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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 8120414" data-attributes="member: 7026594">It does feel like a bit of a misnomer. Lawful Stupid was classically a term for a Lawful character played as a giant stick in the mud and pain in the ass over points of law, rules, order, and chivalric stupidity like refusing to retreat or be stealthy when it was called for.  Shades of the ridiculous code of conduct for Cavaliers in 1st ed Unearthed Arcana come to mind.  And innumerable arguments in the letters pages/Forum of Dragon Magazine debating alignment and talking about bad players or DMs requiring Paladins and lawful types to act like idiots out of a misconceived sense of what alignment requires. Maybe there were details at the table we're missing about the player making it some absurd point of honor in his code or oath.  Either way, it mostly just sounds like bad play.I do sympathize with Zardnaar's desire to have the situation play out logically based on what would be there in the game world, and let the player's bad choices have consequences. Depending on the group, it might not be a big deal to spend 20 or 30 minutes on the RP encounter and duel, and could be entertaining.  But if it derailed the session, I think I agree with some of the other posters that another approach might have been better.  For example either Baldar's idea of having the NPC shrug off his insults, dismiss him and walk off into the city (setting up a rival/enemy for later), or resolving it quickly with the three-rounds-of-attacks resolution GMMichael suggested.  Both seem like good, expedient approaches which don't let the session get derailed.Some good constructive ideas there, for a session which seems like didn't go exactly as Zardnaar or the players wanted.</blockquote>

Verification