General Discussion Thread IX

[El Jefe]

I don't quite go along with "absolutely" -- I do believe that, if a player wants no part of PvP, it is his or her responsibility to create a character not prone to invite it. If you play a hot-tempered type who easily gets into fights with anyone around him, well, don't complain if your character gets into fights with people around him.

Well, I believe in in-game solutions for in-game problems and out-of-game solutions for out-of-game problems.

At first, I had a little trouble envisioning a character that was hot tempered and prone to fights but would still consistantly refuse PvP. Then I figured it out...a coward and a bully! Walks up to someone in the RDI, pours a beer in their lap, impugns their manhood, then complains to the management when they want to pound him.

In-game problem: in-game solution. Gort tosses the jerk out on his ear, and the PC is persona non grata at the RDI. If they player complains that they have trouble getting on adventures, simply point out to them that they're free to camp out at the steps of the RDI and beg passers-by to take them on adventures. And if they engage in the same sort of behavior on an adventure that got the PC tossed out of the RDI, the party should be able to peel the offender off at the first sign of civilization ("Sir, this pest is not part of our group. He has been following us ever since Orussus, and we'd be glad to be rid of him..."). Likewise, a PC that acts like a collossal jerk on an adventure might find that nobody bothers to stabilize him once he reaches -1 hp, and that even if he manages to recover on his own, he does so all alone, miles from anyone (including the rest of the party).

So, based on that, I'm not ready to budge from the concept that a player always has the right to refuse PvP. But by the same coin, they shouldn't complain about how NPCs act or other in-game consequences to their actions.

But in this case, Jdvn1 has not done anything to invite a fight between Anton and other PCs. So yes, if Jdvn1 does not want to play PvP, Rystil Arden needs to accommodate that.

I concur.

 

[El Jefe]

I'll just add that in my opinion the man killed was a bit unrealistically open to martyrdom (intended as a constructive criticism - DMing is hard). Most people I have ever met would apologize for an off color comment if it upset someone enough for the subject of the insult to threaten violence. They also wouldn't turn their back on someone menacingly brandishing a weapon without starting a full sprint, not that that would have saved him.

I disagree. That's like saying that it would be unrealistic in real life for someone to stare down someone who was pointing a gun at them, and say, "Go ahead! Shoot me! I dare you!"

Sadly, it happens more often than you might think.

 

[Jdvn1]

I'll agree that I had seen Anton tending towards good in previous circumstances, and I could see where you're coming from and why he was frustrated and might have taken action, but I disagree that he had no choice. A warning shot that missed on purpose or taking the -4 penalty to deal nonlethal damage (both shots would have hit anyway) would have worked equally well. Even shooting one arrow instead of two, beating him up, and extracting an apology or forcing him to perform labour for Tandi to appease her. None of those acts (except possibly the one shot for lethal damage) is really Evil and they all serve the same purpose, essentially .

I thought I gave plenty warning--probably way too much warning. I tried to play the character so that it wouldn't end in an NPC death, but the guy just wouldn't apologize. Tandi tried to attack him (though was stopped by a party member) and the guy still wouldn't apologize. It would've been way too generous and way out of character to let him live. I had to kill him, and I couldn't accidentally let him live.

 

[Patlin]

I disagree. That's like saying that it would be unrealistic in real life for someone to stare down someone who was pointing a gun at them, and say, "Go ahead! Shoot me! I dare you!"

Sadly, it happens more often than you might think.

Indeed. I encounter stupid behavior like this on a fairly regular basis.

 

[SlagMortar]

Sadly, it happens more often than you might think.

Well, I did say most people I had met.

It would've been way too generous and way out of character to let him live. I had to kill him, and I couldn't accidentally let him live.

To me, that is just about the definition of an evil act in D&D terms. That doesn't mean that it is out of character or that Anton should suddenly show up on detect evil radar. As RA said, there were alternatives to the situation. If death was required then Anton could have challenged him to a formal duel. If he refused, he could have made it clear that only one of Anton or he was leaving there alive. The fact that Anton felt he could not consider those alternatives is why he is Lawful Neutral and not Lawful Good. I like it. I think it was excellent role playing. I can see why Anton would not consider it an evil act. Objectively, he killed an unarmed man when neither Anton nor anyone else was in any danger.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I agree with Patlin and El Jefe. In this case, since I wasn't sure, I rolled an Intimidate to see what he would do and he wasn't Intimidated (none of the PCs had a great Intimidate check, as they're pretty much bankrupt on Charisma overall) he just walked away--it's a little bit less stupid than walking away from a loaded gun, since the bow was not yet drawn with an arrow and Tandi's mini-almost-assailt was actually stopped by Thurgan, who also had his crossbow ready, leading him to believe it may have been for show. Certainly he didn't expect that if someone was going to attack that it would be Anton.

 

[El Jefe]

Now that Pbartender mentioned ancient Rome, would be too unethical to buy the building (real cheap!) while it´s still burning and then use your spells* to save it?

Ethical? Ethical?! In DnD, ethical depends solely on your alignment.

Of course, if I was DMing, any character who did this would have an alignment shift toward Neutral (with Opportunistic Tendancies!)

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well, I did say most people I had met.

To me, that is just about the definition of an evil act in D&D terms. That doesn't mean that it is out of character or that Anton should suddenly show up on detect evil radar. As RA said, there were alternatives to the situation. If death was required then Anton could have challenged him to a formal duel. If he refused, he could have made it clear that only one of Anton or he was leaving there alive. The fact that Anton felt he could not consider those alternatives is why he is Lawful Neutral and not Lawful Good. I like it. I think it was excellent role playing. I can see why Anton would not consider it an evil act. Objectively, he killed an unarmed man when neither Anton nor anyone else was in any danger.

Agreed. The point in the IC thread that I realised it was definitely an evil act was when Jdvn1 posted that OOC almost right away after the fact. I thought it was going to be something like "I didn't mean to kill him! Can I just take that back?" in which case I would have probably allowed it. Instead it was "I'm surprised he even lived long enough to turn around"

 

[Jdvn1]

I'll just add that in my opinion the man killed was a bit unrealistically open to martyrdom (intended as a constructive criticism - DMing is hard). Most people I have ever met would apologize for an off color comment if it upset someone enough for the subject of the insult to threaten violence.

That's what I thought too. Also, if he thought they were heroes, why insult them? If he thought they were heroes, wouldn't he want to stay on their good sides and, at least, apologize?

Apparently not. I'm convinced that the guy was just a jerk, didn't care one whit for heroes, didn't care for his own life, and I'm not sure how he can seriously be portrayed as a nice person by those who knew him. But, rose-colored-lenses and all that.

 

[Jdvn1]

Agreed. The point in the IC thread that I realised it was definitely an evil act was when Jdvn1 posted that OOC almost right away after the fact. I thought it was going to be something like "I didn't mean to kill him! Can I just take that back?" in which case I would have probably allowed it. Instead it was "I'm surprised he even lived long enough to turn around"

Anton doesn't take back. He sticks to the cards dealt him and plays them as well as he can.

Still, he didn't want to shoot the guy in the back, which is why I posted that OOC comment. That probably bothered Anton. If the guy had turned his back and I had a chance to respond to that first, I probably would told him to turn around and draw a weapon. But, I couldn't, so he couldn't, so I didn't, so he didn't, and he died.