Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergius]

Also I gotta say if a party has an option other than slaughtering an entire village (leaving, surrendering, etc) and they slaughter the village, that's an evil act, no matter which way you slice it.

So, slaughtering an entire bandit camp when the options are leaving or surrendering is evil. I mean, bandits are pretty much villagers that decided to do unjust things. You know, like, attacking innocent people. Hey, what a coincidence.

There was no killing of villagers that weren't part of the mob. No idea how many villagers were actually left in their houses doing things that didn't involve trying to murder visitors. But hey, if you want to condone the murder of innocent visitors by angry lynch mobs, more power to you. I would call it blaming the victim, probably.

Also I view absolute qualificators like "no matter how you slice it", "no ifs, buts" and "end of story" with extreme suspicioun. They pretty much just mean "I'm right and don't try to argue". You know how people on the internet don't have to say "in my opinion" before each sentence, because it's assumed by default? You just said "It's not just my opinion, it is fact."

[Sergius]

Now that I think more about it, surrendering to a mob of armed peasants with no sign of any kind of... you know, law enforcement official of any kind, taking orders from an illusory flying Paladin created by an evil necromancer that feeds on their fear and kidnaps their children to feed them to a demon seems like a wonderful idea.

[Bohandas]

I think the appropriate response for a good aligned party would be either a tactical retreat or a sleep spell.

Maybe use glitterdust to cover your retreat.

[Sergius]

I think the appropriate response for a good aligned party would be either a tactical retreat or a sleep spell.

Maybe use glitterdust to cover your retreat.

Thanks, I'll make sure to tell that to the nonexistent party mage. Maybe he'll put them to sleep or help fly us out of the impenetrable mob circle that had us surrounded.

[Bauglir]

Why didn't you just daintily leap over their ranks astride your mighty unicorns?

[Sergius]

Why didn't you just daintily leap over their ranks astride your mighty unicorns?

Because we ran out of our rainbow dust, and it's just unfashionable to jump around in unicorns without sprinkling rainbow dust!

[Bauglir]

Why didn't you just daintily leap over their ranks astride your mighty unicorns?

Because we ran out of our rainbow dust, and it's just unfashionable to jump around in unicorns without sprinkling rainbow dust!

Shit, yeah, that'll do it. Fair enough. That sort of travesty would probably be a greater sin than even, say, child-eating.

[Tack]

In My Opinion rainbow dust would've fixed all your problems there.

Also I view absolute qualificators like "no matter how you slice it", "no ifs, buts" and "end of story" with extreme suspicioun. They pretty much just mean "I'm right and don't try to argue". You know how people on the internet don't have to say "in my opinion" before each sentence, because it's assumed by default? You just said "It's not just my opinion, it is fact."

Some things ARE fact; especially things covered by a Canon text. (Like 85% of DnD is)

So really the question is Was it self defense? Was there some other way you could've gotten out of it. If not, sure, you're all still great, high five. But if running, magic fairy dust or 'Ok, Ok, we'll leave already!' would work, then that was unequivocally bad.

Also I view the "Screw you GM, we don't have to tell you we're remorseful" attitude just hinders gameplay. You DO have to tell the DM, because he's the conduit between the players and the game. Things which he doesn't know about simply Aren't happening. (In My Opinion)

[Sergius]

But saying you're remorseful is not a part of alignment, or screaming "NOOOOOOOOOO!" until the camera zooms out until you can see the village then the whole country, or yelling "By Grabthar's Hammer, I will avenge you!". And if you open the door to we telling the DM how our characters feel, what's stopping me from telling him every 5 seconds what my character feels to the point of hindering gameplay?

I swear, I'm perfectly prepared to do that!

DM: You arrive at an old crypt, the moon casts creepy shadows all over.
Me: My character feels a deep sense of foreboding!
DM: Cool. So, you enter, right? The door creaks showing its ancient age.
Me: My character feels shivers all over his spine! Also, he remembers the days when, as a kid, he used to play in the graveyard in his home town. This fills him with a deep sense of nostalgia!
DM: Yeah, fine. Well, the corridor is dry and you can hear the echo of your own footsteps. There are cobwebs-
Me: My character remembers when he used to put dead spiders in the hair of his little school friends! This gives him a deep sense of jollyness as he suppresses a chuckle!
DM: ALRIGHT. So, there's a carving of a face.
Me: My character loves faces! Faces give him deep sense of optimism, thinking about all the faces he's seen over a lifetime of-
DM: SHUT UP ABOUT ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS! DAMN I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOUR CHARACTER FEELS!
Me: DEEP SENSE! DEEP SENSE! DEEP SENSE!

