Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6317101" data-attributes="member: 2656">The DM normally has a good level of control on what the game focusses on, what's zoomed in on and what's referred to but not show on  screen.Nowadays my default DM solution to the "baby orc" dilemma is to avoid it entirely by fading out of any scene it might arise. The issue  can and has derailed whole sessions and even entire campaigns, and I prefer to avoid it entirely unless the resolution of the dilemma is actually a major theme of the campaign in question. I consider it a special case of the "prisoner dilemma" i.e. what does the party do with prisoners. Similarly, I don't dwell on the prisoner dilemma nowadays unless it's a major theme of the campaign. My game time is valuable and I don't find the issue interesting most of the time.If one or more of the players expresses an interest in the issue, there may or may not be an OOC discussion on the topic.Re the paladin and dracolich issue, I remember  that in most editions dracoliches are immune to turning, which seems relevant. (My largest character sheet ever was for my old Cult of the Dragon PC Balthazar, I looked up ever recipe for undead creation I could find in D&D, that being 1e and 2e at the time). In most games I saw up to 3e there was an unofficial agreement that melee PCs who engaged monsters wouldn't be ignored in favour of attacking the squishies, despite a lack of defender mechanics to formalise the situation.But players agree to stuff all the time in theory, and then find out that for whatever reason they don't like the practice. Some players don't like the defender role or other roles involving teamwork and prefer to act unilaterally. Discussion and maybe rewriting or changing characters can maybe solve such problems when they arise.</blockquote>

Verification