Negotiations During Combat

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
72 answers Last reply
More about negotiations combat
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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 =-)
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Andy,

    I don't think a caption on a drawing constitutes a rule. :-)
  19. 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
  20. 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."
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Alien mind control rays made Lorenz Lang <lang@netlife.invalid> write:
    >> 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'.

    ah, it must be nice to live in a world where you've got so much
    civility to develop rules of warfare. it must be a very romantic
    place.

    --
    \^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
    \ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    // \ X-Windows: A mistake carried out to perfection.
    // \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Murphoid wrote:
    > Andy,
    >
    > I don't think a caption on a drawing constitutes a rule. :-)
    >
    It's not a caption, it's imbedded in the (single) paragraph that
    describes lawful good.(pg 105 1st printing July 2003)
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz Lang wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    Except that LOAC allows, for example, bombing a munitions factory even
    if it is full of non-combatant civilian workers (providing the military
    advantage is proportinate to the civilian casualties)
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 14 Apr 2005 06:40:30 -0700, "Murphoid" <Murphoid@gmail.com> scribed into
    the ether:

    >Andy,
    >
    >I don't think a caption on a drawing constitutes a rule. :-)

    3.0 Player's Handbook, Page 89:

    Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or
    required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the
    discipline to fight relentlessly. [...] A lawful good character hates to
    see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without
    mercy and who protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Murphoid wrote:
    >
    > Attacking Non Combatants is murder and always has been
    > by any recognized rules of war.

    Claiming surrender does not automatically make one a non-combatant.

    > > where goodness is mainly about how you treat innocent
    > > people, and where law is more about personal
    > > standards than murder laws.
    >
    > I never read anything like that in the rulebooks.

    Then you didn't read the Alignment sections of the rulebooks. All of
    the following quotes are from PH3.5 104, and are also in the SRD:
    http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/description.html

    "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life."

    "'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the
    dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices
    to help others."

    I see nothing in there about being required to honor any claim of
    surrender, and quite a bit about how you treat innocent people.

    "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority,
    honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

    "'Law' implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and
    reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness,
    reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of
    adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only
    lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each
    other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will
    act as they should."

    I see nothing in there about murder laws, and quite a bit about
    personal standards.

    --
    Nik
    - remove vermin from email address to reply.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Murphoid <Murphoid@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 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.

    Context! Quote the message you're responding to!


    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 vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    > My own dog is a good example of this. She had to have her ears
    > cleaned out, and so my wife and I held down the dog to clean them out.
    > It was the closest I've ever come to being bitten by her, despite the
    > fact that she's generally a passive dog. What she DID do was pretty
    > impressive in and of itself: She kicked me through the air about 5
    > feet(clean off the ground). I weigh about 300lbs, the dog clocks in
    > at around 100lbs, an impressive display of raw power to say the least.

    Not that impressive. Humans are some of the weakest land creatures
    around, pound for pound.


    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 vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
    news:slrnd5tngl.ibs.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
    > Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    > > impressive in and of itself: She kicked me through the air about 5
    > > feet(clean off the ground). I weigh about 300lbs, the dog clocks in
    > > at around 100lbs, an impressive display of raw power to say the least.
    >
    > Not that impressive. Humans are some of the weakest land creatures
    > around, pound for pound.

    It was more impressive for it's uniqueness (for her) than anything else.
    We're talking about a dog that is generally too lazy to even pick up a bone
    in front of it's muzzle. I'd never seen her actually do ANYTHING that
    displayed that level of power, either before or since.

    Unless, of course, you count the fact that she can take a cow leg and reduce
    it to shards in a matter of minutes...

