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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Numion" data-source="post: 3895996" data-attributes="member: 124">Do you think it would ever be right for a noble to defend his honor / his mistress honor in a duel in case someone of lower background gives him lip? It was expected in the ye medieval times, but your D&D might be modelled after something else. How would you have a noble resolve a situation of someone giving him lip and being generally disrespectful? I would think that physical punishment was the way of the land back then.That's one reasonable outcome. As a PC who had just saved the lords keep, I would be expecting, nay, demanding, a hefty compensation for the heroic deed / unthankful response combo.Now this is something I might do myself. While I believe the PCs actions were justified, it's always a nice idea to use recurring characters, and this might be a logical thing for the guard to do - after all, the 'secret' of gaining personal power shouldn't be really a secret in D&D-land (kill, loot, rinse, repeat). But it's quite clear who the villain in this scenario would be .. The guard sounds a bit messed up. He'd abandon his post and refuse to serve the good guys after a bit of a scuffle, but then would serve the vampires. Again, a good idea (something I might do), but this is again casting the guard as a villain (which he might well be, I mean, they've gotta pop up somehow).I thought the duel wasn't to the death. If it had been, the guard would, well, be dead.Except exhibiting much greater martial prowess than the guards and actually fighting the vampires. Or does slapping some sense into a backtalking, friendly-fire-shooting guard make the PCs worse than the vampires? Probably the bad showing the guards gave made this a foregone conclusion.</blockquote>

Verification