General Discussion Thread IX

[Rystil Arden]

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.

Me too. Most GMs would also, but the majority is not very strong (it seems to be about 60% to 2/3rds who would) and the other side has valid points. The problem is that in a living world like LEW, who gets to decide? Is it fair to the strong minority if the Paladin loses the status when they would allow it to stay in the games they GM? This is a difficult question. Suffice it to say, I'm with you, Bront, and I'm also with DH a bit too in that I can understand his PoV in hoping it can be resolved IC and not just OOC.

 

[DerHauptman]

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.

The wizard is not forced inot anything he can let it go, call the watch, ask for people to help whatever. The other players can do vigilante justice of they want thats the beauty of it. Its not moderated by a computer its people.

So let the dick rob people then let him die - easy fix.

 

[Bront]

I agree an IC solution is better, but, just in the example of the paladin thing, some paladin walks in, detects evil, and promptly smites some poor evil wizard, downing or even killing him in one strike. Sure, he could get Rezed, but now he's down a level or con, and all he did was try to make a character he wanted to play, and he had no chance.

This is extreme, but it's the example I'd like to avoid. I know if I were said wizard, I'd be quite upset if I had to suffer IC losses for something that I had no control or choice over in participating in.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I agree an IC solution is better, but, just in the example of the paladin thing, some paladin walks in, detects evil, and promptly smites some poor evil wizard, downing or even killing him in one strike. Sure, he could get Rezed, but now he's down a level or con, and all he did was try to make a character he wanted to play, and he had no chance.

This is extreme, but it's the example I'd like to avoid. I know if I were said wizard, I'd be quite upset if I had to suffer IC losses for something that I had no control or choice over in participating in.

I thought DH was suggesting that Joe would somehow pay for a True Resurrection? To me, that seems ridiculous that he could afford this for every death, and I agree that your example is pretty much exactly the one I mentioned above and would like to avoid.

 

[BigB]

I agree an IC solution is better, but, just in the example of the paladin thing, some paladin walks in, detects evil, and promptly smites some poor evil wizard, downing or even killing him in one strike. Sure, he could get Rezed, but now he's down a level or con, and all he did was try to make a character he wanted to play, and he had no chance.

This is extreme, but it's the example I'd like to avoid. I know if I were said wizard, I'd be quite upset if I had to suffer IC losses for something that I had no control or choice over in participating in.

This could in some manner create a deadly brawl - how wood a LG cleric or other character for that matter interpret the actions of the paladin, going alng with this line of thought (although they are not paladins) wouldn't they see this as an evil and illegal act and possibly attack or detain the paladin for the authorities to rule on?

 

[Manzanita]

So let the dick rob people then let him die - easy fix.

This is the crux of it for me. Let people play how they want, but don't protect them from the consequences by outlawing PvP.

 

[Patlin]

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.

Attacking someone who detects as evil but who, to the best of the paladins knowledge, has committed no acts for which they need to be punished is at the very least a chaotic act. I would think it would for many Paladins even be a code violation -- a weak, selfish, infirm and spitefull old man could very well be evil, and yet have done little or nothing in the way of criminal acts.

As a complaining citizen once demanded of my office "What do we have to do, wait until a crime has been committed?" Yes! That's what you have to do.

After all, redemption becomes a lot less likely once you've stuck a sword through someone's gut...

 

[Pbartender]

(wasn't the obnoxious wizard in the example LG?)

For the record:

Calamar the Dark was a 1st level Lawful Good Human Necromancer. As an aside, even though he was human, he apparently looked like a drow elf... Silver hair, purple eyes and dark skin.

Cain Richter was a 1st level Neutral Halfling Rogue.

 

[Pbartender]

This is the crux of it for me. Let people play how they want, but don't protect them from the consequences by outlawing PvP.

And I agree, but the trouble is that PvP combat is an action that can inherently prevent a certain subset of players (those who wish to avoid PvP) from playing how they want... An tenacious PvPer can kill an anti-PvPer, and the anti-PvPer may have no choice and no chance to avoid the conflict.

So the question becomes, how do we avoid that basic dilemma while still allowing everyone to play, and at the same time not making the ground rules look too contrived in-game?

For now, the unspoken answer has been: We'll rely on the good sense of our pro-PvP players to avoid starting fights with anti-PvPers, and to keep the PvP fights out of sight from the in-game authorities. And have the judges deliver reasonable in-game consequence when they don't.

Personally, I think that works fine.

 

[Bront]

And I agree, but the trouble is that PvP combat is an action that can inherently prevent a certain subset of players (those who wish to avoid PvP) from playing how they want... An tenacious PvPer can kill an anti-PvPer, and the anti-PvPer may have no choice and no chance to avoid the conflict.

So the question becomes, how do we avoid that basic dilemma while still allowing everyone to play, and at the same time not making the ground rules look too contrived in-game?

For now, the unspoken answer has been: We'll rely on the good sense of our pro-PvP players to avoid starting fights with anti-PvPers, and to keep the PvP fights out of sight from the in-game authorities. And have the judges deliver reasonable in-game consequence when they don't.

Personally, I think that works fine.

That's basicly been my concerns, and I agree with you on that. The real thing we want to avoid is the PvPer pushing things to make them obnoxious for others. Some people seem to enjoy irritating, anoying, and causing problems for others, and those realy are the PvP situations we want to avoid.

If it becomes a problem, we can address it then, but it seems we have a good group of people, who get along well, and are flexable enough to work through any percieved problems.