Dragon Article: To Live Defeated

[zoroaster100]

I liked the article. It does its job of sparking the imagination for alternatives to death as a punishment for a villain. Sure, anyone could think up all these alternates on their own, but this article makes sure one considers the breadth of options for those alternatives and the fact that it's o.k. to allow them as an alternate to death when the foe is brought to 0 hp without requiring special mechanics like rituals, magic items, spells, etc.

 

[Imaro]

I liked the article. It does its job of sparking the imagination for alternatives to death as a punishment for a villain. Sure, anyone could think up all these alternates on their own, but this article makes sure one considers the breadth of options for those alternatives and the fact that it's o.k. to allow them as an alternate to death when the foe is brought to 0 hp without requiring special mechanics like rituals, magic items, spells, etc.

Emphasis mine... See this is the part I'm not so sure about, I actually would've liked to see some mechanics... as LostSoul brought up earlier... what happens when players start trying to peform these things outside of 0 hp's ? There are going to be issues that many inexperienced DM's & players (and really that's who I feel like this article is probably for) will run into. Perhaps advice along the lines of what to do in those types of situations would have been a good idea as well.

 

[Scribble]

I thought, in general, we showed how bad some of these actions were by regulating said actions to the villains and others who are not heroes in our adventures... and then letting our players give them their just desserts as well as take their stuff because of said actions.

Sure- but as the famous cliche goes... There's more then one way to skin a cat?

I think they're also (obvious with the inclusion of books like Heros of Shadow, and the Assassin class) starting to open up the game to products that appeal to the anti-hero types.

Aside from that- sometimes it's more effective when someone experiences something themselves rather then seeing it happen to another (see below.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is... why do I need to pay for an article to encourage my PC's to become torturers or mutilaters in order to turn around and punish them for drawing on said article as inspiration (when it is an "official" D&D article)... in order to show them why these are "bad" actions? Just seems a little... pointless, when that's the point of villains.

Well- for starters, as this is a hobby, you don't really NEED to pay for anything if you don't want it.

It's an article full of ideas, and you can make use of them, or not make use of them in whatever way you want.

If it's not your cup of tea, it's not your cup of tea. Not every article in Dragon Dungeon is mine, but I appreciate that others enjoy it- and sometimes later on down the line in a different set/setting the ideas work better.


Finally- I think you're kind of taking my comment a little out of context as well. I was touching on what Firelance said, about reading about the punishments, and actively being the one to dole them out (all in the context of gaming with your kids...)

In that sense, I've always found that experiencing something is a better teaching aid then just reading about it, as experience tends to give me a better feel for "why" something is the way it is, as opposed to someone just telling me.

So in that context, explaining to someone why something is bad through experience that won't REALLY harm someone, is in my opinion a great teaching aid.

 

[Scribble]

Emphasis mine... See this is the part I'm not so sure about, I actually would've liked to see some mechanics... as LostSoul brought up earlier... what happens when players start trying to peform these things outside of 0 hp's ? There are going to be issues that many inexperienced DM's & players (and really that's who I feel like this article is probably for) will run into. Perhaps advice along the lines of what to do in those types of situations would have been a good idea as well.

I think it's fine to have some things that don't have mechanics attached to it. Obsession with mechanics gets on my nerves.

In my own game I do things like this all the time. If you want to do something that increases the "cool" of the game- we'll make it work, as long as you're not trying to game the system...

I think that ties into what I think is the BEST part of table top gaming. The human element. The DM is there to selectively arbitrate grey areas and actions a computer just can't do.

And again- as I said earlier I think people don't give newbies enough credit.

We figured it out with the mixmashed mess of rules in the past- they will to. It's part of the fun of it all (and in my opinion teaches you a valuable lesson about working with others who don't always have the same point of view as you!)

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's probably a fine line, but at least to me, there is a difference between reading or hearing about some terrible punishment meted out to the bad guy, and actually having your in-game avatar mete out said punishment. It's similar to (though not exactly the same as) the difference between agreeing that a murderer is worthy of death and actually being the one to chop his head off.

There's more than one psychological experiment that traipses into dark territory about this. There's something about the agency involved here that is especially on the troubling side. I would have serious concerns about a player who was really happy about some of these things, and it would make the table kind of an uneasy place.

It's actually a place uniquely suited to role-playing games, too. Computer games, fairy tales, and cartoons don't give you the same agency that a game like D&D does.

To me, those more disturbing options play into the whole "Book of Erotic Fantasy" place for me. It's Fade-to-Black material. I don't want vivid descriptions of gouging out eyes any more than I want FATAL wang circumference rules. It's not something I want PC's gleefully doing to their foes, because it goes beyond mere role-playing into some more troubling territory. If D&D is partially about fantasy fulfillment, I'm not sure I want to play the game with people whose fantasy is to humiliate, mutilate, and maim their enemies in great detail. That's Not Fun for me, and those who it is great fun for I would probably not feel very comfortable with.

I could see a little bit in some niche character concepts, but I don't think there needs to be a lot there.

And I say this as someone who is quite comfortable with dark material (see, for ex, that story in my status!).

I don't think the article overall is especially disturbing, but I really wonder about the author...

...and about a D&D game that on the one hand, dismisses evil PC's because of an emphasis on the HEROIC, but embraces this stuff....

 

[KidSnide]

I'm not sure I have a problem with this list, I just think they left off most of the non-violent canonical alternatives.