I must make sure the DM doesn't think my character is an evil unfeeling automaton and change my alignment!

[Tack]

Well that just makes you sound like a pretty hardcore doorkicker.

[Arcvasti]

In this particular case, its just the DM being an A-class dingus. From what he said, they tried non-lethal resistance[Sundering weapons and blustering] and only escalated to killing things when the villagers attacked with lethal force. And the villagers only attacked in the first place because the DM was being terribad.

[Bohandas]

I think the appropriate response for a good aligned party would be either a tactical retreat or a sleep spell.

Maybe use glitterdust to cover your retreat.

Thanks, I'll make sure to tell that to the nonexistent party mage. Maybe he'll put them to sleep or help fly us out of the impenetrable mob circle that had us surrounded.

Do you not have a bard either? Bards can learn those spells too, and glitterdust in particular is a massively useful debuff spell which I always learn when playing a bard in Temple of Elemental Evil because it's so da,n useful.

[Sergius]

I think the appropriate response for a good aligned party would be either a tactical retreat or a sleep spell.

Maybe use glitterdust to cover your retreat.

Thanks, I'll make sure to tell that to the nonexistent party mage. Maybe he'll put them to sleep or help fly us out of the impenetrable mob circle that had us surrounded.

Do you not have a bard either? Bards can learn those spells too, and glitterdust in particular is a massively useful debuff spell which I always learn when playing a bard in Temple of Elemental Evil because it's so da,n useful.

I'm starting to see here's a heavy disconnect with reality here. Can't really blame you, because this is a fantasy setting and such things are possible, certainly. But if you start framing the "Good vs Nongood vs Evil" argument as "what would Superman do?" and then go down from there "What do you MEAN you don't have Calm Peasants 30' Radius? Well, in that case just become intangible and wait it out man!" to "just use your Psychology skill to find out if they have any childhood issues and fix them, so that they reconsider their actions!" to "geesh, just call the cops then, they'll handle it no problem" down to "well, I guess you could have tried selling all your earthly possessions and offering them the money to let you go. No cost is too high!" to determine if a character's actions are justified or not.

I'm sure there are thousands of ways that if you just happen to have them, you can always take the Third Option (TM), and avoid being Mr. Evil (after all, the best strategy to win in a conflict that you cannot win, is to make sure that conflict doesn't happen in the first place!). But why are you being Mr. Evil in the first place? Good is always Dumb? Peasants are Never Evil? (because they're not goblins?) Is attacking the party unprovoked not an evil action? Is it important to make a note of how many hit points each side has to determine if the fight is equal or not (and an non-equal fight automatically makes the winning side evil?)

If you have to fish for specific abilities to defuse a situation (well, use your wizard! well, use your bard then! well, use your supplies of glitterdust!) you're already giving up the argument of whether 1) you did anything to be attacked in the first place 2) you deserve the right to your own bodily health 3) you deserve the right to self defense.

And just by reading the fluff on 2nd Edition D&D and Complete Paladin guide, I can tell you without any doubt that a Paladin would have taken these steps:
1) Told them to stand down, in the name of Justice
2) Told them to stop their evil actions or face swift retribution
3) Use adequate force to repel each attack (with the possibility of killing)
4) Felt righteous that he upheld Law and Goodness int his world.

But he's not good, you say? If the villagers had told him that there was a horrible giant killing and terrorizing them, he would have immediately accepted their plea and quest to rid them of this evil menace.

The books explicitly say that a Lawful Good Paladin wouldn't take shit like a bunch of allegedly "neutrals" trying to kill him or his friends!

Spoiler: The Complete Paladin's Handbook (emphasis mine) (click to show/hide)

Lawful Good Alignment

   Every paladin must be lawful good. The moment he abandons the conditions of this alignment is the moment he stops being a paladin.

   At the heart of a lawful good alignment is the belief in a system of laws that promotes the welfare of all members of a society, ensures their safety, and guarantees justice. So long as the laws are just and applied fairly to all people, it doesn't matter to the paladin whether they originate from a democracy or a dictator.

   Though all lawful good systems adhere to the same general principles, specific laws may be different. One society may allow a wife to have two husbands, another may enforce strict monogamy. Gambling may be tolerated in one system, forbidden in another. A paladin respects the laws of other lawful good cultures and will not seek to impose his own values on their citizens.

