YAAT Good is just passe?

[rounser]

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.

You must get TPK quite often, then. Must make campaign continuity hard.

Notice that I never mentioned dice - dying to the dice is indeed, IMO, a fair death. Dying because the DM wants you to retreat from an encounter he's set up, and you can't work out that he wants you to retreat because he doesn't give you any clues and calls you "stupid" afterwards when you fight to the point of no return, is kind of stupid in and of itself, IMO - and is what I'm referring to.

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.

I think that you're contradicting yourself - I get the impression that you imply that caution isn't heroic, according to your definitions earlier on this thread and the "stupid DM expectations" one - that you want PCs to damn the torpedoes and sacrifice themselves at the drop of a hat. That doesn't allow for much caution in my book. Caution in D&D usually involves retreat if things are going badly, which isn't heroic according to your definition of heroism.

 

[JLXC]

You must get TPK quite often, then. Must make campaign continuity hard.

Notice that I never mentioned dice - dying to the dice is indeed, IMO, a fair death. Dying because the DM wants you to retreat from an encounter he's set up, and you can't work out that he wants you to retreat because he doesn't give you any clues and calls you "stupid" afterwards, is kind of stupid in and of itself, IMO - and is what I'm referring to.

I think that you're contradicting yourself - I get the impression that you imply that caution isn't heroic, according to your definitions earlier on this thread and the "stupid DM expectations" one - that you want PCs to damn the torpedoes and sacrifice themselves at the drop of a hat. That doesn't allow for much caution in my book. Caution in D&D usually involves retreat, which isn't heroic according to your definition of heroism.

Heh I have had a TPK once. Only once mind you.

I would NEVER call my players stupid after they all died. Isn't dying bad enough? If your DM is sending "Secret" messages of when you should run, and when you should not, then WTF is wrong with him? I'm straight with my players. Make YOUR decisions. I don't give them hints and hopes. That makes them dependent on You the DM to think and that sucks. Make YOUR own decision, but You as the player have to live with it.

WHERE did I evar say that? You read WAY too much into what I have said there friend. I've said several times that if you are GOOD, and there are innocents in deadly danger, even when the odds suck, if you don't do something... and Right NOW... you are not good. You better have a REALLY REALLY good reason beyond "I'm scared to die". If you are nowhere, or in a dungeon, and there's nobody but You and many monsters and you're all gonna die if you don't retreat... then For God's Sake RETREAT! There are TIMES for caution and TIMES for Bravery, and being GOOD makes it easy to know when that is.

If you have 5 days to stop the X from finishing a spell to blow up the town you like, and you are Good, and you COULD maybe do it but are afraid. You SUCK. You're not good. If you are battling the evil minions in the evil dungeon of this wizard, and you must retreat to heal, and there is time, DO IT. If you have one HOUR to do it, and you are down some HPs, down many spells, and items have been used... it's time to PRESS ON or Change alignment. It's simple. Heroes Dare. That's what makes them heroes.

Just because 6 EVIL Giants are sitting on a hill does not mean you have to rush into them for no reason. Why would you?

If those Jerks are waiting to jump some people who are close to them and don't see them... WELL if you are Good the LEAST you can do is WARN the people and maybe shoot a few LONG distance arrows at the brute. Make some noise! Do something! Maybe you'll even have to Charge in there... maybe you MIGHT die. A Good person (Especially an Adventurer with magic and abilities well beyond most men) who does nothing while Evil destroys a bunch of innocent people, just because they are AFRAID!!!!! That's Neutral my friend. There's an Alignment for that.

Good Acts. Neutrals do what is safe. Evil does whatever it likes.

 

[rounser]

I would NEVER call my players stupid after they all died. Isn't dying bad enough?

You don't, but there's an entire thread devoted to it elsewhere on these boards.

If your DM is sending "Secret" messages of when you should run, and when you should not, then WTF is wrong with him?

Metagaming is what it's called. DMs metagame when they make encounters using the CR/EL system based on party level. Both players and DMs often metagame when they try to differentiate between adventure hooks and rumours or red herrings. Likewise, if you're running a story arc of some sort (as DMs on this board often do), or presenting status quo encounters, I think it's healthy for the campaign if you hint through NPCs that the 20th level kobolds in the cave over there have killed dozens of legendary, dragonslaying league adventurers....then let the PCs work out that they probably won't be able to handle the caves at 1st level. Or you could take your approach, and let them enter in hopes of a cakewalk and all die.

Likewise, if the PCs meet the archvillain early, and he is of a level far beyond what they can handle at the time, you could conciously choose to either kill the PCs upfront...or you could metagame and have the villain toy with them instead, for story and campaign continuity reasons. Killing the PCs through no fault of their own and not because of the dice is still possible (and in some occasions warranted), but for the most part it's undesirable for reasons of playing fair as a DM, earning player trust, and keeping the campaign on the rails - and you can usually keep it plausible enough to pass verisimilitude inspection. Either that, or you can go your route and introduce deus ex machinas to save them, but not everyone digs that...

I'm straight with my players. Make YOUR decisions. I don't give them hints and hopes. That makes them dependent on You the DM to think and that sucks. Make YOUR own decision, but You as the player have to live with it.

I take it that you don't think when setting up encounters, then? Usually setting up an encounter carries an implicit assumption of how PCs will interact with it (they'll probably end up fighting the otyugh and talking with the shopkeeper, rather than vice versa, for instance, and DM common sense often says that you may set up the encounter to accomodate those expectations).

WHERE did I evar say that? You read WAY too much into what I have said there friend.