For example, why didn't they include "cowed and will never bother good people again", "now disarmed, admits to your superior skill and honorably surrenders", "with her followers dead, will never be able to assemble another evil cult / criminal enterprise" or "seeing their evil leader destroyed, will turn back to the ways of goodness and light"?

Allowing PCs to be certain that they have permanently convinced a group of bandits to switch to another line of work seems like an excellent solution to this sort of problem. Obviously, this sort of thing only works in campaigns with the right tone, but that's true of over all the solutions here.

Sure, killing monsters is all well and good. But don't many games include a number of poor schmucks who have gotten themselves caught up in an evil scheme (you know... "minions")? Nobody's going to get worked up if a bunch of duped cultists get killed in the sorry consequences of their own bad decisions, but that doesn't meaning blinding, maiming or executing them needs to be Plan A.

-KS

 

[Almacov]

I think what might do worlds more good than covering the topic the way the article has would be:

-Encouraging DMs to play NPCs realistically: have it so some will strategically surrender or flee when they know things have turned against them, and allow conversation if they do surrender.

-Saying it's okay to allow dying states for NPCs below zero HP occasionally. Whether these are handled the same way as PC dying states or not, they present more interesting character questions and options.

Letting things play out organically can be much more exciting and interesting than more binary solutions.

---------

(As a side note, when it comes to the "Promoting PC evil!" controversy, I personally don't mind them covering darker options in Dragon, as each group has a different position on the matter. Granted, it might be better if they looked at these actions both from the perspective of a PC and an NPC comitting them. In any case, morality shouldn't necessarily be hardwired into the rules structure of the game.
That's not to say it can't occasionally be discussed in the context of the game or explored through it though, and there's definitely a place for an article or two focusing on how NPCs in the world might react to the knowledge that PCs have commited questionable acts.
Perhaps even one talking about PC to PC interactions regarding moral issues.)

 

[LostSoul]

I think it's fine to have some things that don't have mechanics attached to it. Obsession with mechanics gets on my nerves.

I think this article makes following the mechanics obsessively more likely.

Example: You just killed a guy. The DM pulls out a list of things you can do to him. You decide to put him in your own little demi-plane for re-education. Later on, the rogue is going to die. "Why don't you put me into your own little demi-plane? That way you can bring me back out when the coast is clear."

The DM says no (because he should, it breaks the game) and then players realize that they can only do the things that the rules say they can. They obsess over mechanics because colour has no influence on resolution.

 

[Bold or Stupid]

I think this article makes following the mechanics obsessively more likely.

Example: You just killed a guy. The DM pulls out a list of things you can do to him. You decide to put him in your own little demi-plane for re-education. Later on, the rogue is going to die. "Why don't you put me into your own little demi-plane? That way you can bring me back out when the coast is clear."

The DM says no (because he should, it breaks the game) and then players realize that they can only do the things that the rules say they can. They obsess over mechanics because colour has no influence on resolution.

No, the DM says "Yes, of course you can, but it'll take a ritual costing 500/5000/50000 Gp to pull him out of there before the Demiplane is ready to spit him out."

No actual mechanical effect and the same is true of the villian. At least that's my way of looking at it.

 

[Imaro]

No, the DM says "Yes, of course you can, but it'll take a ritual costing 500/5000/50000 Gp to pull him out of there before the Demiplane is ready to spit him out."

No actual mechanical effect and the same is true of the villian. At least that's my way of looking at it.

Uhm...sooo you just created specific mechanics for it (a ritual)?? How does this solve the problem...and really I hate this sort of passive denial. Yes...but, the price is too high and you don't have the specific knowledge necessary... equates to "No"... so why not just be honest and say no?

I think it's fine to have some things that don't have mechanics attached to it. Obsession with mechanics gets on my nerves.

IMO good mechanics, when tied to the world, can make this type of inconsistency (this only works when I do it to villains??) and passive denial (on the DM's part) unnecessary. For me, some of these punishments shouldn't be attainable just through description in heroic tier... and a few even seem like they would be soleley punishments only epic heroes should have the power to meet out. A good rules framework is what I want so that I can implement my own ideas... not ideas that I have tofigure out how to implement mechanically.

In my own game I do things like this all the time. If you want to do something that increases the "cool" of the game- we'll make it work, as long as you're not trying to game the system...

And that is great for your personal home game... but honestly... "ideas" are a dime a dozen, IMO. It is the "good" implementation of ideas into the rules set that most pay for. If your answer is just handwave it... well you can decide to do that regardless of whether there are actual rules or not... I dont think the WotC rules police will force you to use things you don't want to. However, having to create a rules structure for "ideas" that I paid for is not something I, or I would bet many other older gamers, have time for.

I think that ties into what I think is the BEST part of table top gaming. The human element. The DM is there to selectively arbitrate grey areas and actions a computer just can't do

Well taking this logic to an extreme... you really don't need rules at all... the DM can just adjudicate everything... But again I don't think most people want to pay for ideas without implementation.

And again- as I said earlier I think people don't give newbies enough credit.

We figured it out with the mixmashed mess of rules in the past- they will to. It's part of the fun of it all (and in my opinion teaches you a valuable lesson about working with others who don't always have the same point of view as you!)

So we don't give them enough credit... yet we have an article of ideas that most of us could've thought up when we were like 12... and no mechanical implementation. That's the hard part, not imagining or stealing from media punishments for villains, but figuring out a way to implement it into the game in a balanced and fair way.