   However, a paladin will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment. A government may believe that unregulated gambling provides a harmless diversion, but a paladin may determine that the policy has resulted in devastating poverty and despair. In the paladin's mind, the government is guilty of a lawless act by promoting an exploitative and destructive enterprise. In response, the paladin may encourage citizens to refrain from gambling, or he may work to change the law.

   Particularly abhorrent practices, such as slavery and torture, may force the paladin to take direct action. It doesn't matter if these practices are culturally acceptable or sanctioned by well-meaning officials. The paladin's sense of justice compels him to intervene and alleviate as much suffering as he can. Note, though, that time constraints, inadequate resources, and other commitments may limit his involvement. While a paladin might wish for a cultural revolution in a society that tolerates cannibalism, he may have to content himself with rescuing a few victims before circumstances force him to leave the area.

   When will a paladin take a life? A paladin kills whenever necessary to promote the greater good, or to protect himself, his companions, or anyone whom he's vowed to defend. In times of war, he strikes down the enemies of his ruler or church. He does not interfere with a legal execution, so long as the punishment fits the crime.

   Otherwise, a paladin avoids killing whenever possible. He does not kill a person who is merely suspected of a crime, nor does a paladin necessarily kill someone he perceives to be a threat unless he has tangible evidence or certain knowledge of evildoing. He never kills for treasure or personal gain. He never knowingly kills a lawful good being.

   Though paladins believe in the sanctity of innocent life, most kill animals and other nonaligned creatures in certain situations. A paladin may kill animals for food. He will kill a monster that endangers humans, even if the monster is motivated by instinct, not evil. While some paladins avoid hunting for sport, others may hunt to sharpen their combat and tracking skills.

EDIT: as an aside, saying that something is non-good is the same as saying it is a neutral action, and implying that this would shift any Evil or Good character towards neutral makes no sense. Alignment can be changed by refusing to take the obvious active Good action (the orphans ask for your help or they'll end up homeless, you say "not my problem" is neutral AND it also makes you less good). Making every neutral or not expicitly good action an Anti-Good action is madness.

[Culise]

A barbarian doesn't need to act Chaotic Stupid. A barbarian can act as would thematically make sense for a barbarian that is not part of civilization and doesn't like getting manhandled by angry peasants who want to kick his face in or even if they just wanted to take his weapon, lock him up for no legitimate reason. You're reading WAY too much there with the "restraint".

Yes, a character wouldn't instantly fall by doing one Lawful action. But he can't consistently go about doing Lawful actions until his alignment shifts to Neutral and then Lawful. The requirement during play seems to be: having restraint = A HERO IS YOU. not having restraint when you're being bullied = TERRIBAD TOO BAD SO SAD YOU LOSE also you are evil because chaotic is evil and you're a jerk and you smell bad and should feel bad.

I wasn't talking about the very particular scenario your DM laid out; restraining oneself from self-defense in the circumstances portrayed would have been foolish.  I was talking about the general case you espoused where any barbarian that shows restraint would lose their powers.  Simply put, self-restraint is not automatically lawful behavior.  A chaotic person can have a limited code of honor, can have loyalties to their friends built on personal bonds, can have a few rules by which they choose to live (even if they're more like guidelines than rules).  These would restrain their acts, but would not necessarily automatically reflect a philosophy where deference to laws, order, and authority must follow.  Hells, simple common sense may be enough to restrain them on a situational basis - restraining yourself from trying to murder someone with a knife at your throat is simple self-preservation, not lawful behavior, but is still a manner of self-restraint (gods know I've heard stories about players who lack even that basic level of self-restraint). 

To refute Tack, since it's strongly relevant, I would assert that a barbarian who takes off his shoes to drink tea in a sitting room wouldn't automatically fall, because *why* he does it matters: maybe he just likes taking his shoes off when he's not outside; maybe taking off his shoes in that context is itself socially offensive; maybe maybe maybe.  Just because a person's actions happen to be in accord with societal mores in certain ways (say, someone who doesn't murder without due cause, or someone who doesn't cheat at games of chance), doesn't automatically mean that the person's behaviour in general is lawful.  Besides, Tack is not correct in the general case in that saying that a singular Lawful act by a Barbarian (or rather, a single act Tack personally views as Lawful) is automatically enough for a barbarian to lose their powers; that is purely DM fiat, albeit by a power granted by RAW, and while there is a place for DM fiat, I, for one, would certainly decline to play with any DM that would cripple a player just for kicking off their shoes and putting on a pot of tea.  As per RAW, the paladin is the *only* case of a class in the core books (I don't know all the splatbooks off the top of my head) that is guaranteed to lose its powers for a non-alignment-appropriate act, and that only for an act that is both (a) willful and (b) evil.  Clerics lose their powers based on violations of the rules of their order (as opposed to alignment, except insofar as one is intended to reflect the other), and other classes that lose their powers due to inappropriate alignment-related actions (monks, bards, barbarians) do only when they actually change alignments, which falls under the rules for alignment shifts that only state that it is up to DM discretion.  One DM might choose to make a sip of tea enough to go from Chaotic to Lawful; another DM might effectively ignore it even if a barbarian, say, takes up an act of fealty to a king based solely on their loyalty to the principles behind the crown.  Both of these are equally valid according to RAW, but to explicitly justify one in isolation with an appeal to the rules as written is typically used to imply that the other is not also justifiable by RAW, and I distrust that sort of disingenous act. 

