Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1091573" data-attributes="member: 5171">Attacking rather than holding back sounds like a legitimate choice to me.&nbsp; If you don't trust the Blackguard, there's no reason to believe that he WON'T kill the paladin anyway.So basically, it's:Possibility One: Paladin is already dead.&nbsp; No reason not to attack.Possibility Two: Paladin is not dead, and Blackguard will kill paladin anyway.&nbsp; SHOULD attack to have best chance of stopping Blackguard from killing paladin.Possibility Three: Paladin is not dead, and Blackguard will not kill paladin unless provoked.&nbsp; Should consider whether or not paladin will die anyway, regardless of Blackguard finishing him off.&nbsp; If paladin will die anyway, attack.&nbsp; If paladin would otherwise likely survive, and Blackguard can be trusted, then don't attack.If I were the pally's player, I'd be unhappy at having died, but I wouldn't be angry at the half-orc's player.&nbsp; The player made what I consider to be a valid roleplaying choice for his character -- he didn't know if the paladin was alive or not, and he obviously believed that the party's long-time enemy could not be trusted.Not to get all &quot;Paladins should be played like XXXX&quot; on the pally's player, but I'm not even sure that the paladin himself would be angry with the half-orc.&nbsp; &quot;So, wait, I was at death's door, and someone was using me as a hostage, and you weren't even sure if I was alive, and didn't trust the person to hold to his agreement not to kill me anyway, so you took your chances and sought to pre-emptively avenge my death?&nbsp; Good.&nbsp; Fight well.&quot;I haven't gotten any &quot;blatant in-character disregard for another PC's life&quot; from the message in question.&nbsp; The PC saw an unconscious and bleeding character and a blackguard he had no reason to trust.&nbsp; Sounds like an ugly situation with no real right answer, and only a few wrong ones -- and I don't think of what happened as a wrong one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="takyris, post: 1091573, member: 5171"] Attacking rather than holding back sounds like a legitimate choice to me. If you don't trust the Blackguard, there's no reason to believe that he WON'T kill the paladin anyway. So basically, it's: Possibility One: Paladin is already dead. No reason not to attack. Possibility Two: Paladin is not dead, and Blackguard will kill paladin anyway. SHOULD attack to have best chance of stopping Blackguard from killing paladin. Possibility Three: Paladin is not dead, and Blackguard will not kill paladin unless provoked. Should consider whether or not paladin will die anyway, regardless of Blackguard finishing him off. If paladin will die anyway, attack. If paladin would otherwise likely survive, and Blackguard can be trusted, then don't attack. If I were the pally's player, I'd be unhappy at having died, but I wouldn't be angry at the half-orc's player. The player made what I consider to be a valid roleplaying choice for his character -- he didn't know if the paladin was alive or not, and he obviously believed that the party's long-time enemy could not be trusted. Not to get all "Paladins should be played like XXXX" on the pally's player, but I'm not even sure that the paladin himself would be angry with the half-orc. "So, wait, I was at death's door, and someone was using me as a hostage, and you weren't even sure if I was alive, and didn't trust the person to hold to his agreement not to kill me anyway, so you took your chances and sought to pre-emptively avenge my death? Good. Fight well." I haven't gotten any "blatant in-character disregard for another PC's life" from the message in question. The PC saw an unconscious and bleeding character and a blackguard he had no reason to trust. Sounds like an ugly situation with no real right answer, and only a few wrong ones -- and I don't think of what happened as a wrong one. [/QUOTE]

Verification