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Nikolas Landauer wrote:
    > Murphoid wrote:
    >
    >>Attacking Non Combatants is murder and always has been
    >>by any recognized rules of war.
    >
    >
    > Claiming surrender does not automatically make one a non-combatant.
    >
    >
    >>>where goodness is mainly about how you treat innocent
    >>>people, and where law is more about personal
    >>>standards than murder laws.
    >>
    >>I never read anything like that in the rulebooks.
    >
    >
    > Then you didn't read the Alignment sections of the rulebooks. All of
    > the following quotes are from PH3.5 104, and are also in the SRD:
    > http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/description.html
    >
    > "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life."
    >
    > "'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the
    > dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices
    > to help others."
    >
    > I see nothing in there about being required to honor any claim of
    > surrender, and quite a bit about how you treat innocent people.

    Wouldn't that likely fall under "respect for life and a concern for the
    dignity of sentient beings?" Note that line makes no distinction
    between innocent or guilty life. Good characters respect all life, but
    make a special effort in the case of innocent life.

    The hobgoblins are sentient. And respect for life implies avoiding the
    waste of such life unless absolutely necessary. In most cases, that
    would mean you would want to honor the surrender. It shows concern for
    your sentient opponents' dignity, and you would not be unnecessarily
    wasting your opponents' lives.

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

    > Murphoid <Murphoid@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>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.
    >

    I believe you are mistaken eg The private residance the USAF bombed in
    an attempt to take out Sadam as the opening shot was full of
    non-combatants, the military advantage of nailing him was deemed to
    outweigh the civilian deaths & thus US ROE allowed "bombing into a crowd
    of civilians"
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    > "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
    > news:slrnd5tngl.ibs.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
    >> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    >> > impressive in and of itself: She kicked me through the air about 5
    >> > feet(clean off the ground). I weigh about 300lbs, the dog clocks in
    >> > at around 100lbs, an impressive display of raw power to say the least.
    >>
    >> Not that impressive. Humans are some of the weakest land creatures
    >> around, pound for pound.
    >
    > It was more impressive for it's uniqueness (for her) than anything
    > else. We're talking about a dog that is generally too lazy to even
    > pick up a bone in front of it's muzzle. I'd never seen her actually
    > do ANYTHING that displayed that level of power, either before or
    > since.

    Ah. That's different.


    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 vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Tialan wrote:
    > Nikolas Landauer wrote:
    > >
    > > "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life."
    > >
    > > "'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern
    > > for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make
    > > personal sacrifices to help others."
    > >
    > > I see nothing in there about being required to honor any
    > > claim of surrender, and quite a bit about how you treat
    > > innocent people.
    >
    > Wouldn't that likely fall under "respect for life and a
    > concern for the dignity of sentient beings?" Note that
    > line makes no distinction between innocent or guilty
    > life. Good characters respect all life, but make a
    > special effort in the case of innocent life.

    And that doesn't, by any means, mean that a good character can't kill
    something that *remains a threat* to innocent life. Murderous bandit
    humanoids, whatever their species, are pretty clearly a threat to
    innocent life.

    There are no rules restricting behavior about surrender in fantasy
    games, and it's probably unwise for them to be added. The prisoner
    dilemma applies more commonly to normally-evil *prisoners* of the
    enemies the party just killed.

    For example, in my games, recently, there was a huge argument among
    the party, between the LN/LG Half-orc fighter/kensai (raised by
    dwarves) and the NG/N Wild elf druid, over a duergar slave owned by
    the kuo-toa cultists the party just finished killing. *That* is the
    prisoner dilemma. There was no real dilemma when a kuo-toa tried to
    throw down its weapons and "surrender". Whether I intended for the
    kuo-toa to betray the party or not, the party had no good reason to
    trust it, and every good reason to kill it. The kuo-toa were preying
    upon innocents, as the party had met two other prisoners in the
    kuo-toa complex; while those prisoners were themselves evil, the party
    wasn't sure what to do about them at first, and when they left and
    came back, they discovered those two slain in their cells.

    > The hobgoblins are sentient. And respect for life implies
    > avoiding the waste of such life unless absolutely necessary.
    > In most cases, that would mean you would want to honor the
    > surrender. It shows concern for your sentient opponents'
    > dignity, and you would not be unnecessarily wasting your
    > opponents' lives.

