Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Poisoning the well

Tags:
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
August 27, 2005 5:05:28 AM

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

Okay, in this campaign I'm planning on running soon I can see a lot of
siege warfare coming down the pipe, and I wanted to get some input.

I've heard of people poisoning water supplies with carcasses and excrement
being put upstream to a castle in order to weaken the defenders. Does
anyone know how much it would take, and what specific effects it would
have? I know it'd make you sick, but I'm trying to figure out the specific
game mechanics of it. I'm thinking the nauseated and sickened states would
apply after a while, maybe some con damage as well?

anyways, there's also going to be a cleric of the disease god roaming
around with ill intentions for the general population. I want him to have
a spell that would do essentially the same thing. Any thoughts on what
level it would be? I'm thinking perhaps 3rd (transmutation?) to ruin a
simple well causing anyone who drinks the tainted water to make a fort save
or take a 1d3 con damage and becomes sick/nauseated for the day. if they
continue to drink from the well, they make the rolls accordingly.

can be countered by purify food/drink cast by a cleric.

I'd appreciate any input, and if there's a published spell that does what
I'm asking, all the better if someone could point me to it.

thanks.
marc

More about : poisoning

Anonymous
August 27, 2005 5:05:29 AM

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

marc <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
] Okay, in this campaign I'm planning on running soon I can see a lot of
] siege warfare coming down the pipe, and I wanted to get some input.
]
] I've heard of people poisoning water supplies with carcasses and excrement
] being put upstream to a castle in order to weaken the defenders. Does
] anyone know how much it would take, and what specific effects it would
] have? I know it'd make you sick, but I'm trying to figure out the specific
] game mechanics of it. I'm thinking the nauseated and sickened states would
] apply after a while, maybe some con damage as well?

I know the 1E DMG has game diseases listed. Look up the history of
London, England and the Thames River before they put the sewers in
that rerouted the wastes being dumped into the river for a list.

Jim
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/ August 21, 2005
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ July 31, 2005: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog March 12, 2005
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 5:05:29 AM

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

marc wrote:

> Okay, in this campaign I'm planning on running soon I can see a lot of
> siege warfare coming down the pipe, and I wanted to get some input.
>
> I've heard of people poisoning water supplies with carcasses and excrement
> being put upstream to a castle in order to weaken the defenders.

FWIW, I would call it an evil act. It is indiscriminate, sneaky, and
spreads disease. I would not call cutting off the water supply by
diverting it evil. That might also allow covert entrance into the
castle.

MadKaugh
Related resources
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 8:06:32 AM

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

Madkaugh wrote:
> marc wrote:
>
> > Okay, in this campaign I'm planning on running soon I can see a lot of
> > siege warfare coming down the pipe, and I wanted to get some input.
> >
> > I've heard of people poisoning water supplies with carcasses and excrement
> > being put upstream to a castle in order to weaken the defenders.
>
> FWIW, I would call it an evil act. It is indiscriminate, sneaky, and
> spreads disease.

Yes, I agree. For reference, see Final Fantasy 6. (Damn, that was a
great game)

Laszlo
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:01:06 PM

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

Werebat wrote:

> Madkaugh wrote:

> > marc wrote:

> >>Okay, in this campaign I'm planning on running soon I can see a lot of
> >>siege warfare coming down the pipe, and I wanted to get some input.
> >>
> >>I've heard of people poisoning water supplies with carcasses and excrement
> >>being put upstream to a castle in order to weaken the defenders.

> > FWIW, I would call it an evil act. It is indiscriminate, sneaky, and
> > spreads disease.

> Possibly neutral. It depends on whether or not you could sincerely
> argue that the "greater good" were being served.

My reasoning:

"FWIW" - because 1. it's not my game. 2. it is a matter of
interpretation. 3. the perps may be evil anyway.

"indiscriminate" - targets everyone, including innocent.

"sneaky" - more so than a rogue or assassin; at least they are in melee
when they backstab, right? This is passive poisoning. In other words,
without honor.

"spreads disease" - I view this as an inherently evil act; it tends to
have lingering effects and target innocents.

The goal of wiping out the castle is not evil in D&D. Diverting the
water is neutral because it does not harm directly, it forces
confrontation.


You raise an interesting issue, which has bitten my butt before. The
DM, the group, as close as you can get to objective reality agrees that
it is inherently evil. You disagree. Is it still evil? Real life is not
that cut and dried.

