Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 185566" data-attributes="member: 177">Okay, I'll have to play a little Devil's advocate here.  I need to snip here and there for the sake of brevity....SHARK here is correct in that hobgoblin children do not have to be in the same moral position as elf, human, or dwarf children.  However, I think he slips the mark here.  While in his own world guilt and innocence may not matter, in most fantasy worlds, the morality of an act is very much based upon guilt or innocence.The thing is, there's something that separates hobgoblins and humans from snakes and rats - sentience.  It's specificlaly stated in the core books that animals do not have the capacity for moral action.  Humans and hobgoblins do.  Thus, you cannot generally lump the humanoids in with the vermin.  Three reasons - first, because from what information we have, the druid may have been making a reasonable tacical decision.  Second, because the point is to kill the enemy, not everyone who isn't an active ally at every moment.  Third, because it is probably disruptive to the game.SHARK, how many generals have gone down in a blaze of ignominy because they didn't keep proper reserves?  If the rest of the party seems capable of dealing with the threat, there's some wisdom to holding someone back, in case there is greater threat than was originally percieved.  If there had been an unseen enemy, the elf might be singning the sdruid's praises.Let's get something straight - the druid stayed out of a couple of fights in an adventure that probably has many.  He has a tactical rationale for those, and has been otherwise active, and nobody died the times he did stand aside (or I presume Eternalknight would have told us).  So you kill him?  You kill a person for making a decision whose value can only be calculated in hindsight?  That's not being a leader, SHARK, that's being dumb.You kill enemies.  You protect friends.  Neutrals you leave alone.  You don't kill people simply because they aren't actively aiding you in the way you personally prefer.  If the druid's behavior was indicative of cowardice, you eject him from the party, not slay him.  And, lastly, strong and decisive role-palying is nice, but it should be tempered by the fact that you are playing a game - trying to have fun with others.  Each player is not only responsible for his own fun, but for helping others have fun as well.  Gaming is a cooperative effort.  This player seems to have chosen a solution to his percieved problem that was least fun for everyone but himself.  That isn't good.  So, while it may have been strong, decisive role-playing, it was poor gamesmanship.  The guy may claim he's trying to build a "real fighting force" or somesuch.  But if he ruins other people's fun in the process, it isn't appropriate.  He should have found some other way to express his displeasure with the druid.</blockquote>

Verification