Negotiations During Combat

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

A situation came up in last night's game, and I wondered how others deal
with such cases.

The party is facing a group of Hobgoblins. Both groups are getting
slapped around pretty good.

In the middle of combat, the Hobgoblin leader says "Leave our home and
we'll let you go".

Some characters want to talk, some want to fight. There is a Flaming
Sphere with three more rounds of effect sitting around, plus, some
Hobgoblins got away in the start of the fight, and, in two rounds, the
reinforcements will arrive.

I know that talking is a 'free action', but that doesn't seem to work
well in this case. The Hobgoblin King and anybody who wants to talk can
work out an entire negotiated settlement, if they want.

Meanwhile the controller of the flaming sphere doesn't get the chance to
move her orb of doom onto the King, nor does the Hyper Agreesive fighter
hireling get a chacne to poke the goblin in front of him.

Also, the duration of the spell isn't ticking down, and the
reinforcements aren't getting any closer.

My last question had such good responses, I thought I'd try it again.

Thoughts, questions, suggestions?

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko wrote:
> A situation came up in last night's game, and I wondered how others deal
> with such cases.
>
> The party is facing a group of Hobgoblins. Both groups are getting
> slapped around pretty good.
>
> In the middle of combat, the Hobgoblin leader says "Leave our home and
> we'll let you go".
>
> Some characters want to talk, some want to fight. There is a Flaming
> Sphere with three more rounds of effect sitting around, plus, some
> Hobgoblins got away in the start of the fight, and, in two rounds, the
> reinforcements will arrive.
>
> I know that talking is a 'free action', but that doesn't seem to work
> well in this case. The Hobgoblin King and anybody who wants to talk can
> work out an entire negotiated settlement, if they want.
>
> Meanwhile the controller of the flaming sphere doesn't get the chance to
> move her orb of doom onto the King, nor does the Hyper Agreesive fighter
> hireling get a chacne to poke the goblin in front of him.
>
> Also, the duration of the spell isn't ticking down, and the
> reinforcements aren't getting any closer.
>
> My last question had such good responses, I thought I'd try it again.
>
> Thoughts, questions, suggestions?
>
> DWS

Most of the campaigns I play in tend to go against the official rule and
have speaking during combat only happen on that character's turn. Of
course, now and then there will be the occasional exception. But as
long as the character doesn't try to deliver a five minute soliloquy, it
keeps conversational flow to an appropriate pace for in-combat situations.

-Tialan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko wrote:
> A situation came up in last night's game, and I wondered how others
deal
> with such cases.
>
> The party is facing a group of Hobgoblins. Both groups are getting
> slapped around pretty good.
>
> In the middle of combat, the Hobgoblin leader says "Leave our home
and
> we'll let you go".
>
> Some characters want to talk, some want to fight. There is a Flaming

> Sphere with three more rounds of effect sitting around, plus, some
> Hobgoblins got away in the start of the fight, and, in two rounds,
the
> reinforcements will arrive.
>
> I know that talking is a 'free action', but that doesn't seem to work

> well in this case. The Hobgoblin King and anybody who wants to talk
can
> work out an entire negotiated settlement, if they want.

I generally don't sweat the small stuff. As long as the tension of
battle is maintained, sure, whatever. I'm more interested in everyone
getting to have fun than to worry about how many sentences they should
be allowed to say as a free action.

If I decide that it's gone on long enough, I just point to the next guy
in the initiative queue, and say "you have 30 seconds to state your
action, or you're Delaying". Works like a charm.

Laszlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:115ls5ff684el9d@corp.supernews.com...
>A situation came up in last night's game, and I wondered how others deal
>with such cases.
>
> The party is facing a group of Hobgoblins. Both groups are getting
> slapped around pretty good.
>
> In the middle of combat, the Hobgoblin leader says "Leave our home and
> we'll let you go".
>
> Some characters want to talk, some want to fight. There is a Flaming
> Sphere with three more rounds of effect sitting around, plus, some
> Hobgoblins got away in the start of the fight, and, in two rounds, the
> reinforcements will arrive.
>
> I know that talking is a 'free action', but that doesn't seem to work well
> in this case. The Hobgoblin King and anybody who wants to talk can work
> out an entire negotiated settlement, if they want.
>
> Meanwhile the controller of the flaming sphere doesn't get the chance to
> move her orb of doom onto the King, nor does the Hyper Agreesive fighter
> hireling get a chacne to poke the goblin in front of him.
>
> Also, the duration of the spell isn't ticking down, and the reinforcements
> aren't getting any closer.
>
> My last question had such good responses, I thought I'd try it again.
>
> Thoughts, questions, suggestions?
>
> DWS

The DM I'm playing with limits talking to a "free action" and also only a
few sentences at best. In a single round you can do all your attacks, move
actions, etc, and complete somewhere around 6 seconds of talking before it
moves onto the next person. So at least in the games I've been in there
wouldn't be a chance to complete the entire conversation in a single
person's turn.

The spells keep going, and the reinforcements are still on their way.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
>
> Of course, I like it when 'enemies' choose to work together. In some
> cases it's because they come to realize they've got no reason to
fight
> each other, in others it's because they've got common goals or bigger
> shared threats.
>
> One of my favorite scenes in a game came when the party was getting
> mightily spanked by an invasion of outsiders. The dark wizard
(brother
> of the party paladin) showed up. The players... were dismayed;
they'd
> run into him before. Until
>
> "Leave of your whole 'justice' bit, brother. We have to work
together
> *now* if there's going to be any world left for you to protect and
me
> to conquer. You can't close the gate. I *can*. I can't get
close
> enough without your help. You and your friends keep them off me
> while I -- it galls me to say this -- save the world."
>
>
> Keith
> --
>

This happened in my game as well. An evil wizard, through an
underling, tricked our rogue to burglarize his house. It was a set-up.
The wizard stole his stuff and left him to die among ghouls. After
rescuing our rogue we went after the wizard. We never found the
wizard, but we did battle his apprentice. His apprentice escaped, we
were fighting his simulacrum, but we found the rogue's stuff. We did
learn why the evil wizard stole from the rogue. Though we didn't like
the evil wizard, the rogue was happy enough to get back his stuff, and
the evil wizard's motivation became moot due to other events, so we no
longer had any real angst against him. The party decided to leave him
alone.

As the campaign progressed we became enemies of an evil wizards'
council. They would routinely teleport to us after a battle and try to
kill us while we're weak. We do manage to defend ourselves anyway. As
it happens, this same council for reasons unknown killed the real
apprentice we were fighting. When once again members teleported to us
just after a tough unrelated battle, we were having a tough time of it
when suddenly that evil wizard teleported to us as well and casted his
spells against the evil wizard council. The party was quite willing to
accept his aid. Once we were victorious, we wanted to talk with the
wizard, but with a nod he teleported away. Only the GM knows if we'll
ever meet him again, but the party is willing to accept that we have an
informal truce and have no qualms to mutually leaving each other alone.

Gerald Katz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:52:06 -0500, David Serhienko
<david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:

>A situation came up in last night's game, and I wondered how others deal
>with such cases.
>
>The party is facing a group of Hobgoblins. Both groups are getting
>slapped around pretty good.
>
>In the middle of combat, the Hobgoblin leader says "Leave our home and
>we'll let you go".
>
>Some characters want to talk, some want to fight. There is a Flaming
>Sphere with three more rounds of effect sitting around, plus, some
>Hobgoblins got away in the start of the fight, and, in two rounds, the
>reinforcements will arrive.
>
>I know that talking is a 'free action', but that doesn't seem to work
>well in this case.

