Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)

[Hjorimir]

Such flashing wit.

Thank you.

Such penetrating insight.

At least one of us is being honest.

Such remarkable denseness.

I've just given you four examples of how D&D revolves around righteous application of violence against adversaries most foul. Please not to burble in a most undignifying manner in reply, because that's just RUDE.

No. What you supplied is that there are rules for resolving combat. Not that the sum total of D&D is violence. How about that high Diplomacy skill to make NPCs friendly? Is that part of D&D?

You call me dense then call me rude. Check. Gotcha. You're right. I'm wrong. (If it helps you sleep at night.)

You're new in that you seem never to have been in an alignment war before. Such charming innocence and naivete.

Nope, I've argued with plenty of Machiavellian people before. Old territory.

 

[tonym]

Paladin cuts down above prisoner

Is this evil?

I must side with the paladin on this one. (I ran a paladin through this module, too, btw.)

As soon as the evil cleric in your scenario smiled, my paladin would've thought, "She's doing something magical and EVIL and we're all about to die!" and would've killed her.

In some other dungeon, my paladin 'probably' would've waited for a little more evidence before 'handling' the situation. But in the RTtToEE, there's no way he'd hesitate. Those evil clerics are sick, devious, and evil to the bone.


So, in summation: Nah, not evil--at least in RtTToEE.




Tony

 

[MerakSpielman]

I'd put money on the proposition that violence is the acceptable answer in 99% of D&D encounters.

You'd lose that bet in the two campaigns I play in and the one I DM.

And there's no need to get nasty, hong.

 

[navriin]

Hjorimir...

Your analogy is spot on and easy to understand, thank you. That probably makes you one of the few people who could actually play a paladin correctly in my campaign

Hong...

The problem with the analogy is that it *is* wrong. Or right, depending on how you look at it. If you really look at the situation, the majority of players/adventurers do basically kill people and take their stuff. While not necessarily wrong, this is not necessarily right. I get the feeling most adventures do it for the money, the fact that they are just bashing evil people to get it is just icing.

In other words I believe the majority of adventurers are honestly neutral, not good, and that's ok.

My general rule of thumb is that any time you have to spend an effort to justify whether or not your paladin did something wrong, *he did something wrong*. A paladin shouldn't act in a way that any good people could question, even for a moment. Less is more.

 

[Cerubus Dark]

If by new you mean I've been coming to ENWorld since Eric Noah created the site months before the release of 3e, then yes...I'm new. Or did you mean new here because you have over 8k posts compared to my 100ish (which automatically gives you a point of validation as being correct...I'm sure). Or did you mean here...on Earth? In which case I would say I'm not as new as I'd like to be.

Hey don't pay hong too much mind. Everyone knows he is nuts.

And as for the palidin say good by to his powers for a while. His half-orc blood rage kicking in was what cost him his status.

 

[hong]

Thank you.

Posting stupid one-liners is MY schtick, as I keep having to remind people. Please DO NOT STEAL MY SCHTICK.

At least one of us is being honest.

Yes, dear.

No. What you supplied is that there are rules for resolving combat.

Which make up the vast bulk of the game.

Not that the sum total of D&D is violence.

For all intents and purposes, D&D is a game about _going into dungeons, killing monsters, and taking their treasure_. This should be clear enough to most people who were awake for the last 3 years.

How about that high Diplomacy skill to make NPCs friendly? Is that part of D&D?

Yes, and it's the part that the great majority of people treat as an afterthought. Including the designers, it would seem: count up the number of skills, spells and abilities that help you influence people out of combat, and compare it to the equivalent numbers that apply to combat.

You call me dense then call me rude.

And?

Check. Gotcha. You're right. I'm wrong. (If it helps you sleep at night.)

Oh, do stop burbling.

Nope, I've argued with plenty of Machiavellian people before. Old territory.

Yes, dear.

 

[The Sigil]

Scenario.

• Police take a suspect into custody. Handcuff him and toss them in the backseat of the car.
• Police officer across the street gets bit by the suspect's dog.
• Suspect smiles evilly.
• Police opens door and shoots the man.

It's a good, but imperfect analogy. Remember, the guy surrendered after a combat where he used lethal force against the PCs. I would suggest the following:

• Police get into a firefight with a group of men.
• During/after the firefight, one of the men - whom police have seen firing at them, and who admits he was firing at the police - surrenders himself into custody. The police have a reasonable suspicion that he is able to use a remote control to fire weapons from a distance.
• Police take a person who admittedly attempted to murder them into custody. Handcuff him and toss them in the backseat of the car.
• Police officer across the street suddenly comes under fire from an unknown assailant. Police remember that the guy in the back seat of the car may be using a remote control.
• Suspect smiles evilly.
• Police opens door and... shoots the man.

I can see a LG police officer reasonably doing all of the above - except the "...shoots the man." I can see him doing a, "where is the gunman? Do you have a remote? Have you any hand in this?" and if the admitted attacker still grins and doesn't answer, then I can see a LG character trying to wrestle/club him (probable cause that the admitted attacker is still in fact attacking). If he resists, or if the policeman can see him using a remote and suddenly fire is directed at the policeman (i.e., a detect magic spell or seeing a spell cast by the guy), THEN and only then do can the policeman justifiably try to use lethal force. IMO of course.

--The Sigil

 

[hong]

You'd lose that bet in the two campaigns I play in and the one I DM.

So you're one of the 1%.

 

[Hjorimir]

Instead of continuing this discussion, hong, I think will simply agree to disagree. I cannot subscribe to your ideal of what lawful good (or paladin ethics) are and, obviously, the same is true for your thoughts on mine.

I will endeavor to remain quiet as you continue to strengthen your position with underhanded comments about my tenure, intellect, or whatever else catches your fancy for the moment.

So be it.

To the original poster; I would encourage you to punish the paladin character (not the player…after all the game is supposed to be fun…yet challenging).

 

[hong]

Hjorimir...

Your analogy is spot on and easy to understand, thank you. That probably makes you one of the few people who could actually play a paladin correctly in my campaign

Translation: "Nobody wants to play a paladin in my campaign".

Hong...
The problem with the analogy is that it *is* wrong. Or right, depending on how you look at it. If you really look at the situation, the majority of players/adventurers do basically kill people and take their stuff. While not necessarily wrong, this is not necessarily right. I get the feeling most adventures do it for the money, the fact that they are just bashing evil people to get it is just icing.

The _players_ bash people and take their stuff so they can get powerups.

The _characters_ defeat evil creatures that pose a threat to civilisation.

Do not confuse character motivation with player motivation. One of the jobs of the DM is to create a context for adventuring that allows player motivation and character motivation to coincide. If this doesn't happen, then you just have frustrated players.

In other words I believe the majority of adventurers are honestly neutral, not good, and that's ok.

Adventurers are honestly whatever the player says they are.

My general rule of thumb is that any time you have to spend an effort to justify whether or not your paladin did something wrong, *he did something wrong*. A paladin shouldn't act in a way that any good people could question, even for a moment. Less is more.

So, do you ever wonder _why_ people don't want to play a paladin in your campaign?