Tack and you would both be correct that a barbarian that consistently demonstrates Lawful behavior could lose their powers, if either of you had stated such.  The problem is, you didn't say such in the original post I responded to, and he still hasn't said such at all; in fact, Tack, as per your example, you seem to be stating the opposite with your little analogy to the paladin.  Perhaps I did read too much into your comment that "a barbarian that learns restraint loses their barbarian abilities per RAW."  I've seen enough DMs like Tack or the one you yourself seem to decry so loudly, though, not to mention enough players that use "chaotic" as a shield for all sorts of inappropriate acts, that it should not be surprising that I took such a statement by you exactly as written - that any barbarian who exercises restraint, with absolutely no qualifying statements whatsoever, automatically loses their powers, and that it's also completely justified per RAW. 

EDIT: Also, a barbarian rage is, in the written fluff, a "screaming blood frenzy" wherein (s)he "becomes reckless."  As far as mechanical effect, they do gain strength and constitution, but lose armor class and cannot use most charisma, dexterity, or intelligence skills or most manually-triggered magical effects.  That said, there is no restriction as per RAW on a raging barbarian choosing to inflict non-lethal damage.

Since the Confusion spell effect is completely separate from fluff saying "reckless" in a positive class ability, and the RAW explains exactly how you're being reckless (you're being reckless in your defense, obviously, and fine-motion tasks, which aren't required to swing a weapon at the intended target) I don't see how this could result in randomly killing a person that is your ally during combat. If this ability can make you randomly attack a Peasant ally, it can definitely make you randomly attack one of your own party, and you would see this stated in the rules somewhere, no doubt (it seems relevant during play!). And you wouldn't find out after the end of combat, surely, as your own teammate would definitely let you know with very colourful language.

Plus the part about nonlethal not being allowed not being RAW, it should be enough. The houserules that criticals (isn't a high roll t reflective of your attack being SO SKILLFUL that it dealt extra damage to vitals, it seems backwards to rule that doing extra damage due to a critical means you hit like some sort of drunken elephant which is why you dealt extra damage and also it has to be lethal... what?)

You could argue that for a barbarian, trying to incapacitate people doing clear assault and battery is a lot of restraint, yet chaotic enough to be Chaotic Normal as opposed to Chaotic IKEELYOU.

Well, yes, I should imagine so.  After all, I was stating that largely in support of your claim that a barbarian that completely loses control is not RAW.  By RAW, the only mechanical effect is the stat bonuses and penalties outlined.  At most, it's only the fluff that creates the circumstance they described, but this has no mechanical effect in the game unless such is houseruled in.  Heck, a barbarian rage can even be deactivated before its formal duration runs out if they so wish; that does not sound like a loss of control. 

----

Though, truth be told, I'm mostly thinking about the possibilities for shenanigans available in a cursed Tea of Opposite Alignment. 

[Sergius]

I've seen enough DMs like Tack or the one you yourself seem to decry so loudly, though, not to mention enough players that use "chaotic" as a shield for all sorts of inappropriate acts, that it should not be surprising that I took such a statement by you exactly as written - that any barbarian who exercises restraint, with absolutely no qualifying statements whatsoever, automatically loses their powers, and that it's also completely justified per RAW. 

But if you want to get technical "you did use these exact words", I said "learns restraint", not "exercises restraint" - the implication was that the Barbarian trades his, whatever the barbarian has that makes him Smashy or whatever. The barbarian goes thru a permanent change of behaviour (therefore, "learns"). This is in direct response to the DM saying "restraint = good, not restraint = bad", saying, basically, that the "Proper Barbarian" is badwrong. Not that "restraint would have made sense in this specific case". Restraint that, you know, the Barbarian actually did exercise, and was completely in character when being annoyed about having to, but was chided for not being his default all the time and liking it.