Talking is a free action but that doesn't mean you have to give them
unlimited amounts of speech per round, just that you can do it while
fighting. A round represents 6 seconds. Therefore you can reasonably
limit them to a sentence or two per round.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
> A situation came up in last night's game, and I wondered how others
> deal with such cases.
>
> The party is facing a group of Hobgoblins. Both groups are getting
> slapped around pretty good.
>
> In the middle of combat, the Hobgoblin leader says "Leave our home and
> we'll let you go".
>
> Some characters want to talk, some want to fight. There is a Flaming
> Sphere with three more rounds of effect sitting around, plus, some
> Hobgoblins got away in the start of the fight, and, in two rounds, the
> reinforcements will arrive.
>
> I know that talking is a 'free action', but that doesn't seem to work
> well in this case. The Hobgoblin King and anybody who wants to talk
> can work out an entire negotiated settlement, if they want.
>
> Meanwhile the controller of the flaming sphere doesn't get the chance
> to move her orb of doom onto the King, nor does the Hyper Agreesive
> fighter hireling get a chacne to poke the goblin in front of him.
>
> Also, the duration of the spell isn't ticking down, and the
> reinforcements aren't getting any closer.
>
> My last question had such good responses, I thought I'd try it again.
>
> Thoughts, questions, suggestions?

Free actions can typically be done only on your turn. Even if you can
say as much as you want, in this case the hob leader and the party will
have to take turns. Time still passes.

Under the circumstances, each character can do what he wants. IIRC,
hobgoblins are LE and described as militaristic. This probably means at
least reasonable discipline, and perhaps some form of honor. If the
hobs heard their leader call for parley, they'd probably switch to
fighting defensively and let their opponents disengage without drawing
the AoO this can grant. In the meantime, the leader can try to continue
parley. If it falls apart, he'll order the attack again.

The PCs can act as they want. If they choose no quarter, the hobgoblins
will end the parley and withdraw the offer of quarter -- they'll either
fight to the death or retreat. If the party chooses to parley, the
spell will probably expire while they sort out details (or finish
disengaging).


Parley is probably a good strategy for the hobgoblins. If they're about
to be killed anyway, there's nothing to lose -- a bluff might save them.
If they're about to kill the party, but don't really want to (no quarter
gets expensive on both sides, just one more than the other), parley is
still a good strategy. If they want to just delay things until the
spell wears out and/or reinforcements show up, parley is useful again.


In other words, it's up to the players. The hobgoblins are taking a
chance, but not a really big one.


IMC I'd probably have there be some benefit to parleying and sticking to
the deal struck. Partly to help train the players (talking *good*, not
fighting to the death *good*), partly because it suits the style of my
campaign. In this case, they'd probably run into the hobgoblin leader
again in another context -- possibly as enemies across the field of war,
possibly as captives (he'd be willing to accept their parole), better
yet as *fellow* captives (work together to escape), maybe as captain of
a band of mercenaries hired to work with or for them, and so on. Not
necessarily *friendly*, but willing to work with them because he's seen
their prowess and their sense of honor.

Of course, I like it when 'enemies' choose to work together. In some
cases it's because they come to realize they've got no reason to fight
each other, in others it's because they've got common goals or bigger
shared threats.

One of my favorite scenes in a game came when the party was getting
mightily spanked by an invasion of outsiders. The dark wizard (brother
of the party paladin) showed up. The players... were dismayed; they'd
run into him before. Until

"Leave of your whole 'justice' bit, brother. We have to work together
*now* if there's going to be any world left for you to protect and me
to conquer. You can't close the gate. I *can*. I can't get close
enough without your help. You and your friends keep them off me
while I -- it galls me to say this -- save the world."


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vaccuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>
>>A situation came up in last night's game, and I wondered how others
>>deal with such cases.
>>
>>The party is facing a group of Hobgoblins. Both groups are getting
>>slapped around pretty good.
>>
>>In the middle of combat, the Hobgoblin leader says "Leave our home and
>>we'll let you go".
>>
>>Some characters want to talk, some want to fight. There is a Flaming
>>Sphere with three more rounds of effect sitting around, plus, some
>>Hobgoblins got away in the start of the fight, and, in two rounds, the
>>reinforcements will arrive.
>>
>>I know that talking is a 'free action', but that doesn't seem to work
>>well in this case. The Hobgoblin King and anybody who wants to talk
>>can work out an entire negotiated settlement, if they want.
>>
>>Meanwhile the controller of the flaming sphere doesn't get the chance
>>to move her orb of doom onto the King, nor does the Hyper Agreesive
>>fighter hireling get a chacne to poke the goblin in front of him.
>>
>>Also, the duration of the spell isn't ticking down, and the
>>reinforcements aren't getting any closer.
>>
>>My last question had such good responses, I thought I'd try it again.
>>
>>Thoughts, questions, suggestions?
>
>
> Free actions can typically be done only on your turn. Even if you can
> say as much as you want, in this case the hob leader and the party will
> have to take turns. Time still passes.