    The opponents in question have most likely thrown away their dignity
    already, as they are most likely murderous bandit hobgoblins.

    Good does *NOT* require you to be a pacifist.

    Good does *NOT* require you to allow the hostile or those that remain
    threats to kill you when you drop your guard.

    Your enemies claiming to surrender does *NOT* make them suddenly
    non-hostile or non-threatening, and Good does not require you to honor
    all requests for surrender.

    --
    Nik
    - remove vermin from email address to reply.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Nikolas Landauer wrote:
    > Tialan wrote:
    >
    >>Nikolas Landauer wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life."
    >>>
    >>>"'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern
    >>>for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make
    >>>personal sacrifices to help others."
    >>>
    >>>I see nothing in there about being required to honor any
    >>>claim of surrender, and quite a bit about how you treat
    >>>innocent people.
    >>
    >>Wouldn't that likely fall under "respect for life and a
    >>concern for the dignity of sentient beings?" Note that
    >>line makes no distinction between innocent or guilty
    >>life. Good characters respect all life, but make a
    >>special effort in the case of innocent life.
    >
    >
    > And that doesn't, by any means, mean that a good character can't kill
    > something that *remains a threat* to innocent life. Murderous bandit
    > humanoids, whatever their species, are pretty clearly a threat to
    > innocent life.

    Right. If it remains a threat, respect for innocent life and the desire
    to defend it kicks in. However, when another lowers his weapon in
    parley, it is important to confirm that this person will remain such a
    threat before denying quarter.

    That is why, I believe that the General/Usual case requires Good
    characters to at least give pause when faced with enemies that have
    lowered their weapons.

    And I realize now that your original post was talking about ALWAYS
    respecting surrender. For the most part, I was talking about a greater
    generalization. Unless you can prove this person is not a threat to
    innocent life, you have no business killing this person and calling it a
    Good act. However, if you can prove the person remains a threat, you
    have wiggle room.

    > There are no rules restricting behavior about surrender in fantasy
    > games, and it's probably unwise for them to be added. The prisoner
    > dilemma applies more commonly to normally-evil *prisoners* of the
    > enemies the party just killed.

    Right. They shouldn't be added to the core rules. Specific
    restrictions to what an alignment or code of honor lets one do are
    campaign dependent.

    For instance, Eberron has looser enforcement than Standard D&D, which,
    in turn, has looser enforcement than Ravenloft. Alignments and codes
    are always corruptible in Eberron. Meanwhile, in Ravenloft- if it even
    HINTS of evil, it IS evil and eventually leads to more evil (That's how
    the Dark Powers tempt the mortals trapped in their realms).

    > For example, in my games, recently, there was a huge argument among
    > the party, between the LN/LG Half-orc fighter/kensai (raised by
    > dwarves) and the NG/N Wild elf druid, over a duergar slave owned by
    > the kuo-toa cultists the party just finished killing. *That* is the
    > prisoner dilemma. There was no real dilemma when a kuo-toa tried to
    > throw down its weapons and "surrender". Whether I intended for the
    > kuo-toa to betray the party or not, the party had no good reason to
    > trust it, and every good reason to kill it. The kuo-toa were preying
    > upon innocents, as the party had met two other prisoners in the
    > kuo-toa complex; while those prisoners were themselves evil, the party
    > wasn't sure what to do about them at first, and when they left and
    > came back, they discovered those two slain in their cells.
    >
    >
    >>The hobgoblins are sentient. And respect for life implies
    >>avoiding the waste of such life unless absolutely necessary.
    >>In most cases, that would mean you would want to honor the
    >>surrender. It shows concern for your sentient opponents'
    >>dignity, and you would not be unnecessarily wasting your
    >>opponents' lives.
    >
    >
    > The opponents in question have most likely thrown away their dignity
    > already, as they are most likely murderous bandit hobgoblins

    > Good does *NOT* require you to be a pacifist.

