Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vocenoctum" data-source="post: 453130" data-attributes="member: 2477">I'd have classified fleeing the law as Chaotic myself. But you also must understand the difference between self-preservation and what the D&D example did. If they were caught trying to break out their friend and took a hostage, it'd be morally unclear. They planned out a kidnapping, and then tried to beat the hostage into silence. Neglecting her death in th ematter, would it have been better if they'd simply beat her unconscious?If their plan had worked, and the thief was sprung, and the girl was returned to her family, merely kidnapped and beaten, I would still regard it as an evil act of victimization.I don't ascribe to the idea that a 20 is a "good result". It's simply critical damage. Roll damage as normal and multiply the result as normal.Now, if you have a 4 hp commoner, and they do in excess of 30 subdual (or some other absurd amount) I can possibly see you saying she died. It sounds like the DM simply ruled that it killed her. Perhaps the ruling was that it did normal damage as well as being multiplied, but even at 3-4 HP, she still should have had another 10 in the red.I don't understand why it wasn't a punch instead. (Maybe they feared an AoO? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /> but as a DM, I'd not have bothered with a roll to attack, just called for damage. There wouldn't have been a 20 rolled.</blockquote>

Verification