Except, in this case, where it specifies you can Speak out of turn in
the SRD.

> Under the circumstances, each character can do what he wants. IIRC,
> hobgoblins are LE and described as militaristic. This probably means at
> least reasonable discipline, and perhaps some form of honor.

That's how I play them... I use Imperial Japanese as a mdoel.

> If the
> hobs heard their leader call for parley, they'd probably switch to
> fighting defensively and let their opponents disengage without drawing
> the AoO this can grant. In the meantime, the leader can try to continue
> parley. If it falls apart, he'll order the attack again.
>
> The PCs can act as they want. If they choose no quarter, the hobgoblins
> will end the parley and withdraw the offer of quarter -- they'll either
> fight to the death or retreat. If the party chooses to parley, the
> spell will probably expire while they sort out details (or finish
> disengaging).

Right, my problem comes in where the party won't choose... some Pcs want
to talk... lower weapons etc... others want to fight. The hobgobs take
defensive action, surely, but how do I adjudicate the amount of talking
that can occur WHILE the fight is still occurring?

Basically, I ended up ruling that everyone gets two full sentences per
turn, only one of which can be used out-of-turn. They can still shoot
out as many single words as they like... i.e. "DIE!" or "OUCH" or
"DAMNIT" without affecting anaything else...

If they try to abuse this by doing:"Hey!"...."Why?"..."Not"..."Flank"..."?"

I'll just have to bring on the barbarian fiendish dire trolls of doom.

> Parley is probably a good strategy for the hobgoblins. If they're about
> to be killed anyway, there's nothing to lose -- a bluff might save them.
> If they're about to kill the party, but don't really want to (no quarter
> gets expensive on both sides, just one more than the other), parley is
> still a good strategy. If they want to just delay things until the
> spell wears out and/or reinforcements show up, parley is useful again.

That's what King Hob was thinking. He doesn't want his warriors killed,
he is angry and wants to kill the PCs, but not as badly as he needs to
keep the tribe strong.

If he can cut a deal and get Honor Price for his dead, he'll gladly
escort the party out. If not, maybe he can delay until reinforcements
get there, and overwhelem the party.

The question I was asking, though, is how to handle the MECHANICS of
trying to carry on a negotiation during combat, or while some combat is
happening, given that talking is supposed to be an out of turn allowable
free action (limited to a couple senstences each, but still).

> One of my favorite scenes in a game came when the party was getting
> mightily spanked by an invasion of outsiders. The dark wizard (brother
> of the party paladin) showed up. The players... were dismayed; they'd
> run into him before. Until
>
> "Leave of your whole 'justice' bit, brother. We have to work together
> *now* if there's going to be any world left for you to protect and me
> to conquer. You can't close the gate. I *can*. I can't get close
> enough without your help. You and your friends keep them off me
> while I -- it galls me to say this -- save the world."

Fun =-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> Free actions can typically be done only on your turn. Even if you can
>> say as much as you want, in this case the hob leader and the party will
>> have to take turns. Time still passes.
>
> Except, in this case, where it specifies you can Speak out of turn in
> the SRD.

Does it? I didn't check.

In any case, in a situation like this I think I'd require conversation
to take time. As others have said, you can talk during a round but are
still limited to about six seconds' worth of talking.

> That's how I play them... I use Imperial Japanese as a mdoel.

Hobgoblin samurai. Interesting image. I'm working on something more
western. Right now they're nebulously a nation of mercenaries; rank
grants privileges, but you have to earn it -- *everyone* starts at the
bottom and works up. As a result, you've got quite a few ambitious,
sometimes (but surprisingly infrequently) greedy mercenary corps out
there. They won't take jobs against their own state, but will take jobs
against other hob corps.