    No, it does not. As I said, Good people oppose UNNECESSARY waste of
    life. A lot depends on what one considers Necessary.

    > Good does *NOT* require you to allow the hostile or those that remain
    > threats to kill you when you drop your guard.

    Once again- will the hobgoblins remain threats?

    > Your enemies claiming to surrender does *NOT* make them suddenly
    > non-hostile or non-threatening, and Good does not require you to honor
    > all requests for surrender.

    No, they are not suddenly non-hostile unless they are sincere. And I
    suppose I am working from an "Innocent until proven guilty" assumption
    here. I believe it is up to a good character to confirm sincerity
    before ignoring the request.

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

    Tialan <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Nikolas Landauer wrote:
    >>
    >> Then you didn't read the Alignment sections of the rulebooks. All of
    >> the following quotes are from PH3.5 104, and are also in the SRD:
    >> http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/description.html
    >>
    >> "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life."
    >>
    >> "'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the
    >> dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices
    >> to help others."
    >>
    >> I see nothing in there about being required to honor any claim of
    >> surrender, and quite a bit about how you treat innocent people.
    >
    > Wouldn't that likely fall under "respect for life and a concern for
    > the dignity of sentient beings?" Note that line makes no distinction
    > between innocent or guilty life. Good characters respect all life,
    > but make a special effort in the case of innocent life.

    'implies' does not mean 'requires'. For that matter, 'help others'
    doesn't mean 'help everyone'.

    It can be hard to break off a fight once things are going. In this case
    it may be tactically unsound (it'll mean using up some useful combat
    magics and giving the opposition time to regroup, possibly for hobgoblin
    reinforcements to arrive). Giving up advantages like these, because
    someone (the leader, granted) on the other side says "let's stop this"
    may be *stupid*.

    And Good is most certainly not required to be stupid.

    > The hobgoblins are sentient. And respect for life implies avoiding
    > the waste of such life unless absolutely necessary. In most cases,
    > that would mean you would want to honor the surrender. It shows
    > concern for your sentient opponents' dignity, and you would not be
    > unnecessarily wasting your opponents' lives.

    There was no surrender, though. There was something of a parley attempt
    ("let's stop fighting and go our separate ways"), but no surrender here.
    A good character might want to stop fighting, or at least listen, but if
    his companions continue he certainly isn't required to try to impede
    them if it leads to their deaths, or his own. And if they're going to
    keep fighting, it makes sense for him to continue to do so as well.

    It's *nicer* to listen to parley and perhaps go their separate ways, but
    it isn't *required*. Good != Nice.


    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 vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies wrote:
    > Tialan <shalahhr@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Nikolas Landauer wrote:
    >>
    >>>Then you didn't read the Alignment sections of the rulebooks. All of
    >>>the following quotes are from PH3.5 104, and are also in the SRD:
    >>>http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/description.html
    >>>
    >>>"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life."
    >>>
    >>>"'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the
    >>>dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices
    >>>to help others."
    >>>
    >>>I see nothing in there about being required to honor any claim of
    >>>surrender, and quite a bit about how you treat innocent people.
    >>
    >>Wouldn't that likely fall under "respect for life and a concern for
    >>the dignity of sentient beings?" Note that line makes no distinction
    >>between innocent or guilty life. Good characters respect all life,
    >>but make a special effort in the case of innocent life.
    >
    >
    > 'implies' does not mean 'requires'. For that matter, 'help others'
    > doesn't mean 'help everyone'.

    There is a reason I chose "implies" vs. "requires." Though, now I
    realize the importance of that distinction. I didn't really mesh the
    language of my post well enough with the language of Nikolas's post.
    He said "requires," and I went on about "implies." I guess I just
    didn't think it through well enough.

