General Discussion Thread IX

[Pbartender]

The railroady "happy ending" precedent was set and we are stuck - that to me is the travesty.

Oh, I don't know if I'd call it a travisty, but as I said above, I was less than happy about how I handled that... I was a bit frazzled over the whole thing, and I posted quicker than I thought.

I could have achieved the same result, but with much better style, had I been thinking straight. It's not uncommon in spaghetti westerns for the sheriff to throw a pair of barroom brawlers together into the same jail cell and force them to live with each other for a few days... Either they make up, or they kill each other, which is what I was aiming for. Unfortunately, it came off a bit after-school-special-ly and by the time I realized it, it was too late.

As you have been so fond of pointing out, the judges here are just as fallible as anyone else. Oh well. Such is the cost of responsibility. We all do our best. Move along.


As for the rest...

It doesn't bother me a bit. As Patlin said, I don't see why the city wouldn't keep a special eye on the RDI. With all the treasure from adventurers flowing through the city, there's no reason it wouldn't have the resources. It only makes sense.

The RDI is a good way for the city to keep all its most dangerous citizens concentated in one spot. Plus, it's already been established that there are other parts of the city that are just as dangerous and lawless as you suggest -- the harbor and dockside area is especially so. Had that particular scene happened there, one would have probably killed other other in a dark alley and dumped the body in the harbor.

With this particular fight, I was looking at it from two viewpoints, as far as the city guard was concerned. First, "out of sight, out of mind"... If the two had quietly met on the beach, and killed each other the guards wouldn't have cared. But once they made a scene in broad daylight in front of muliple witnesses, the guards ar forced to do something about it or else they look stupid. Second, "keep it between yourselves"... Adventurers, especially spellcasters, are dangerous to bystanders with single digit hitpoints. Any fight starting up in the middle of a crowded city street between adventurers needs to be stopped quickly, before some poor kid and his puppy dog get killed.

So anyway... With regards to local law enforcement -- Sure, I can see Orussus as an analogue of a town from the American Old West. But I see it more as a bustling old west city like San Fransisco or Reno with safe areas and dangerous areas, rather than town like Tombstone or Calamity Gulch where people get gunned down in the street and no one takes notice.


Anyway... It's hard to avoid, but I'm not really interested in arguing about it. Not really then. Not really now.

I only thought you might like to see that, except for the knee-jerk "stop acting like a pair of preschool children" ending, there was a modicum of thought and reasoning behind the series of events.

 

[Manzanita]

Think back on your least favorite PbP experience.

For me, its easy. It's the times I've had to put up with a really obnoxious PC. For this reason, I think its vital that PC vs. PC combat be allowed.

PCs should be free to act within their character, and they should be made to take the consequences of their actions. Any metagame rule that restricts PC action, forcing the player to play his/her PC in a way other than that which logic and character would dictate, is a lousy rule. Since incidents will inevitably occur that will lead PCs to want to fight, we should allow this to happen.

Whichever DM is in charge of the adventure should adjudicate. If this combat takes place in the RDI, the tavern coordinator should adjudicate. The DM can then handle it however he/she wishes, probably in coordination with the adventure judge. At times this will lead to PC death, but that's how it goes. Other times, the DM/judge will feel it appropriate to intervene to prevent anyone's death, as Pbartender did. I was impressed with his quick and definitive response at the time and I have no critisism of it now.

By allowing PvP, Paladins can feel free to pursue evil whereever they find it. Evil, or obnoxious PCs, can insult or attack others if they see fit. In general, if a PC 'asks for it', I think he/she should get it. However, if a PC is trying to avoid combat, or is attacked without provocation, the DM/judge should give him a chance somehow, just as no reputable DM would have a PC be killed w/o giving him a chance to escape. The details should be left to the DM.

In summary, I feel the only way to avoid really obnoxious PCs is to legalize PvP. Outlawing it is a license for someone to ruin the game.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I agree with basically everything Manzanita said except for this one:

Paladins can feel free to pursue evil whereever they find it

I disagree--Paladins should not have license to just walk in, detect, and smite. We've had some very polite evil characters in LEW who weren't looking for a fight, and we've had some incredibly obnoxious LG characters (wasn't the obnoxious wizard in the example LG?). It's obnoxiousness and belligerance, as you addressed in the rest of your post quite correctly, that need to have PvP as an outlet.

 

[Manzanita]

I agree with basically everything Manzanita said except for this one:



I disagree--Paladins should not have license to just walk in, detect, and smite. We've had some very polite evil characters in LEW who weren't looking for a fight, and we've had some incredibly obnoxious LG characters (wasn't the obnoxious wizard in the example LG?). It's obnoxiousness and belligerance, as you addressed in the rest of your post quite correctly, that need to have PvP as an outlet.

This is, I'm sure you'll agree, a gray area. At what point is a paladin justified in attacking an evil being? The DM should ensure that no PC is essentially summarily executed by another PC, just as it is a DM's responsibility to make sure the PCs have a chance to live in any other encounter. A paladin who attacks evil on sight (or divine sight) won't live long. Having a IC deterrant for behavior is more effective, I think, that some metagame rule that 'paladins (or whomever) shouldn't do so & so.'

 

[Rystil Arden]

This is, I'm sure you'll agree, a gray area.