My recent issue was two sleeping goblins - we put them to sleep with a
sleep spell. We could slit their throats while they slept, but once we
awakend them, they were considered to be surrendered, and it was then
evil to kill them. I played along, but I don't buy it. It was either
evil to kill them while helpless, requiring an offer to surrender,
(making all Coup de Gras actions evil) or killing them for convenience
is acceptable. Their awakeful state seems to be a trivial factor to me.


> > I would not call cutting off the water supply by
> > diverting it evil.

> Although it might SERIOUSLY piss off the local druids.

Or not; the water still feeds the same watershed. Beavers do it;
they're part of nature. I guess in D&D the water might not feed the
same watershed; it might be diverted to another plane.

BTW, ever since that pathetic alignment thread that's still lingering
nearby, I've been thinking about what alignments do we actually use in
play. This is one of them, the Druid nature alignment thing.


> > That might also allow covert entrance into the
> > castle.

> ???

> - Ron ^*^


If you divert the water source, the water channel might dry out enough
for ingress into the fortress. I'm certain I've seen it somewhere,
possibly a novel or two, but I'd be surprised if it has never been done
in real life.

MadKaugh
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:18:51 PM

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

Madkaugh wrote:

> marc wrote:
>
>
>>Okay, in this campaign I'm planning on running soon I can see a lot of
>>siege warfare coming down the pipe, and I wanted to get some input.
>>
>>I've heard of people poisoning water supplies with carcasses and excrement
>>being put upstream to a castle in order to weaken the defenders.
>
>
> FWIW, I would call it an evil act. It is indiscriminate, sneaky, and
> spreads disease.

Possibly neutral. It depends on whether or not you could sincerely
argue that the "greater good" were being served.


> I would not call cutting off the water supply by
> diverting it evil.

Although it might SERIOUSLY piss off the local druids.


> That might also allow covert entrance into the
> castle.

???

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:44:44 PM

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

Madkaugh wrote:
>
> Werebat wrote:
>
> > Madkaugh wrote:
>
> > > FWIW, I would call it an evil act. It is indiscriminate, sneaky, and
> > > spreads disease.
>
> > Possibly neutral. It depends on whether or not you could sincerely
> > argue that the "greater good" were being served.
>
> My reasoning:
>
> "FWIW" - because 1. it's not my game. 2. it is a matter of
> interpretation. 3. the perps may be evil anyway.
>
> "indiscriminate" - targets everyone, including innocent.

This is the key, I believe.

> "sneaky" - more so than a rogue or assassin; at least they are in melee
> when they backstab, right? This is passive poisoning. In other words,
> without honor.

"Honor" is not a good/evil concept; it's a law/chaos
thing. Sneakiness is irrelevant.

> "spreads disease" - I view this as an inherently evil act; it tends to
> have lingering effects and target innocents.

This is really just your "indiscriminate" argument
rehashed.

-Bluto
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 5:01:57 PM

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

marc wrote:
>> Okay, in this campaign I'm planning on running soon I can see a lot
>> of siege warfare coming down the pipe, and I wanted to get some
>> input.
>>
>> I've heard of people poisoning water supplies with carcasses and
>> excrement being put upstream to a castle in order to weaken the
>> defenders.

Rather than making the defenders sickened or nauseated, you should
probably use the disease rules from the DMG. A couple of diseases sound
especially appropriate: blinding sickness ("spread in tainted water")
and filth fever ("those injured while in filthy surroundings might ...
catch it").

Madkaugh <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I would call it an evil act. It is indiscriminate, sneaky, and
> spreads disease.

Ordinarily, I'd argue with you: Hurting people isn't necessarily evil,
regardless of how you hurt them. It's hurting /innocent/ people that's
evil. However, the /contagion/ spell has the evil descriptor, so the
game's cosmology may well assume that deliberately spreading disease is
in fact evil.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 5:01:58 PM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> marc wrote:
>
>>>Okay, in this campaign I'm planning on running soon I can see a lot
>>>of siege warfare coming down the pipe, and I wanted to get some
>>>input.
>>>
>>>I've heard of people poisoning water supplies with carcasses and
>>>excrement being put upstream to a castle in order to weaken the
>>>defenders.
>
>
> Rather than making the defenders sickened or nauseated, you should
> probably use the disease rules from the DMG. A couple of diseases sound
> especially appropriate: blinding sickness ("spread in tainted water")
> and filth fever ("those injured while in filthy surroundings might ...
> catch it").
>
> Madkaugh <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>FWIW, I would call it an evil act. It is indiscriminate, sneaky, and
>>spreads disease.
>
>
> Ordinarily, I'd argue with you: Hurting people isn't necessarily evil,
> regardless of how you hurt them. It's hurting /innocent/ people that's
> evil.