    My comments about "unnecessary" waste of life below were meant in part
    to be vague qualifiers. Like the alignment description, I meant to keep
    a certain open level of persuasion. I am trying to allow for conditions
    to affect the outcome. Though I still hold to my thesis that attacking
    with intent to kill an opponent that has lowered his or her weapon for
    parley is not a Good act. It's a Neutral act at best.

    > It can be hard to break off a fight once things are going. In this case
    > it may be tactically unsound (it'll mean using up some useful combat
    > magics and giving the opposition time to regroup, possibly for hobgoblin
    > reinforcements to arrive). Giving up advantages like these, because
    > someone (the leader, granted) on the other side says "let's stop this"
    > may be *stupid*.
    >
    > And Good is most certainly not required to be stupid.

    I do agree that it can be difficult to get multiple combatants to stop.
    This is actually closer to what was going on in the original
    situation, I think.

    And tactical unsoundness becomes another situational quagmire. If you
    have reason to believe you're opponent is insincere, it would be stupid
    to lower all defenses. But still, in most cases, I would expect a
    character trying to be as Good as he or she can be to give the opponent
    a chance to prove his or her sincerity. This does not require lowering
    all defenses, but one would have to make some gesture of good faith.

    >>The hobgoblins are sentient. And respect for life implies avoiding
    >>the waste of such life unless absolutely necessary. In most cases,
    >>that would mean you would want to honor the surrender. It shows
    >>concern for your sentient opponents' dignity, and you would not be
    >>unnecessarily wasting your opponents' lives.
    >
    >
    > There was no surrender, though. There was something of a parley attempt
    > ("let's stop fighting and go our separate ways"), but no surrender here.
    > A good character might want to stop fighting, or at least listen, but if
    > his companions continue he certainly isn't required to try to impede
    > them if it leads to their deaths, or his own. And if they're going to
    > keep fighting, it makes sense for him to continue to do so as well.

    Good point about the surrender vs. parley. The thread got sidetracked
    into surrender talk, and I tried applying it to the game situation.

    And you'll forgive me if I cannot come up with a good response to the
    rest of that paragraph. The only image I can come up in my head is a
    scene that's like this:

    Hobgoblin Leader (HL): "Wait! Let's stop fighting! I want to talk!"
    PC: "Um, okay, let's talk."

    (PC and HL lower their weapons)

    PC: "So you want to try diplomacy now?"
    HL: "Yeah. All this fighting is no good for either of us."

    (PC and HL look at their friends. They notice that everyone else is
    still fighting.)

    HL: "Aw, hell. They're still fighting."
    PC: "Uh, okay, I guess we should just continue trying to kill each other
    then."
    HL: "Okay."

    (PC and HL resume fighting.)

    I just can't see how the logic fits together– Fighting just because your
    friends are. Maybe I'm missing something. I need a better picture.

    >> It's *nicer* to listen to parley and perhaps go their separate ways, but
    >> it isn't *required*. Good != Nice.

    Nope. Good does not equal Nice. I think some of this goes back to the
    "requires" vs. "implies" misunderstanding, but I never meant that to be
    part of the message.

    I suppose one clarification that would help is that good people do not
    condone "Unecessary waste of life." I meant the term "unnecessary" to
    have as wide an interpretation as possible. Some good people have
    narrower definitions of what is necessary.

    I think I painted my picture in a slightly more absolute shade than I
    intended.

    -Tialan

    P.S. Oh, geeze. This has become an alignment thread, hasn't it? :-)
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Nikolas Landauer <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote:
    >
    > Your enemies claiming to surrender does *NOT* make them suddenly
    > non-hostile or non-threatening, and Good does not require you to honor
    > all requests for surrender.

    And in this case there was no request for surrender. Parley only, and
    cessation of combat.


    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 vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Hey, whatever happend to our Mage vs Barbarian fight? Not that I'm
    still jazzed about it, but as soon as I posted my guy (finally), you
    disappeared.
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 14 Apr 2005 06:39:12 -0700, "Murphoid" <Murphoid@gmail.com> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > *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.

