YAAT Good is just passe?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I do have an issue with Mercy though..... Its very hard for ANY player to seperate the knowledge that mercy WILL stab you in the back from character perspective. As a player of 20+ years and many acts of mercy.... they all came back to haunt me. Mercy is the favored tool of many a DM.... they love it when you, as a player, allow the foe to live. It gives them an angle to screw with your character..... after awhile you have to ask your self "Is it worth it?"

Well, that's the test, isn't it? Mercy is the perfect example because it's SUPPOSED to be harder to be good than to be neutral or evil. It's like that in real life just as much as it is in literature, D&D, or Star Wars, especially when you know it's going to come back to haunt you.

Heck, the paladin is an entire class built around the idea that being good is hard. Their power COMES from the fact that they are paragons of goodness.

Besides, I think it's also more fun in the long run to show mercy. It's another source of conflict, which is one of the primary facets of the game, isn't it? And recurring enemies can have more flavor.

 

[Tsyr]

Well, that's the test, isn't it? Mercy is the perfect example because it's SUPPOSED to be harder to be good than to be neutral or evil. It's like that in real life just as much as it is in literature, D&D, or Star Wars, especially when you know it's going to come back to haunt you.

Heck, the paladin is an entire class built around the idea that being good is hard. Their power COMES from the fact that they are paragons of goodness.

Besides, I think it's also more fun in the long run to show mercy. It's another source of conflict, which is one of the primary facets of the game, isn't it? And recurring enemies can have more flavor.

That's all fine and good... except that some of us (me, for example, and I gather many others) play in games where leaving an enemy behind isn't just a risk... it's suicide. When showing mercy is like saying "Hey DM, come mess with us some more!". That's not fun.

 

[Crothian]

That's all fine and good... except that some of us (me, for example, and I gather many others) play in games where leaving an enemy behind isn't just a risk... it's suicide. When showing mercy is like saying "Hey DM, come mess with us some more!". That's not fun.

Then you and your DM are not on the same page. Talk to him out of game and explain what you want to do and ask him up front if this will be used against you. There should be times when you might regret yourt descision, but if it happens 1 out of 3 encounters or more that he screws you over he is just being vindictive.

 

[Zerovoid]

This isn't sacrifice, it's risk.

Don't confuse the two. Sacrifice is a act ONLY of the Good, whereas risk is an act common to successful people.

And as we can see from the world around us, plenty of Evil people are successful.

Sacrifice means to give something up. Your character gave nothing up, in the end, and if he had have, it was essentailly for his own benefit.

Edit: Oh yeah, and I think the men who sacrificed their lives on 11/9 (we give the day then month here) were pretty attatched to their "characters" too. They'd certainly been "playing" them longer than any of us have run a character.

And I too was pleasantly amazed that so many modern-day Westerners would sacrifice their lives for others. To me there's no greater love.

I disagree that sacrifice can only be used to further good ends. A simple example in DnD would be a cleric of a god of disease who infects himself with an extremely virulent plague, and then goes into a city to spread it to others. Obviously, he is evil, yet has sacrificed himself.

I completely second your second argument. I care about my own life way more than any PC's life, and am much more loathe to risk it.

 

[TBoarder]

but if it happens 1 out of 3 encounters or more that he screws you over he is just being vindictive.

Or just doing his best to make sure that there's a steady supply of dramatic conflict in the game. The DM isn't necessarily wrong when he does this, he's just taking an easy path towards making a hopefully interesting re-encounter with the bad guy. I'm also not saying that this is a good thing either, just that it's kinda difficult for a DM to overlook a potential recurring villain. Its this kind of circular logic that results in PCs making sure they off all of the bad guys in any given encounter.

 

[rounser]

And I too was pleasantly amazed that so many modern-day Westerners would sacrifice their lives for others. To me there's no greater love.

I disagree. Insofar as love goes, I'd assume that giving your life for someone can sometimes be an easy, impulsive decision to make given the right situation.

Serving a loved one thanklessly for the rest of your life, with no recognition for it, nothing to show for it and plenty of time to think about it - that, to me, is an equal or greater love. It's not as romantic as giving your life immediately, but it amounts to the same thing - or something even greater, if you ask me...

 

[Crothian]

Or just doing his best to make sure that there's a steady supply of dramatic conflict in the game. The DM isn't necessarily wrong when he does this, he's just taking an easy path towards making a hopefully interesting re-encounter with the bad guy. I'm also not saying that this is a good thing either, just that it's kinda difficult for a DM to overlook a potential recurring villain. Its this kind of circular logic that results in PCs making sure they off all of the bad guys in any given encounter.

You are correct, motive of the DM is important, which is why I suggested talking to him before hand. Your right a reoccuring villian is great, but it gets old if 1 out of 3 guys you defeat, but don't kill come back to get you. It could be done cool like a Sinister Six thing (Spiderman villians for those who don't know), but you have to be careful not to over do it.