By THAT broad definition, our justwar in Iraq is evil!

I'd watch my words, citizen!

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 5:01:58 PM

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

"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
> Madkaugh <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > FWIW, I would call it an evil act. It is indiscriminate, sneaky, and
> > spreads disease.
>
> Ordinarily, I'd argue with you: Hurting people isn't necessarily evil,
> regardless of how you hurt them. It's hurting /innocent/ people that's
> evil.

I believe it's the *indiscriminate* nature of the harm
that makes the act evil in the game's eyes. The
disease is likely to harm some innocent person
somewhere down the line, yet the disease-spreader goes
ahead and spreads it.

-Bluto
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 12:57:26 AM

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

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> Madkaugh wrote:
> >
> > Werebat wrote:
> >
> > > Madkaugh wrote:
> >
> > > > FWIW, I would call it an evil act. It is indiscriminate, sneaky, and
> > > > spreads disease.
> >
> > > Possibly neutral. It depends on whether or not you could sincerely
> > > argue that the "greater good" were being served.
> >
> > My reasoning:
> >
> > "FWIW" - because 1. it's not my game. 2. it is a matter of
> > interpretation. 3. the perps may be evil anyway.
> >
> > "indiscriminate" - targets everyone, including innocent.
>
> This is the key, I believe.
>
> > "sneaky" - more so than a rogue or assassin; at least they are in melee
> > when they backstab, right? This is passive poisoning. In other words,
> > without honor.
>
> "Honor" is not a good/evil concept; it's a law/chaos
> thing. Sneakiness is irrelevant.

"opinion" - a belief from a set of belief options that may or may not
be founded in solid reason and/or fact, but generally of a nature that
precludes proof.

Mine clashes with yours in this instance. Classic Robin Hood is
non-lawful and honorable. The whose "noble savage" concept is
non-lawful and honorable.

I could see a case for labelling LE "honorable", but that implies that
"honorable" skews through LE, TN, CG. Or maybe it is a separate, not
fully independent axis.

Are you sure you want to resurrect this dead pony?


> > "spreads disease" - I view this as an inherently evil act; it tends to
> > have lingering effects and target innocents.
>
> This is really just your "indiscriminate" argument
> rehashed.
>
> -Bluto

I'll try to make it clearer.

Point one is that spreading disease to the castle is indiscriminate.

Point three is that spreading disease tends to have a lingering effect;
it is likely to not remain confined to the castle.

I'm sorry that reemphasizing that disease spreads to the innocent
confused you.


MadKaugh
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 1:50:30 AM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> Madkaugh <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > My reasoning [for why poisoning a well is evil]:
> >
> > "indiscriminate" - targets everyone, including innocent.
>
> That would make it an evil act, if there are any innocent victims, but
> it's arguable whether there are in this situation. However, it may
> explain why /contagion/ is an evil spell.

There would be non-combatant workers and artisans present on the staff,
and likely not a few children. The serfs would have taken refuge in the
castle as the seige forces approached. In the absence of other
indication, I'd assume a fair contingent of non-combatants, which I'm
calling innocents. Most cultures recognize some level of "If you aren't
taking part in the action, it is wrong to kill you.", and take offense
if you do not give them the same courteousy. Whether the smith, or the
fletcher, or the cook is an innocent is debatable, as you suggest. At
some point, I think you have to say, "Yeah, we probably shouldn't be
whacking the bedmaid and laundress."

FWIW, the workers and artisans are in the castle and fortification
rules and examples; children are mostly ignored except as occasional
plot devices, and serfs are rarely mentioned, in fact if anything D&D
is a bit revisionist about this aspect of medieval life.


> > "sneaky" - more so than a rogue or assassin; at least they are in melee
> > when they backstab, right? This is passive poisoning. In other words,
> > without honor.
>
> That's more a matter of law & chaos.

Hrm. You're the second one that said so. I disagree; basically, I see
Classic Robin Hood style character as Chaotic Good and Honorable. Ok,
how about a type that abides by the letter of the contract, but not the
spirit of the agreement? Lawful, dishonorable, and evil?

I guess it's really at least somewhat independent. Imagine a very
libertarian (chaotic), very self-centered (evil) character who is only
motivated by honor - the Orc Warband Chief who salutes your characters
and allows you to depart peacefully after you've both killed off half
of each other 's forces, because in his eyes you fought well.