>> The PCs can act as they want. If they choose no quarter, the hobgoblins
>> will end the parley and withdraw the offer of quarter -- they'll either
>> fight to the death or retreat. If the party chooses to parley, the
>> spell will probably expire while they sort out details (or finish
>> disengaging).
>
> Right, my problem comes in where the party won't choose... some Pcs
> want to talk... lower weapons etc... others want to fight. The
> hobgobs take defensive action, surely, but how do I adjudicate the
> amount of talking that can occur WHILE the fight is still occurring?

Give them a couple of rounds, and if the rest don't down arms, the hobs
give no quarter and try to destroy the party.

> Basically, I ended up ruling that everyone gets two full sentences per
> turn, only one of which can be used out-of-turn. They can still shoot
> out as many single words as they like... i.e. "DIE!" or "OUCH" or
> "DAMNIT" without affecting anaything else...

Fair enough. That sounds like about six seconds' worth.

> If they try to abuse this by
> doing:"Hey!"...."Why?"..."Not"..."Flank"..."?"

I told my players long ago "no nickle and diming". You don't get to
stand five feet past the end of what you think the dragon's breath
weapon will reach and expect to be safe[1], you don't get to try to take
advantage of speaking rules. Not that the typically bother with either.

[1] "oops, I guess you misjudged how far away his head was."

ObWarStory:

Long ago I was playing in a game that had us hired as mercenaries/
special forces unit with the Imperial Army. We ran a number of
missions, and I was seconded to sapping and mining corps (playing a
dwarf).

Some time later, after he'd forgotten, we'd found a gap in a map and
searched around for the entrance to a secret room. The DM asked us
why we were wasting our time with it (though it turns out it *was*
the treasure room, and he didn't want us to find it).

"We found a blank area in our map, the rest is fairly densely
packed. We figure there may be a secret room there -- door probably
off *that* room."

"Why do you have such a good map? Are you engineers?"

*salute* "Grondar Pickman, Sergeant, Third Company of Second
Regiment, Engineering reserve, sah!"

>> Parley is probably a good strategy for the hobgoblins. If they're about
>> to be killed anyway, there's nothing to lose -- a bluff might save them.
>> If they're about to kill the party, but don't really want to (no quarter
>> gets expensive on both sides, just one more than the other), parley is
>> still a good strategy. If they want to just delay things until the
>> spell wears out and/or reinforcements show up, parley is useful again.
>
> That's what King Hob was thinking. He doesn't want his warriors killed,
> he is angry and wants to kill the PCs, but not as badly as he needs to
> keep the tribe strong.
>
> If he can cut a deal and get Honor Price for his dead, he'll gladly
> escort the party out. If not, maybe he can delay until reinforcements
> get there, and overwhelem the party.
>
> The question I was asking, though, is how to handle the MECHANICS of
> trying to carry on a negotiation during combat, or while some combat is
> happening, given that talking is supposed to be an out of turn allowable
> free action (limited to a couple senstences each, but still).

I think you've got a reasonable approach to it.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vaccuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The first thing I would say is - if the hobgoblins are trying to stop
combat and start a parlay the leader of the hobgoblin group would order
his combatants to stop fighting. He wants the parlay he need to gain
control of his subordinates then request a truce for the purpose of a
parlay. This relies on he beleiving in the honor and lawfullness of
your group following suit. Does he have a reason to beleive that the
opposing party would follow suit? If not why would he ask for parlay?

Also, consider there are traditions and possibly laws regardind
requests for parlay that certain lawful and good characters should be
expected to obey them. If an oposing force ceases combat and then call
for a truce then it must be honored. If they do not respond to the
request then they are no longer on the side of good and lawfullness. A
good Paladin should instantly loose his powers. A cleric might as
well.

It is up to the good / lawful characters to make sure that law and
order are respected. This all needs to be address by the players in
character and while not in combat.

However a leader of the group cannot call for a parlay untill he gains
control of his own troops first. If they are attacking the request for
a parlay is void and could be an obvious trick. Also, most warriors
tend to ignore what their enemies are saying while they are being
attacked.

