Player vs. Player

[Numion]

*SHRUG* That's what the people I know who work in weapons development there tell me. Essentially, if you're taken hostage, you are to consider youself "about to be dead." (Come to think of it, they probably don't use marines. Take to long to get 'em there.) At Sandia they develop, among other things, nuclear weapons. They can't let terrorists or anybody else have access, even for a few minutes. Plans could be downloaded and sent wirelessly anywhere in a matter of minutes. They don't treat it the same as they'd treat it if somebody takes hostages at the bank.

Makes sense to me. If somebody has hostages in a place like that, they really aren't there just for the hostages. This is a situation where hard decisions are needed. Do you sacrifice a few workers (in D&D: commoners / NPCs) to keep vital nuclear secrets, well, secrets (in D&D: prevent much greater evil from happening).

In a black-and-white D&D world it's possible that sacrificing a commoner hostage for greater good isn't allowed, but in a more realistic world it's sure to happen. There are reasons why most governments don't negotiate with terrorists.

If BBEGs knew that adventurers won't give a crap if they have hostages or not, in a few years BBEGs wouldn't bother with it

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I disagree. There are situations when you have to choose the lesser of two evils, and sometimes collateral damage is unavoidable. If only way to destroy the BBEG is to waste a commoner with him, it's acceptable for neutral characters, at least. The laughing bit is the 'jerk' part here.

If the only way to solve the scenario you set up (BBEG w/ hostage) is to save the commoner, I don't know if thats a good thing either. It's not railroading, but it's something close to that. A part of being a hero is to make sacrifices and hard decisions, and living with the consequences.

Playing Dieblo would be to do what you will without consequences. Playing D&D is to do what you will AND live with the consequences.

In some situations yes I agree with you. Unfortunately I see too many gamers who kill the peasant or always fight to the death instead of surrender cause they don't want to play seriously or try to think. They don't care cause they can just create a new character and keep going.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I have a better idea. Read Wulf's Story Hour (link in sig) for PvP that was neither a campaign destroyer, nor borne out of a puerile "evil campaign."

Just the good guys doing what good guys sometimes have to do.

Wulf

I have read your story hour Wulf and love it. The situation you are referring to was pretty obviously a character (don't know if it was the players intent) being a dick several times over and risking the party.

By the way. Good old dwarf Wulf Ratbane was Chaotic Neutral. His "Good" side was only around when it made him money or when it came to protecting a few select friends.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Makes sense to me. If somebody has hostages in a place like that, they really aren't there just for the hostages. This is a situation where hard decisions are needed. Do you sacrifice a few workers (in D&D: commoners / NPCs) to keep vital nuclear secrets, well, secrets (in D&D: prevent much greater evil from happening).

In a black-and-white D&D world it's possible that sacrificing a commoner hostage for greater good isn't allowed, but in a more realistic world it's sure to happen. There are reasons why most governments don't negotiate with terrorists.

If BBEGs knew that adventurers won't give a crap if they have hostages or not, in a few years BBEGs wouldn't bother with it

Actually it makes no sense at all. In the situation mentioned the people at stake would be considered vital to national security and the goverment would take extensive steps to try and rescue them.

Now those people may assume that they will be dead but that would be from the hostage takers guns since they would know that only suicidal terrorists would try this and kiling the scientists would odds on be their actual goal from the start.

 

[diaglo]

Interesting. My group works exactly the opposite. We're all terribly nice people, but our characters are jerks.

i agree with this statement.

it really depends on the maturity of those involved. both the combatants and those left behind to face the consequences.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Yeah. My comments earlier about my group's intelligence, professions, and history were intended to illustrate their level of maturity, though now that I think about it, they didn't really illustrate anything very well...

 

[evileeyore]

I've had a handful of PvP kills in games before. Most involved my character and the other good roleplayers. Note I said good roleplayers. These are the people who play characters and stick to the characters motivations.

If 'staying in character' means its time for the character to leave the group, turn in lawbreakering PC's, steal from other PC's, or kill a PC, so be it. Otherwise I should just play Diablo, where being 'in character' means killing only the monsters the DM says is okay.

And yes I have been in games when PvP ended the campiagn. Mostly due to Something Evil PC's deciding they really didn't need friends anymore...


As for 'Evil Campiagns' being bad. Bah! Our current longest running campaign is an Evil campaign. Okay so it is Lawful* Evil, but it is Evil.

*our PC's are LN (Sorc), LE(Cleric/party leader), LN(Monk), NE(Bard), NE with L tendencies(Rogue/Assasin), and a NE with L tendencies (Ranger/Barb/Rogue/Deceased).


TTFN

EvilE

 

[Rackhir]

Except in rare occasions the possiblity or occurance of PvP events mean there has been a pre-existing fundamental problem in the campaign.

For example the classic evil -whatever- and the paladin in the party, etc... Lets face it anytime you have a situation like that it is only a matter of time before there is going to be interparty conflict and if the DM doesn't like that they should not have permitted one or both of the characters in the campaign.

Players in conflict are obviously a more difficult problem, but generally it does mean that one or both are eventually going to have to leave, if they can't resolve the conflict or at least agree to practice restraint.

RE: Wulf's campaign - I was suprised that it took til the second page and Wulf himself to bring it up. One thing about it, which might not be obvious if you don't read enough of it, that is probably worth mentioning. Is that from what I can tell the Peck's player had managed to seriously annoy the rest of the players and the DM. This never augers well for the lifespan of a character. Also the Peck had repeatedly been warned and cautioned against doing things that would obviously get him into trouble and conflicts with the rest of the party. When someone is bound and determined to keep doing stupid things their fate is eventually going to be sealed.

Originally Posted by MerakSpielman

As for the comments about my group... well... read my "shiny new" story hour. All of it. Until you do, all your comments are not valid. If, after reading it, you still feel like you do, then come back here and keep talking trash. Consider it a personal challange, Doc.

Merak, it simply isn't worth trying to argue with DocM. The responses from him that you've gotten so far are typical of his, to anyone who doesn't think his way. Just put him on your ignore list, that's what it's there for.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Of course, there are some people who will never change their minds, but I don't like ignoring people. Who knows? He hasn't posted in this thread for nearly 3 hours. Maybe he's reading story hours.

 

[dpdx]

Of course, there are some people who will never change their minds, but I don't like ignoring people. Who knows? He hasn't posted in this thread for nearly 3 hours. Maybe he's reading story hours.

And you: less argument, more posting to PbP, Mr. DM Man.