Nowhere, but I was commenting on your sentiments that if you run a campaign that allows for heroism, you'll often get it with the addendum that if you do so, don't flip-flop in style and expectations between heroism and practicality and expect the PCs to always react in the way you want them to - in your case, acting as heroes - that's the expectation you seem to be pushing.

I've said several times that if you are GOOD, and there are innocents in deadly danger, even when the odds suck, if you don't do something... and Right NOW... you are not good. You better have a REALLY REALLY good reason beyond "I'm scared to die".

Such as, "my death will achieve nothing in helping the innocents, and if I run, I'll live another day to do greater good"? Discretion is, as they say, the better part of valour...

 

[Falcon]

JLXC,

Keep up the good fight. I'd love to play in a campaign you ran, simply by what you have presented. Vibrant, daring, dangerous, risks to be taken...ahh, the things heroes are made of.

PS--It seems that doing the right thing and being a hero, trying to save the world and all that--the reasons I began playing D&D 26 years ago--is somewhat passe on these boards. Too bad.

 

[TBoarder]

If those Jerks are waiting to jump some people who are close to them and don't see them... WELL if you are Good the LEAST you can do is WARN the people and maybe shoot a few LONG distance arrows at the brute. Make some noise! Do something! Maybe you'll even have to Charge in there... maybe you MIGHT die. A Good person (Especially an Adventurer with magic and abilities well beyond most men) who does nothing while Evil destroys a bunch of innocent people, just because they are AFRAID!!!!! That's Neutral my friend. There's an Alignment for that.

Good Acts. Neutrals do what is safe. Evil does whatever it likes.

I'm sorry, I don't agree with this. You're pinning alignment on emotion. Fear is a very powerful emotion, and having it overwhelm you doesn't make someone less good, no matter what Yoda says. The aftermath of letting fear overwhelm you is the most telling sign of someone's alignment I believe. If the characters are apethetic (Eh, there was nothing we could do anyway), then yes, I'd put them in Neutral territory, if they show guilt and remorse, then no, fear would not mean that they aren't good.

 

[Black Omega]

I admit I do like the idea of my players showing mercy now and then. In six months of gaming so far the group has spared..hm...three people they could have killed. One surrendered when it was clear he was outmatched. He later rethought things while serving his punishment and is now short term apprentice to one of the PC's. Another was a guy they strongly believed was a bandit. He's lately been acting as a guide for the group and thought he doesn't like them, he fears them and it works out. The last was a thug who took part in ambushing the group and helped capture some of them. He's not been seen since. And the thug is very happy to keep it that way.

 

[JLXC]

I'm sorry, I don't agree with this. You're pinning alignment on emotion. Fear is a very powerful emotion, and having it overwhelm you doesn't make someone less good, no matter what Yoda says. The aftermath of letting fear overwhelm you is the most telling sign of someone's alignment I believe. If the characters are apethetic (Eh, there was nothing we could do anyway), then yes, I'd put them in Neutral territory, if they show guilt and remorse, then no, fear would not mean that they aren't good.

I am not an Absolutist, I try to be pretty straight forward though. If you are a NG Commoner Farm Boy and a horde of orcs kills your family and you hide and someday you right that wrong, then you Are a Hero and you didn't suddenly become Neutral when your familiy died.

I allow for Wiggle Room when it makes sense. It's also possible a normally Good hero may have a lapse now and then, fill with regret, then begin the fight even more driven then before. I'm not an "All my Way" DM or player for that matter. There are ALWAYS exceptions, they help prove the rule after all.

 

[hong]

PS--It seems that doing the right thing and being a hero, trying to save the world and all that--the reasons I began playing D&D 26 years ago--is somewhat passe on these boards. Too bad.

D00d, after 26 years, you'd think the world would have learned to take care of itself, wouldn't you?

 

[JLXC]

D00d, after 26 years, you'd think the world would have learned to take care of itself, wouldn't you?

Hong you GOTTA know it's a slow learner.

See Special Ed.

 

[Reprisal]

First off... YAAT?

Second, I have to say that these types of threads are perhaps my favourite to read and post to...

Anyway, I was just going to ask you all if you had some set of guidelines which help you figure out what act can be considered more or less good, more or less neutral, and more or less evil.

Personally, I try to take it in a case-by-case basis with precedence continually set for each character. While the quote goes "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions," I've actually approached the problem of discerning the virtue of actions through intentions, motivations, and reactions alone...

If a character, let's call him Garacaius, acts in such a way which saves a Duke unknown to him from the blades of bandits he's already witnessed murder an entire troupe of entertainers. Is this good? His intentions are to save a stranger (an innocent?) from a party he knows to be quite murderous (and evil).

Now, he saves the Duke, and kills several of the bandits before they escape. He killed these bandits, these murderers, in defense of this man. Is this good?

Afterwards, he learns that the Duke, after ascending to the Throne, embarked upon a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" against the elven population of the land. Therefore, saving the Duke led to the death and destruction of most of the elven population in the Kingdom of Eos (or wherever).

If Garacaius then laments the deaths of these people, but does not regret saving the Duke, does that make him "less Good?" If he regrets saving the Duke, does that change anything? Obviously, if he doesn't care either way, he's either on the distasteful side of neutral, or even evil...

Personally, I believe that our friend Garacaius is still Good if he laments the death of the elves, but does not regret saving the Duke at that time. The same rings true with the second, where he regrets saving the Duke in hindsight.

The fact remains that at the time, Garacaius believed that what he was doing was virtuous, and therefore, there should be no transgressions on record.

Still, what do you think?