Talking as a free action means that you are talking while doing
something else. You can't sue for peace while attempting to bash
someones skull in.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Oh and by the way if combat stops be sure to keep an eye on the clock
as timed spell effects can equal real time while having a conversation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
<SNIP>

> "We found a blank area in our map, the rest is fairly densely
> packed. We figure there may be a secret room there -- door probably
> off *that* room."

> "Why do you have such a good map? Are you engineers?"

> *salute* "Grondar Pickman, Sergeant, Third Company of Second
> Regiment, Engineering reserve, sah!"

Weird. I'm currentley playing a stone working, butt-kickin'
dwarf named Grondar.

~P.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tussock and Mart,

I disagree completely. If the opposing force has ceased hostilities
and is trying to engage in a parlay, and a paladin takes the
opportunity to lop of the head of someone (something?) that is 1) not a
threat and 2) pleading for peace, that is not noble combat, that is
murder.

A paladin is not able to do a wrong thing for a good reason. Nor is he
able to do something evil to someone just because "they" are evil. All
paladins beleive that "two wrongs don't make a right" also all paladins
beleive "there is no right way to do a wrong thing." Refusing quarter
is not the right thing to do. Refusing quarter is not a good thing to
do. A paladin cannot live in a world of greys. To a paladin every
action is either black or white.

Also in general you should be encouraging your characters to find
non-violent ways to win. If you aren't then it's just muchkin hack and
slash.

BTW which thread are you refering to.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Murphoid" <Murphoid@gmail.com> writes:

<snip>
>
> Also, consider there are traditions and possibly laws regardind
> requests for parlay that certain lawful and good characters should be
> expected to obey them. If an oposing force ceases combat and then call
> for a truce then it must be honored. If they do not respond to the
> request then they are no longer on the side of good and lawfullness. A
> good Paladin should instantly loose his powers.

Not necessarily.

A Paladin is more than free to shout "No quarter for Evil!" and
continue fighting *without* violating alignment restrictions.

This is what we have been discussing all along in the other thread.

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Murphoid wrote:
> [...] why would he ask for parlay?

As the OP said, at least in the hope of buying a little time.
There's no penalty for failure.

> Also, consider there are traditions and possibly laws regardind
> requests for parlay that certain lawful and good characters should be
> expected to obey them.

Consider that IMC at least, Lawful Good characters fight to win,
and I would consider it stupid to punish them for that; players would
probably respond by playing Chaotic Neutral all the time.

Now, it's often in everyones best interest to stop and have a talk,
but it's got nothing to do with alignment in most cases. Lawful Good
people weren't killing others for fun; if they can do it at all, they
can do it properly.

> If an oposing force ceases combat and then call for a truce then it
> must be honored. If they do not respond to the request then they are
> no longer on the side of good and lawfullness. A good Paladin should
> instantly loose his powers. A cleric might as well.

"Oh, hold on there chaps, our line seems to have fallen into
disorder and we're about to loose rather badly, stop winning for a
moment so we can heal up, re-buff, and reorganise; eh what?"

This is DnD, not Toon. Good people are allowed to win, and stupid
people get Darwinised. A Paladin must honour his /own/ word, not be a
slave to that of others; he can't offer or accept a truce without
meaning it, but he's free to punish cowardly Evil just as much as the
brave ones.


> You can't sue for peace while attempting to bash someones skull in.

Yes you can, and it's often quite effective that way. "Drop your
<thwack> weapons and we'll stop <thwack> killing you <thwack>."

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Murphoid wrote:
> I disagree completely. If the opposing force has ceased hostilities
> and is trying to engage in a parlay, and a paladin takes the
> opportunity to lop of the head of someone (something?) that is 1) not
> a threat and 2) pleading for peace, that is not noble combat, that is
> murder.

You'll have a hard time establishing the first premise; just because a
fiend has ceased hostilities doesn't mean that it's no longer a threat.
Also, your argument has a not-too-subtly hidden premise, that attacking
non-combatants is murder.

Neither of those premises are necessarily true in real life, and they're
certainly not true in D&D, where goodness is mainly about how you treat
innocent people, and where law is more about personal standards than
murder laws.

