Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7822771" data-attributes="member: 6795602">The point is that wow the God's behave and everything else is setting dependent.&nbsp; Rogues can be given more grief in certain settings than Paladins ever dreamt of experiencing.&nbsp; The reason no one complains about neutral stupid rogues is that nearly no one uses such a setting.&nbsp; I don't know why you think a typical non-pragmatic conception of lawful good implies that the lawful good character must never lose a battle.&nbsp; That's entirely not the case.&nbsp; Nor do such concepts entail never retreating.&nbsp; What they do entail is putting your own safety above others.&nbsp; So for example if the Paladin is protecting an NPC then all I'm suggesting is that you forcefully take the NPC from him instead of setting up a scenario where he's expected to give up the PC to save his own life.&nbsp; The 2nd would be a challenge to his lawful goodness such that he will die for following his principles.Great example of neutral stupid.&nbsp; &nbsp; It's not kiddie cartoon villains.&nbsp; They can do literally everything yours can except 1 thing.&nbsp; Surely you can find an adequate replacement to challenging the lawful goodness of such a character that is both realistic and sensible for an intelligent evil NPC to use against the party.Then you do set up no-win choose between evil scenarios.&nbsp; It's always your decision what happens to the PC's.&nbsp; It's your setting and your NPC's.&nbsp; You are the driver.&nbsp; There's always an alternative action you can take that is just as challenging and realistic etc that doesn't trod all over such lawful good PC's.&nbsp; The more we go through this conversation - the more it convinces me that DM's are the true creators of lawful stupid.&nbsp; They control everything.&nbsp; All I control as a player is what my PC does in response.&nbsp; Don't want lawful stupid then don't put me in a situation where I will be forced to do the thing you call lawful stupid.Perfect option?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Simply don't put them through a lawful stupid trap.You are the DM and you are in control.&nbsp; Whether you threw it at them straight away or jumped through some hoops before throwing it at them it doesn't matter - ultimately you had the choice to throw it at them or not.&nbsp; Alternatively if you insist on running the kind of game you run that's fine too - just make sure the players always realize that pragmatic lawful good is the only lawful good concept they should actually try.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7822771, member: 6795602"] The point is that wow the God's behave and everything else is setting dependent. Rogues can be given more grief in certain settings than Paladins ever dreamt of experiencing. The reason no one complains about neutral stupid rogues is that nearly no one uses such a setting. I don't know why you think a typical non-pragmatic conception of lawful good implies that the lawful good character must never lose a battle. That's entirely not the case. Nor do such concepts entail never retreating. What they do entail is putting your own safety above others. So for example if the Paladin is protecting an NPC then all I'm suggesting is that you forcefully take the NPC from him instead of setting up a scenario where he's expected to give up the PC to save his own life. The 2nd would be a challenge to his lawful goodness such that he will die for following his principles. Great example of neutral stupid. It's not kiddie cartoon villains. They can do literally everything yours can except 1 thing. Surely you can find an adequate replacement to challenging the lawful goodness of such a character that is both realistic and sensible for an intelligent evil NPC to use against the party. Then you do set up no-win choose between evil scenarios. It's always your decision what happens to the PC's. It's your setting and your NPC's. You are the driver. There's always an alternative action you can take that is just as challenging and realistic etc that doesn't trod all over such lawful good PC's. The more we go through this conversation - the more it convinces me that DM's are the true creators of lawful stupid. They control everything. All I control as a player is what my PC does in response. Don't want lawful stupid then don't put me in a situation where I will be forced to do the thing you call lawful stupid. Perfect option? No. Simply don't put them through a lawful stupid trap. You are the DM and you are in control. Whether you threw it at them straight away or jumped through some hoops before throwing it at them it doesn't matter - ultimately you had the choice to throw it at them or not. Alternatively if you insist on running the kind of game you run that's fine too - just make sure the players always realize that pragmatic lawful good is the only lawful good concept they should actually try. [/QUOTE]

Verification