I agree with that for certain, 100%. It's an issue that is very divisive, and you can look in the general forum to see recent threads on just such an issue, with many GMs weighing in on both sides (check the thread on masking alignment). It seems that the majority of GMs believe that Detect-n-Smite is not okay, but a vocal, strong minority believe otherwise, and they have strong arguments on their side too. Considering that we undoubtably have GMs on both sides in LEW, this becomes even more of an issue, to the point that I would be afraid to take away paladin powers in LEW even for something I consider a gross violation because I know other GMs might not.

(I don't have any paladins in my games, but I actually e-mailed some people once when a cleric in my game had taken an act that, while not evil, seemed to me to be totally against the professed religion (killing a friendly monster that was protecting an orphan who called it a 'Doggie', which I would assume most clerics of Mongrel would take as a sign from the deity or possibly a manifestation of Mongrel), though in the end I didn't do anything)

Either way, since letting the Paladin do a Detect-n-Smite in the middle of the RDI, for instance, without consent of the other character, is clearly the more radical action, I would suggest that IC or OOC, we explicitly not allow it.

 

[DerHauptman]

I agree with that for certain, 100%. It's an issue that is very divisive, and you can look in the general forum to see recent threads on just such an issue, with many GMs weighing in on both sides (check the thread on masking alignment). It seems that the majority of GMs believe that Detect-n-Smite is not okay, but a vocal, strong minority believe otherwise, and they have strong arguments on their side too. Considering that we undoubtably have GMs on both sides in LEW, this becomes even more of an issue, to the point that I would be afraid to take away paladin powers in LEW even for something I consider a gross violation because I know other GMs might not.....

.....Either way, since letting the Paladin do a Detect-n-Smite in the middle of the RDI, for instance, without consent of the other character, is clearly the more radical action, I would suggest that IC or OOC, we explicitly not allow it.

If I were to ever play a paladin, not happened in 25 years, but it could still happen yea? I'd be pissed if an arbitrary "lets all play nice" type rule took away one of the choices from my character. Just as pissed if I was told I couldn't spit cuss and push people around with my CE orc character. I say let em play and let the chips fall where they lay.

Detect and smite is just a just a surprise round I guess that is unless the other player gets a chance to see the Pally-gobber draw steel. Same as if my thief (dating myself there a bit huh?) character just decided to off another player in RDI for the hell of it.

Could and should be allowed to happen. I won't do it and it'd be a sure way to get put on the dick of the week list for a newcomer but hey this is a simulated real world - bad things happen.

I say if we are going to go to great lengths to commit the resources of the city of Ossirus to helping protect the masses then say if you are murdered in the RDI Joe pays to bring you back - sort of an anti law suit type insurance he has to keep people coming back if the mighty Gort fails. Cause as quick as ole Bront can make Gort seem I'd say adjudicated fairly he might not make it to the rescue sometimes. Unless he's in Bront's fiat all the time - thats a fast damn thing that fiat. Nah on the other hand he'll always be in the car I bet.

Just let people play and leave all the railroady "you will play nice and we can make you" type rules at home.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I say if we are going to go to great lengths to commit the resources of the city of Ossirus to helping protect the masses then say if you are murdered in the RDI Joe pays to bring you back - sort of an anti law suit type insurance he has to keep people coming back if the mighty Gort fails.

I suppose that works--better than losing a character you spent several years playing to the caprice of another player in the in-between-games inn thread (imagine if someone kept making 1st-level characters with 18 Strength and a Scythe who attacked Rinaldo in the inn, hoping to crit and kill him on a Power Attack and steal all his stuff, or something like that). As I said, IC or OOC, either way is fine with me. I would also expect the Paladin who struck out like that on a Detect-n-Smite to be executed for unprovoked murder. Certainly if I played the murdered character, I would press charges after being raised.

 

[Rystil Arden]

By the way, I thought I'd make my bias clear on the matter in case it wasn't already--I believe the paladin cannot just detect and smite wantonly without proof of evil acts. That person with a moderate evil aura might be a level 2 Lawful Neutral priest of a Lawful Evil deity who has never committed an evil act in her life and follows a different path than is typical for her deity.

 

[DerHauptman]

I suppose that works--better than losing a character you spent several years playing to the caprice of another player in the in-between-games inn thread (imagine if someone kept making 1st-level characters with 18 Strength and a Scythe who attacked Rinaldo in the inn, hoping to crit and kill him on a Power Attack and steal all his stuff, or something like that). As I said, IC or OOC, either way is fine with me. I would also expect the Paladin who struck out like that on a Detect-n-Smite to be executed for unprovoked murder. Certainly if I played the murdered character, I would press charges after being raised.

Absolutely, the difference is the players get to chose their actions instead of just disallowing it in the first place. Freedom of action man, freedom of action. We can fix it for the victim afterwords (no harm no foul) then the players deal with their actions in game as they should.

 

[Bront]

I disagree--Paladins should not have license to just walk in, detect, and smite.

They don't. Walking into a room, finding the "evil" person, and killing them is not only against the law in most cases (Assuming they weren't wanted dead or alive already), but is also not very civil nor acceptable behavior for a paladin, and I'd drop his paladin status right there if one ever did such a thing.

The idea of a paladin is to stop evil, and there are ways to do so beyond killing them.

Personaly, my worry about PvP is abuse and using it to be obnoxious (reason I dislike PvP in MMORPGs when I used to play them). With RP reasons, and willing participants, I'm all for it, but I also don't think someone should be able to bully someone else into PvP.

Example: Evil Rogue A robs some gold from Good Wizard B. Good Wizard B did not want to participate in PvP, but is now forced to. Even if all he does is call the guards (if he can).

Now, I don't know a potential fix for this, and perhaps that's not a good example, but it's a possable one.