> > "spreads disease" - I view this as an inherently evil act; it tends to
> > have lingering effects and target innocents.
>
> Right, although it's arguable whether a carefully contained disease,
> targeting only combatants, is really evil. Then again, who's ever
> careful enough in containing a disease?

Right, that would make a good movie; oh, wait, it's been done.


> > The goal of wiping out the castle is not evil in D&D. Diverting the
> > water is neutral because it does not harm directly, it forces
> > confrontation.
>
> Poisoning the water doesn't make much difference, except for the problem
> that it can get away from you and hurt the innocent.
>
> Of course, some field-marshals will consider it a necessary evil, feel
> remorse, and atone for it to get their paladin powers back.
> --
> Bradd W. Szonye
> http://www.szonye.com/bradd

Hey, it works for modern televangelists. Except I think they skip that
"feel remorse" part.


MadKaugh
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 1:58:58 AM

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

Madkaugh <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My reasoning [for why poisoning a well is evil]:
>
> "indiscriminate" - targets everyone, including innocent.

That would make it an evil act, if there are any innocent victims, but
it's arguable whether there are in this situation. However, it may
explain why /contagion/ is an evil spell.

> "sneaky" - more so than a rogue or assassin; at least they are in melee
> when they backstab, right? This is passive poisoning. In other words,
> without honor.

That's more a matter of law & chaos.

> "spreads disease" - I view this as an inherently evil act; it tends to
> have lingering effects and target innocents.

Right, although it's arguable whether a carefully contained disease,
targeting only combatants, is really evil. Then again, who's ever
careful enough in containing a disease?

> The goal of wiping out the castle is not evil in D&D. Diverting the
> water is neutral because it does not harm directly, it forces
> confrontation.

Poisoning the water doesn't make much difference, except for the problem
that it can get away from you and hurt the innocent.

Of course, some field-marshals will consider it a necessary evil, feel
remorse, and atone for it to get their paladin powers back.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 1:59:31 AM

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

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>> Madkaugh <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > FWIW, I would call it an evil act. It is indiscriminate, sneaky, and
>> > spreads disease.
>>
>> Ordinarily, I'd argue with you: Hurting people isn't necessarily evil,
>> regardless of how you hurt them. It's hurting /innocent/ people that's
>> evil.
>
> I believe it's the *indiscriminate* nature of the harm that makes the
> act evil in the game's eyes ....

Yeah, that makes sense.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 9:02:18 AM

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

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>> "Honor" is not a good/evil concept; it's a law/chaos
>> thing. Sneakiness is irrelevant.

Madkaugh wrote:
> "opinion" - a belief from a set of belief options that may or may not
> be founded in solid reason and/or fact, but generally of a nature that
> precludes proof. Mine clashes with yours in this instance ....

What's opinion got to do with it? Honor is part of the law-chaos axis by
definition.

> Classic Robin Hood is non-lawful and honorable. The whose "noble
> savage" concept is non-lawful and honorable.

Sounds like you're using vastly different definitions from the ones in
the rulesbooks.

> I could see a case for labelling LE "honorable" --

That's the whole /point/ of LE: It's the "honorable" evil alignment.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 9:04:42 AM

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

Madkaugh wrote:
>>> My reasoning [for why poisoning a well is evil]:
>>> "indiscriminate" - targets everyone, including innocent.

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> That would make it an evil act, if there are any innocent victims,
>> but it's arguable whether there are in this situation. However, it
>> may explain why /contagion/ is an evil spell.

> There would be non-combatant workers and artisans present on the
> staff, and likely not a few children. The serfs would have taken
> refuge in the castle as the seige forces approached.

That depends on the situation, which is why I said it's arguable.

>>> "sneaky" - more so than a rogue or assassin; at least they are in
>>> melee when they backstab, right? This is passive poisoning. In other
>>> words, without honor.

>> That's more a matter of law & chaos.

> Hrm. You're the second one that said so.

Right, because that's how the game defines law & chaos. Honor is
irrelevant to the other axis.

> I disagree .... I guess it's really at least somewhat independent.

No, it isn't. RTM.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
August 28, 2005 9:12:57 AM

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

On the question on if it's an evil act--Of course it is. Inflicting
disease upon someone no matter how noble the intentions or who the victim
is (I do make an exception for extraplanar creatures, though) is causing
prolonged suffereing pain and torment upon someone. As far as I'm
concerned, case closed in my campaigns. Especially since the god of
disease is Neutral Evil, and spreading disease is increasing his domain on
the world.

