Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Milagroso" data-source="post: 3680248" data-attributes="member: 32058">I agree with the majority of the posters here in that Tyr would recognize that justice, in all of its cold irony, would have been met. Both clerics make a valid point, but I don't think Tyr would have cared one way or the other. If the other players were enjoying the argument, I don't see a problem with letting the discussion go on for as long as necessary for both parties to reach an amicable solution. However, if the other players didn't feel like sitting through it, I would have asked the players to take a vote. If none of them wanted to take sides we could have asked for one of the clerics to cast Augury. If none of the players could cast Augury, one solution would be to have each cleric take a few minutes (a predetermined amount, like say 3-5 minutes for each) to state their case without interruption and then assign a point based system to each based off of how well they made their case, and how well they did it in character. For each valid point and in character comment made, a point is assigned. At the end of the debate the cleric who scored the most points would have won the arguments - it would have been assumed that their was a vote and all party members agreed to side with the winner. Meh, I don't know. That idea just came to me, but I myself would ahve just asked for the group to take a vote.Anyway, I wish I could have been there for that. Sounded like a good RP moment.Also, by chopping off the goblins heads, you do make it harder (if not impossible) for a random Necromancer to reanimate the goblin corpses since the body has to be whole and intact for that to work.</blockquote>

Verification