 

[JLXC]

As a counterpoint to the "Mercy" will bite you crowd.

I DM. I am DMing a group through the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. They have been playing for about 6 months. They have showed mercy, even the LN Dwarf of doom.

SPOLIERS FOR THE RttToEE.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
spoiler space
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


They let some Orcs live in the module when they realized they had been chopping through the orcs domain and then mostly the orcs were backed into a corner, with the women and children. They just screamed in Orc, "You not fight us, We no kill you." The Orcs hate the PC's, but they know not to attack them now. They think of the PC's as a more powerful tribe to tolerate. They leave eachother alone.

The party let one of the human gaurds go when his buddies were all dead and he surrendered. They didn't know he was Neutral and just doing a job. They just offered him this: "You go outside, gather up the horses out there, take them back to town, and take this money. This is for you, this is for the stablemaster. You don't come back here. You screw us, you've seen what we can do.... we'll find you and take you out." As the DM I ruled that the guy was scared straight and took the horses back to town, and is now trying to make a real life for himself.

They have saved a Dwarf prisoner and are gonna take him home since it's only a few miles.

They were NOT going to take the money and items in the Temple of Mordain they discovered in the place. They thought about it and the player, a LN Cleric of Mordain Dwarf, prayed about it. A minor angel of the god came into the players dream and said "If you use the temples wealth to fight this evil, and restore this temple, who better to have this wealth?" The players were happy they weren't screwing up with the "Good" gods since the Evil ones had it in for them.

This party is Neutral Mercenaries and they seem to act better than some of the Good parties and peoples you have talked about above. I feel better about my players after writing this. Thanks.

The players DID kill a surrendered guy before. It was a CE Priest of the mad god, and after a "Detect Evil" and the guys actions, and his possessions including human skulls and such, they killed him. They are Neutral, but they still cared enough to bother with this instead of cold blooded murder when not in battle.

Good should be held to a higher standard in 3E. If you as the DM set this up and enforce it, you will change your game. If players don't want to be good do not force them, they can be Neutral. Even then, as I show above, that does not equal mindless killing machines and looters. Something to think about.

P.S. I'm really, actually pleased some people above (Thank you) really liked my post. I really have felt this way for a long time and I had to finally say something. I'm glad others can see that Good and Neutral and Evil are REALLY different.

 

[rounser]

Good should be held to a higher standard in 3E. If you as the DM set this up and enforce it, you will change your game. If players don't want to be good do not force them, they can be Neutral. Even then, as I show above, that does not equal mindless killing machines and looters. Something to think about.

Well, actually JLXC, I think this only works if you don't send them mixed messages - don't expect a heroic solution one day and a conservative, mercenary solution (such as retreat when innocents are at risk) the next - otherwise the players will occasionally second-guess your intentions or misread the encounter, and sometimes act heroic or mercenary during encounters when you want the opposite approach from them. If you run your campaign in such a style, it's your responsibility to accomodate a solution to the encounter not in line with your expectations - or simply bite the bullet, and dish out TPK (for inappropriate heroics) or work around the plot derailment or hook refusal (for lack of heroics) accordingly. Your choice.

In short, if the "heroic" approach works only when you want it to and you expect more practical actions at other times, you lose the right as a DM to complain if the PCs aren't always heroic when you want them to be.

 

[JLXC]

In short, if the "heroic" approach works only when you want it to and you expect more practical actions at other times, you lose the right as a DM to complain if the PCs aren't always heroic when you want them to be.

Luckily Rounser I don't do that. I let the dice and the encounters fall where they may. I told my players that I don't pull puches, and I DON'T! I also let the dice fall where they may. We've had several tragic deaths over a single die roll. That's the way it is. I leave it for my PLAYERS to decide. I don't make encounters with "Built In warnings", EVAR. If you do the Heroic and LIVE, I reward that in my own ways. It matters in my games. If you don't live that is sad, if you can't get raised, at least you are in Heaven for doing it right. Them's the breaks for being GOOD.

I let players get in over their heads, they know it. This breeds a cautious group, which is fine! There is a time for caution! Not every battle is the End of the World. You, as the player, makes that decision. You also live with the results. I as the DM play as fairly as I can, and sometimes just have to hope for the best.

On a spiritual note, take this for what you will...

When my players are doing "Good Deeds" the dice seem to favor them. When they are being selfish they tend to smash them. We have ALL noticed it around the table. Sure, it goes wrong sometimes! Lots of other times, the dice love them when they are in the right. I'm sure most of you will scoff... that's cool. Just my observations.

I'd rather DIE a HERO, than live to old age with the screams of those I refused to aid on my soul. YMMV