    Depends on the type of 'charm', now doesn't it? :)


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 14 Apr 2005 12:40:16 -0700, "Murphoid" <Murphoid@gmail.com> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

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

    Bollocks. Murder is killing a human being in a time, place, or manner
    unsanctioned by your society. That's why soldiers aren't committing
    murder if they stay within their rules of engagement and follow
    orders, even when those orders are to "take that hill, and kill anyone
    who resists".

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

    Shooting people is an act of aggression, whether you started shooting
    or not.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Murphoid wrote:
    >> Murder by definition is a act of aggression resulting in death.

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > Bollocks. Murder is killing a human being in a time, place, or manner
    > unsanctioned by your society. That's why soldiers aren't committing
    > murder if they stay within their rules of engagement and follow
    > orders, even when those orders are to "take that hill, and kill anyone
    > who resists".

    Murphoid's whole argument is just a thin variant of the classic "capital
    punishment is murder" argument (i.e., killing is murder, execution is
    killing, therefore execution is murder). Wikipedia uses that argument as
    an example of a few different fallacies, including hasty generalization
    and hidden assumption. Plus he mixes up D&D and real-life morality, and
    then accuses other folks of being philosophy-ignorant. Hilarious.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:18:14 GMT, Keith Davies
    <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    > >
    > > My own dog is a good example of this. She had to have her ears
    > > cleaned out, and so my wife and I held down the dog to clean them out.
    > > It was the closest I've ever come to being bitten by her, despite the
    > > fact that she's generally a passive dog. What she DID do was pretty
    > > impressive in and of itself: She kicked me through the air about 5
    > > feet(clean off the ground). I weigh about 300lbs, the dog clocks in
    > > at around 100lbs, an impressive display of raw power to say the least.
    >
    > Not that impressive. Humans are some of the weakest land creatures
    > around, pound for pound.

    It's more that our leverages are all wierd. Human legs are quite
    strong, but we kick slowly (and thus somewhat weakly) compared to a
    deer or antelope of similar weight. OTOH we're much better at kicking
    in doors than they are. Likewise, our arms are weak compared to a
    chimpanzee's, and yet they throw weakly and inaccurately compared to
    us.

    I remember being told in school that, aside from our large brains,
    humans weren't particularly optimsed for anything. However that's just
    so wrong. We are optimised for hot climates with plentiful water. We
    are optimised for long-distance running in the heat of the day. We
    have very good day vision, and very good colour vision (for a mammal).
    We have arms and hands optimised for throwing and fine manual
    dexterity, and the hand-eye co-ordination to go with it.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:18:14 GMT, Keith Davies
    ><keith.davies@kjdavies.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > My own dog is a good example of this. She had to have her ears
    >> > cleaned out, and so my wife and I held down the dog to clean them out.
    >> > It was the closest I've ever come to being bitten by her, despite the
    >> > fact that she's generally a passive dog. What she DID do was pretty
    >> > impressive in and of itself: She kicked me through the air about 5
    >> > feet(clean off the ground). I weigh about 300lbs, the dog clocks in
    >> > at around 100lbs, an impressive display of raw power to say the least.
    >>
    >> Not that impressive. Humans are some of the weakest land creatures
    >> around, pound for pound.
    >
    > It's more that our leverages are all wierd. Human legs are quite
    > strong, but we kick slowly (and thus somewhat weakly) compared to a
    > deer or antelope of similar weight. OTOH we're much better at kicking
    > in doors than they are. Likewise, our arms are weak compared to a
    > chimpanzee's, and yet they throw weakly and inaccurately compared to
    > us.

    I understood the muscles themselves are relatively weak. Many of the
    other animals have denser muscles with higher fiber counts, and so on.
    That is, that the muscle mass from an animal is actually stronger than
    the same mass from a human.

    Even relatively close animals like apes and chimps are much stronger
    than humans. Still, as you say, they have difficulty applying the
    strength the same way we do, and the way we do can be advantageous.

