an Epic level hero. These don't need to be absolute requirements, but at least some hints as to when these are appropriate - rather than putting this up there and letting all sorts of players suddenly come to the game with expectations that are going to be completely shut down by many DMs.

Similarly, disclaimers that these are suggestions, not absolutes. A blinded enemy might end up begging on the streets - or the DM might bring him back in a different role. Honestly, I'd have liked a lot more suggestions, and lot less of Peter Schaefer's personal stories. He should be inspiring people with ideas, not laying out absolute results that, again, will cause players frustration when the DM takes a different direction than the article suggests.

Finally, the issue of the evil punishments. Ok, I recognize some campaigns could use these. But they should absolutely be labelled as evil, and players given some sign - any sign! - that consigning someone to being tortured for eternity is not a good act. Crippling and maiming someone, in the horrific fashions described here? Sometimes that is not ok, and it is downright irresponsible for the author to not have addressed this at all.

Overall, good flavor and concept for the article, but I would have liked a lot more responsibility on the author's behalf in providing advice for how it should be actually used in a game. Tossing these ideas out haphazardly is a real disappointment.

 

[Scribble]

Finally, the issue of the evil punishments. Ok, I recognize some campaigns could use these. But they should absolutely be labelled as evil, and players given some sign - any sign! - that consigning someone to being tortured for eternity is not a good act. Crippling and maiming someone, in the horrific fashions described here? Sometimes that is not ok, and it is downright irresponsible for the author to not have addressed this at all.

By saying this though, it seems like you are taking the stance (if unintentional) that while YOU are smart enough to understand this, most people aren't... I don't think you're intentionally trying to say this, but that's how it reads. :-/

I think most people who play D&D don't need as much hand holding as people on the boards claim. (And part of the fun is figuring it all out to begin with...)

Aside from that, good vrs evil has been one of the most re-occurring topics of all time on this board I'd think... If the author had included definite "These are Evil!!!" tags, I bet we'd simply see a bunch of arguments on the boards about whether or not the author knew what he/she was talking about.

Good/Evil is such a grey area that I say, just let the article stand, and let the individual gaming groups choose what's good and what's evil.

 

[MrMyth]

By saying this though, it seems like you are taking the stance (if unintentional) that while YOU are smart enough to understand this, most people aren't... I don't think you're intentionally trying to say this, but that's how it reads. :-/

Well, not necessarily claiming anything based on smarts, but I definitely think different people will read content like that differently - and D&D is still played by folks of all ages. I can absolutely think of folks I know from LFR and other environments who might read an article like this and think, "Hey, cool!" without considering that it might not be appropriate stuff in some games - and getting frustrated when their next DM doesn't let them do it, or has severe consequences for it, etc.

I think most people who play D&D don't need as much hand holding as people on the boards claim. (And part of the fun is figuring it all out to begin with...)

Aside from that, good vrs evil has been one of the most re-occurring topics of all time on this board I'd think... If the author had included definite "These are Evil!!!" tags, I bet we'd simply see a bunch of arguments on the boards about whether or not the author knew what he/she was talking about.

Maybe, maybe not. Again, I'm not saying the article should have some of these with "Requirement: You must be evil to do this", or such. But some sort of guidance, any sort of disclaimer - something saying, "Hey, some of these actions can be considered evil acts, some of these things may have in-game consequences, you really need to discuss all this thoroughly with your DM before the session." That's really what I'm looking for - just more advice on actually using this, and making sure players go into it working alongside their DM, and have a complete sense of what's going on.

Like UngeheuerLich says, I think this would have been much better if specifically targeted at DMs, rather than players. Or presented as an Unearthed Arcana, or something along those lines.

 

[Almacov]

Moral questions aside:

This article seems flavourful, but not in any useful way.
The "mechanics" included to support these ideas are thoughtless and, well... silly.
This is just a list of nasty things a hypothetical fantasy hero could do to their enemy, with "HP zero? Okay, bend the laws of the universe as you wish!" tacked onto them.
There's also a sidebar basically saying "Oh, uh... you also might want to find a way to explain this or something. Yeah.".

If any flavour deserves being called fluff, this probably falls in that category.
From my perspective, the poorest Schaefer article I've read. I usually love his stuff.
I like creative freedom in RPGs, but this really doesn't do anything for me.

Okay, on second glance, maybe I'm just not the audience for this. I don't watch any animé regularly, and many of these, along with their mechanical "implementation" seem like tropes from certain animé/manga genres. (Or, uh... Mortal Kombat)
It's also possible that this meshes with someone else's preferred play style.
Hopefully people to whom these styles are more suited find the article enjoyable.

 

[Piratecat]

I like some of these. I can certainly see giving PCs a dagger that can petrify instead of kill if they choose; there's no functional difference to the enemy's effectiveness, and it opens the door to a later adventure when the petrification wears off. Think of the "immediately imprison" option. That's chilling, and knowing that the PCs have a staff that can eternally imprison a foe is going to make that PC inadvertently famous. Lots of plot hooks come from that.

And some of the alternatives are certainly realistic. Thieves were once routinely blinded or had their hands chopped off.

But... yeah. Lots of these are ones I'm really not a big fan of.

 

[aurance]

Why does there need to be a metagame warning? There are no longer mechanical consequences for supposed "alignment violations," only story ones. So let the PCs do what they want and the consequences fall where they may. Or if you as a DM are uncomfortable with it, just tell the players you don't want this stuff in your game. I don't think there's any necessity for "are you sure you want to do this? you might lose a level!" stuff at all.

 

[Aegeri]

This article was complete and absolute crap.

The article I actually wanted got delayed in the Executioner, while the other article Totems of the Far realm entirely disappeared. I can't remember if this was even on the calendar, but if they bother putting this into the compiled version I will be extremely disappointed. Did they just throw (vomit?) this up onto the front page at the last moment to just have something except a free excerpt up? Because seriously, I am actually convinced this is the worst Dragon article they've ever published. It replaces the Changeling article for being simply terrible.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'd have XP'd you for that wonderfully scathing review Aegeri, but alas, I must spread some around.

I haven't actually read this yet though, so I have nothing to add one way or the other. It was one of the ones I was looking forward to. Based on what's been said about it so far, I guess I should prepare for disappointment. :/

 

[phloog]

I guess I would disagree with the idea that you need a way to stop a villain from coming back to do more harm...for more on this read about 70% of the fiction I enjoyed as a child. Good folk SHOULD, if they don't dispatch the evil, jail it or take some other action that shows they are merciful and in fact "better" than the villain.

recurring villains are a good thing

 

[renau1g]

This article was complete and absolute crap.

The article I actually wanted got delayed in the Executioner, while the other article Totems of the Far realm entirely disappeared. I can't remember if this was even on the calendar, but if they bother putting this into the compiled version I will be extremely disappointed. Did they just throw (vomit?) this up onto the front page at the last moment to just have something except a free excerpt up? Because seriously, I am actually convinced this is the worst Dragon article they've ever published. It replaces the Changeling article for being simply terrible.

I agree with you Aegeri. This article was slated for the 22nd. This is worse than the changeling article that was IIRC a copy/paste from one of the Eberron supplements.

I was really excited when I saw the tagline, I thought, "Man, this may be awesome". My group always hates taking prisoners because we don't want enemies coming back to get us later (our DM does this often so we are now traumatized). I thought this would have some tips on either overcoming the issues players have, or giving something for the DM to do besides have the prisoner come back as a foe.