If I were a LG god and one of my field marshals even considered it, I'd
give him a bleeding ulcer or a goiter as penance. If he DID do it, I'd
probably drop his paladin status, and drop a couple hound archons on him to
show him the error of his ways. God gets touchy about such things being
done in God's name.

As for the 'greater good' arguement, as far as I'm concerned that's the top
third of the slippery slope. The greater good would be better served by
finding an alternative to violence (While on the prime material plane--if
you're hanging out in the lower planes, bring it..) So that arguement
doesn't hold with me. Anyways, it's not like it really really matters in
my campaigns, I start everyone off as neutral and make them earn their
alignments.

marc
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 1:25:09 PM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> >> "Honor" is not a good/evil concept; it's a law/chaos
> >> thing. Sneakiness is irrelevant.
>
> Madkaugh wrote:
> > "opinion" - a belief from a set of belief options that may or may not
> > be founded in solid reason and/or fact, but generally of a nature that
> > precludes proof. Mine clashes with yours in this instance ....
>
> What's opinion got to do with it? Honor is part of the law-chaos axis by
> definition.
>

OK, I re-read it, and you are absolutely right. It is clear cut.


> > Classic Robin Hood is non-lawful and honorable. The whose "noble
> > savage" concept is non-lawful and honorable.
>
> Sounds like you're using vastly different definitions from the ones in
> the rulesbooks.
>

True. IRL, I see a distinction between law abiding and honorable. I'll
try not to drag it in to the game.


> > I could see a case for labelling LE "honorable" --
>
> That's the whole /point/ of LE: It's the "honorable" evil alignment.
> --
> Bradd W. Szonye
> http://www.szonye.com/bradd

MadKaugh
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 1:43:46 PM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Madkaugh wrote:
> >>> My reasoning [for why poisoning a well is evil]:
> >>> "indiscriminate" - targets everyone, including innocent.
>
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> That would make it an evil act, if there are any innocent victims,
> >> but it's arguable whether there are in this situation. However, it
> >> may explain why /contagion/ is an evil spell.
>
> > There would be non-combatant workers and artisans present on the
> > staff, and likely not a few children. The serfs would have taken
> > refuge in the castle as the seige forces approached.
>
> That depends on the situation, which is why I said it's arguable.

Which is why I said, "Whether the smith, or the fletcher, or the cook
is an innocent is debatable, as you suggest." and mentioned that D&D
tends to ignore the existence of non-combatants, "children are mostly
ignored except as occasional plot devices, and serfs are rarely
mentioned."

So, yeah, I didn't disagree.


> >>> "sneaky" - more so than a rogue or assassin; at least they are in
> >>> melee when they backstab, right? This is passive poisoning. In other
> >>> words, without honor.
>
> >> That's more a matter of law & chaos.
>
> > Hrm. You're the second one that said so.
>
> Right, because that's how the game defines law & chaos. Honor is
> irrelevant to the other axis.
>
> > I disagree .... I guess it's really at least somewhat independent.
>
> No, it isn't. RTM.
> --
> Bradd W. Szonye
> http://www.szonye.com/bradd

I did, you're right.

MadKaugh
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 2:04:58 PM

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

Madkaugh wrote:
>
> Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> > Madkaugh wrote:
> > >
> > > "spreads disease" - I view this as an inherently evil act; it tends to
> > > have lingering effects and target innocents.
> >
> > This is really just your "indiscriminate" argument
> > rehashed.
>
> I'll try to make it clearer.

There was nothing unclear about it.

> Point one is that spreading disease to the castle is indiscriminate.
>
> Point three is that spreading disease tends to have a lingering effect;
> it is likely to not remain confined to the castle.

Exactly. The harm will spread to people you did not
intend to harm; it will *not discriminate* between
those you intended to harm and those you did not. IN
OTHER WORDS, it is INDISCRIMINATE.

> I'm sorry that reemphasizing that disease spreads to the innocent
> confused you.

It didn't confuse me, friend. I'm trying to point out
to you that it's the very fact that the disease will
spread to the innocent that makes it indiscriminate.
Thus, your number "1" and number "3" are the SAME
point.