    It's been a while since I read that, though; I could be misremembering.
    I do know that a 60-pound cat can fairly easily kill a 240-pound man.
    There was a case locally (read: within 100 miles of here) where a man
    survived a cougar attack -- it was gnawing on his head and he managed to
    get his (locking) pocket knife out and cut its throat. This was just a
    few years ago. There was a followup article in the paper about him;
    he's had reconstructive surgery but still wears an eyepatch because the
    orbital muscles haven't recovered.

    > I remember being told in school that, aside from our large brains,
    > humans weren't particularly optimsed for anything. However that's just
    > so wrong. We are optimised for hot climates with plentiful water. We
    > are optimised for long-distance running in the heat of the day. We
    > have very good day vision, and very good colour vision (for a mammal).
    > We have arms and hands optimised for throwing and fine manual
    > dexterity, and the hand-eye co-ordination to go with it.

    Optimized for adaptability, and the greater brain power means that *we*
    aren't necessarily the things that get adapted.


    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 vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mart van de Wege wrote:
    > "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

    There has been a long discussion over whether it is Good to parley or
    keep fighting in this circumstance. I think this is in itself a reason
    to leave the decision up to the player. You've put the paladin's
    character in a moral quandry. What use is that if you decide that
    his/her code dictates his/her response? It's a lot more fun to have
    characters have to make tough choices and live with the consequences
    either way, than to have the answer provided by the gods of Good.

    On the other hand, you should keep in mind that consequences train
    the characters for the future. If every time they accept a parley, it
    is really a ruse, then they will learn not to accept parleys. If their
    prisoners routinely betray them, then they'll execute prisoners. If on
    the other hand, they learn that they've missed opportunities by refusing
    to parley, or parleying leads to a temporary beneficial alliance against
    a greater evil, expect them to continue to respect parley requests.

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

    In article <slrnd5uptg.9q.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
    Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >I'd say unaligned. Given that the other guy was a hobgoblin (who are
    >LE, IIRC) there's actually a decent argument that it neutral or better.
    >Evil creatures get that way over the course of a lifetime; it's
    >reasonable to expect that the hob has committed many evil acts and will
    >continue to do so.

    Well, that's true (in the course of a lifetime) if the campaign treats Evil
    humanoids as capable of being/becoming Good (or at least Neutral). That turns
    out to be the way I've been running my campaign so far. But there are other
    campaigns that treat them as inherently evil, which simplifies the situation.

    >Is it absolutely the case that this will happen? No. Is it the safe
    >way to bet? Yes. For his own safety, and the safety of his friends, is
    >it reasonable to think this may be a trick? Yes -- even if there's no
    >outright deception, or the parley fails, even a few rounds delay can
    >reduce an unpleasant situation for the hobgoblins.

    Sense Motive, Hunch variety (DC 20) is supposed to let you know whether
    someone is trustworthy. Alternatively, it can see through a Bluff as an
    opposed roll. It seems to me this would help a lot if the situation is dicey.
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:58:32 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
    <autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Almost without exception, efforts were made to minimize civilian casualties
    > of the enemy until such time as the enemy made it clear that avoiding
    > civilian casualties on our side was not a priority of theirs.

    You might want to read up on Japanese behaviour in China and the
    Pacific War in general. You might also want to read up on the Eastern
    Front in WWII.

    > It is
    > considered one of the biggest mistakes of WW2 that a stray german aircraft
    > dropped a bomb load onto a civilian area(I want to say in London), prompting
    > allied planners to consider enemy civilians as legitimate targets.

    You are seriously ignorant. German bombing raids switched from
    airfields to cities as a matter of policy. Coventry's 'destruction'
    was certainly not an accident.

    It's true that Britian limited itself to leaflet raids over German
    cities until then, but realistically they were in no position to make
    meaningful attacks on Germany at that point anyway (they only had twin
    engined medium bombers, and no night attack doctrine).


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

Read More

Video Games