Since your argument relies on premises at least as dubious as your
conclusion -- begging the question -- it has no logical weight.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Murphoid wrote:
> Tussock and Mart,
>
> I disagree completely. If the opposing force has ceased hostilities
> and is trying to engage in a parlay, and a paladin takes the
> opportunity to lop of the head of someone (something?) that is 1) not a
> threat and 2) pleading for peace, that is not noble combat, that is
> murder.
>
> A paladin is not able to do a wrong thing for a good reason. Nor is he
> able to do something evil to someone just because "they" are evil. All
> paladins beleive that "two wrongs don't make a right" also all paladins
> beleive "there is no right way to do a wrong thing." Refusing quarter
> is not the right thing to do. Refusing quarter is not a good thing to
> do. A paladin cannot live in a world of greys. To a paladin every
> action is either black or white.

3.5 would appear to disagree with you though.

"Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the
innocent without hesitation is lawful good"

Andy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

*Heh. If it's a Succubus or other Cha/Charm-based fiend it's more of a
threat than it was in combat.

Ahh but if a succubus is trying to charm you that is a hostile act.
She
(He? Shudder) hasn't stopped hostilities.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Andy,

I don't think a caption on a drawing constitutes a rule.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Murphoid wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

>>Also, your argument has a not-too-subtly hidden premise, that
>
> attacking
>
>>non-combatants is murder.
>
>
> Attacking Non Combatants is murder and always has been by any
> recognized rules of war.

That's not quite true. If the non-combatants were innocents caught in
the crossfire between two sides of combatants, they are "Collateral
Damage," an "Unavoidable Tragedy" that is part of the "Cost of Doing War."

It seems to me that by the Rules of War the term Murder only applies
when combat has otherwise ceased. And I'd be hard-pressed to say such
casual dismissal of innocent life is Good in any sense of the term.

-Tialan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:02:44 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Murphoid wrote:
> > I disagree completely. If the opposing force has ceased hostilities
> > and is trying to engage in a parlay, and a paladin takes the
> > opportunity to lop of the head of someone (something?) that is 1) not
> > a threat and 2) pleading for peace, that is not noble combat, that is
> > murder.
>
> You'll have a hard time establishing the first premise; just because a
> fiend has ceased hostilities doesn't mean that it's no longer a threat.
> Also, your argument has a not-too-subtly hidden premise, that attacking
> non-combatants is murder.

Heh. If it's a Succubus or other Cha/Charm-based fiend it's more of a
threat than it was in combat.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

*The term murder applies as well during combat, why shouldn't it?
A soldier currently in combat isn't allowed to kill everybody in sight
who's not 'on his side'.

Murder by definition is a act of aggression resulting in death.

Returning fire at people who are trying to kill you is not murder.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

*The term murder applies as well during combat, why shouldn't it?
A soldier currently in combat isn't allowed to kill everybody in sight
who's not 'on his side'.

Murder by definition is a act of aggression resulting in death.

Returning fire at people who are trying to kill you is not murder.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The reasoning here being that Munitions workers are accessories to
those attacking you. I can't see any civilized commander ordering
firing into a crowd of civilians to get to the enemy on the other side.
American rules of engagement specifically prohibit this and this comes
from the traditions I am on about.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:56:49 -0500, Tialan wrote:

> Murphoid wrote:
>> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
>>>Also, your argument has a not-too-subtly hidden premise, that
>>
>> attacking
>>
>>>non-combatants is murder.
>>
>>
>> Attacking Non Combatants is murder and always has been by any
>> recognized rules of war.
>
> That's not quite true. If the non-combatants were innocents caught in
> the crossfire between two sides of combatants, they are "Collateral
> Damage," an "Unavoidable Tragedy" that is part of the "Cost of Doing War."

But that's not the same as attacking them. The attacks are directed at
combatants in your example.

> It seems to me that by the Rules of War the term Murder only applies
> when combat has otherwise ceased.

The term murder applies as well during combat, why shouldn't it?
A soldier currently in combat isn't allowed to kill everybody in sight
who's not 'on his side'.

LL