-Bluto
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 11:11:21 PM

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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:01:57 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:

>marc wrote:
>>> Okay, in this campaign I'm planning on running soon I can see a lot
>>> of siege warfare coming down the pipe, and I wanted to get some
>>> input.
>>>
>>> I've heard of people poisoning water supplies with carcasses and
>>> excrement being put upstream to a castle in order to weaken the
>>> defenders.
>
>Rather than making the defenders sickened or nauseated, you should
>probably use the disease rules from the DMG. A couple of diseases sound
>especially appropriate: blinding sickness ("spread in tainted water")
>and filth fever ("those injured while in filthy surroundings might ...
>catch it").
>
>Madkaugh <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> FWIW, I would call it an evil act. It is indiscriminate, sneaky, and
>> spreads disease.
>
>Ordinarily, I'd argue with you: Hurting people isn't necessarily evil,
>regardless of how you hurt them. It's hurting /innocent/ people that's
>evil.

Being indiscriminate in your hurting has a rather good chance of
hurting innocent people, and I'm not just talking about the
noncombatants sheltering in the sieged castle. You are endangering
your own men with that tactic.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 11:34:50 PM

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

On 27 Aug 2005 21:50:30 -0700, "Madkaugh" <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:


>> > "sneaky" - more so than a rogue or assassin; at least they are in melee
>> > when they backstab, right? This is passive poisoning. In other words,
>> > without honor.
>>
>> That's more a matter of law & chaos.
>
>Hrm. You're the second one that said so. I disagree; basically, I see
>Classic Robin Hood style character as Chaotic Good and Honorable.

I don't. But then, maybe what I think of as "classic" isn't what you
think of as classic. Let's get specific for once. I see a RH as a
character who is sympathetic to people down on their luck,
particularly if they have been the victims of the ruling class.
He robs people who get rich by "squeezing the common man",
and is generous to their victims. He sees himself as the
self-declared ruler of his tiny kingdom, but tries to be a benevolent
dictator so he won't punish people for protesting his decisions or
leaving. He has a distinct egotistical streak and that leads him to
need to show off his abilities, even when it is an unnecessary risk,
although he's a bit more careful with his follower's safety than he is
with his own. He operates by setting ambushes, surrounding his
targets with ready archers and intimidating his victims into
surrender, and is always ready to beat a hasty retreat against
military units, using his superior woodcraft to escape. He will not
give open battle except out of desperation. The only law he obeys his
own whim, guided by his sympathies, dislikes and ego.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 12:19:48 AM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> No, it isn't. RTM.

Madkaugh <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I did, you're right.

Cool. Sorry, I was a bit short with you.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 2:51:10 AM

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

Senator Blutarsky wrote:

> Madkaugh wrote:
> >
> > Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>
>
> I'm trying to point out
> to you that it's the very fact that the disease will
> spread to the innocent that makes it indiscriminate.
> Thus, your number "1" and number "3" are the SAME
> point.
>
> -Bluto


First off, thanks, you managed to keep your response civil, which I did
not. Sorry.


1. Indiscriminate, not selective, will include any non-combatants
present. We seem to agree on that.

2. Sneaky, without honor. You and Brad pointed out that by the rule
this is not evil, it is non-lawful. Ok, scratch that.

3. Lingering. Effect stays around. Difficult to contain. After the
current contingent in the fort is wiped out, the water will still be
tainted; the new tenants will have to deal with it. A disease could be
selective and still be lingering.


> Exactly. The harm will spread to people you did not
> intend to harm; it will *not discriminate* between
> those you intended to harm and those you did not. IN
> OTHER WORDS, it is INDISCRIMINATE.

spreads to the innocent = indiscriminate
hangs around a long time # indiscriminate

spreads to the innocent # lingering
hangs around a long time = lingering

A disease that is both indiscriminate and lingering will have a larger
impact, true. That doesn't mean that the words mean the same thing.

Aids is somewhat selective; highly celebate people are at lower risk.
It is lingering in the population.

Inherited diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, are selective, and are
lingering.

Our hypothetical toxic well is both indiscriminate and lingering. If
the source of the toxicity is alleviated, the effect would not linger.
(But the secondary effects might if the disease initiated was virulent
in its own right.)


MadKaugh
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 5:55:13 AM

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

In article <4311b430.2360236@news.telusplanet.net>,
rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:

> On 27 Aug 2005 21:50:30 -0700, "Madkaugh" <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> > "sneaky" - more so than a rogue or assassin; at least they are in melee
> >> > when they backstab, right? This is passive poisoning. In other words,
> >> > without honor.
> >>
> >> That's more a matter of law & chaos.
> >
> >Hrm. You're the second one that said so. I disagree; basically, I see
> >Classic Robin Hood style character as Chaotic Good and Honorable.
>
> I don't. But then, maybe what I think of as "classic" isn't what you
> think of as classic. Let's get specific for once. I see a RH as a
> character who is sympathetic to people down on their luck,
> particularly if they have been the victims of the ruling class.
> He robs people who get rich by "squeezing the common man",
> and is generous to their victims. He sees himself as the
> self-declared ruler of his tiny kingdom, but tries to be a benevolent
> dictator so he won't punish people for protesting his decisions or
> leaving.

