Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 1262839" data-attributes="member: 99">I think you're right about that but you assume that behavior takes place in a vacuum.  If the typical session goes like:DM:  "You see someone up ahead at the edge of your torch light."Wizard: "Cloudkill!"...then yes, somebody who is "innocent" or at least may not have had ill intentions toward the party is going to get Cloudkilled.  But that is not what happened.  Nor did the OP imply that the Wizard has made a habit of arbitrarily Cloudkilling everthing in sight.If the DM had described the Dark Elf as having peeked through the wall and looked on in horror as if just seeing the Retrievers for the first time, then yes, it was rash.  If the Dark Elf had been described as looking pleased that the party was fighting the Retrievers or motioned to the party that he wanted their attention or aid, then yes, it was rash.  But we have no indication that any of that happened.It seems at least as likely that the Dark Elf was one of the Bad Guys who peeked out and saw what was happening, said to himself, "Crap.  They're killing our Retrievers out here.  I better get some help." and went to get that help.  I'm not saying that that scenario is certain but I think that's where the smart money is, all else being equal.I think it is perfectly fine for the Exalted character to require a greater burden of proof for someone's vileness before HE goes performing an action that is potentially fatal to them.  But if he's going to mandate that his code of ethics must be adhered to by all party members then that's what I call a "problem character".</blockquote>

Verification