I disagree. He considers himself a loyal resistance leader in occupied
territory after a coup.

> He has a distinct egotistical streak and that leads him to
> need to show off his abilities, even when it is an unnecessary risk,
> although he's a bit more careful with his follower's safety than he is
> with his own.

That or he is a master of psychological warfare, and realises that it
furthers the goals of the resistance to make the occupying power look
incompetent.

> He operates by setting ambushes, surrounding his
> targets with ready archers and intimidating his victims into
> surrender, and is always ready to beat a hasty retreat against
> military units, using his superior woodcraft to escape. He will not
> give open battle except out of desperation.

I think we can take it as a given that he uses guerilla warfare because
he would lose in open battle. That indicates he isn't Lawful Stupid,
but not much more than that.

> The only law he obeys his
> own whim, guided by his sympathies, dislikes and ego.

I am not sure "law" is a useful concept in cashing out the moral
implications of acts that take place during a justified civil war. By
Richard's and thus Robin's law, the current regime are all traitors and
usurpers with no legal powers to tax or do anything else. So depriving
them of illegally obtained tax revenue or killing them to put down their
coup attempt is perfectly fair.

--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 11:30:39 AM

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 01:55:13 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

>In article <4311b430.2360236@news.telusplanet.net>,
> rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>
>> On 27 Aug 2005 21:50:30 -0700, "Madkaugh" <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> > "sneaky" - more so than a rogue or assassin; at least they are in melee
>> >> > when they backstab, right? This is passive poisoning. In other words,
>> >> > without honor.
>> >>
>> >> That's more a matter of law & chaos.
>> >
>> >Hrm. You're the second one that said so. I disagree; basically, I see
>> >Classic Robin Hood style character as Chaotic Good and Honorable.
>>
>> I don't. But then, maybe what I think of as "classic" isn't what you
>> think of as classic. Let's get specific for once. I see a RH as a
>> character who is sympathetic to people down on their luck,
>> particularly if they have been the victims of the ruling class.
>> He robs people who get rich by "squeezing the common man",
>> and is generous to their victims. He sees himself as the
>> self-declared ruler of his tiny kingdom, but tries to be a benevolent
>> dictator so he won't punish people for protesting his decisions or
>> leaving.
>
>I disagree. He considers himself a loyal resistance leader in occupied
>territory after a coup.

What coup? He may be mismanaging the realm (in fictional portrayals)
but John was placed in authority over England legitimately by the
king. Where's the usurpation? Note, incidentally, that in the actual
Robin Hood stories, Robin routinely greets his victims by announcing
that he's the King of Sherwood. Hardly the mark of a loyal resistance
leader in opposition to a usurper. Has there ever been a depiction of
Robin Hood, even in those Hollywood bastardisations of the character
where he's ordered his victims to halt in the name of King Richard, or
even Hereward the Wake?

Robin Hood is not a loyal resistance leader in any portrayal close to
being "classic". He's a romanticised brigand, a thief with a heart of
gold. He doesn't "rob from the rich and give to the rightful king".
He robs from the rich and gives to the _poor_. Good, yes.
Honourable, no.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 1:05:32 PM

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

David Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 01:55:13 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <4311b430.2360236@news.telusplanet.net>,
> > rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:
> >
> >> On 27 Aug 2005 21:50:30 -0700, "Madkaugh" <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > "sneaky" - more so than a rogue or assassin; at least they are in melee
> >> >> > when they backstab, right? This is passive poisoning. In other words,
> >> >> > without honor.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's more a matter of law & chaos.
> >> >
> >> >Hrm. You're the second one that said so. I disagree; basically, I see
> >> >Classic Robin Hood style character as Chaotic Good and Honorable.
> >>
> >> I don't. But then, maybe what I think of as "classic" isn't what you
> >> think of as classic. Let's get specific for once. I see a RH as a
> >> character who is sympathetic to people down on their luck,
> >> particularly if they have been the victims of the ruling class.
> >> He robs people who get rich by "squeezing the common man",
> >> and is generous to their victims. He sees himself as the
> >> self-declared ruler of his tiny kingdom, but tries to be a benevolent
> >> dictator so he won't punish people for protesting his decisions or
> >> leaving.
> >
> >I disagree. He considers himself a loyal resistance leader in occupied
> >territory after a coup.
>
> What coup? He may be mismanaging the realm (in fictional portrayals)
> but John was placed in authority over England legitimately by the
> king. Where's the usurpation? Note, incidentally, that in the actual
> Robin Hood stories, Robin routinely greets his victims by announcing
> that he's the King of Sherwood. Hardly the mark of a loyal resistance
> leader in opposition to a usurper. Has there ever been a depiction of
> Robin Hood, even in those Hollywood bastardisations of the character
> where he's ordered his victims to halt in the name of King Richard, or
> even Hereward the Wake?
>
> Robin Hood is not a loyal resistance leader in any portrayal close to
> being "classic". He's a romanticised brigand, a thief with a heart of
> gold. He doesn't "rob from the rich and give to the rightful king".
> He robs from the rich and gives to the _poor_. Good, yes.
> Honourable, no.

Honorable in the sense of keeping his word to his captives, not
murdering out of hand, and treating others with a degree of respect. My
take on it is he is obedient to an internalized moral code (good), not
to the laws of the land (chaotic).


MadKaugh
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 1:35:58 PM

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

marc wrote:
> Okay, in this campaign I'm planning on running soon I can see a lot of
> siege warfare coming down the pipe, and I wanted to get some input.
>
> I've heard of people poisoning water supplies with carcasses and excrement
> being put upstream to a castle in order to weaken the defenders. Does
> anyone know how much it would take, and what specific effects it would
> have? I know it'd make you sick, but I'm trying to figure out the specific
> game mechanics of it. I'm thinking the nauseated and sickened states would
> apply after a while, maybe some con damage as well?
>

It would take quite a lot, and you'd have to do it fairly close to the
city/town. One of my player's parents is an environmental water
expert. He's explained to me that all the rocks, bacteria, etc, in a
stream or river is actually a very good filtration system for
biological waste. Take a dump in a stream, and within a mile it will
all be gone, filtered out. If you've got an army, and they are all
tossing thier waste in a river just out of bow shot, you've probably
got enough to do it.

Now if you are talking a well, which usually has a non-moving water
supply, that's an entirely different matter. This is much easier to
poison. One rotting human corpse tossed down a well is probably enough
to cause some people to get sick.

> anyways, there's also going to be a cleric of the disease god roaming
> around with ill intentions for the general population. I want him to have
> a spell that would do essentially the same thing. Any thoughts on what
> level it would be? I'm thinking perhaps 3rd (transmutation?) to ruin a
> simple well causing anyone who drinks the tainted water to make a fort save
> or take a 1d3 con damage and becomes sick/nauseated for the day. if they
> continue to drink from the well, they make the rolls accordingly.
>
> can be countered by purify food/drink cast by a cleric.
>

Isn't there a putrify food & drink spell? If there isn't any more,
there used to be. Same level.

- Justisaur
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 2:04:27 PM

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

Kevin Lowe wrote:
> In article <431259d9.20654951@news.telusplanet.net>,
> rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 01:55:13 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:
>
> > What coup? He may be mismanaging the realm (in fictional portrayals)
> > but John was placed in authority over England legitimately by the
> > king. Where's the usurpation?
>
> I admit that I haven't hit anything resembling source material in years,
> but my recollection was that John declared himself King at some point.
> Am I on crack? The wikipedia refers to John usurping the throne in a
> couple of different film interpretations, but it gives no more detail
> than that.

My understanding is John was left in charge when Richard went off on
his crusade, and declared himself king after an interval. It may have
been a legitimate thing to do; I'm not sure the implied legend of
sedition is justified. Richard was gone a long time.

According to one source:

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/lionhearted.html

Richard is portrayed as being interested in conquest, but disinterested
in ruling. He is also protrayed as brave and commanding in battle, but
cruel to his captives.

In any event, Richard was captured by Leopold of Austria while
returning to England, and an enormous ransom was paid for Richard's
release. This was gathered from all of England, and could almost
certainly not have been accomplished without John's cooperation (my
opinion, no source).

Richard was recrowned upon his return, aparently without incident. He
left no heir. John was eventually crowned king and signed the Magna
Carta.

It seems to me that Richard was content to have his brother
administrate, and John was content to leave his brother the title.
Their family had a history if in-family warfare, and Richard and John's
relationship is tame in comparison.

BTW, speaking of disease, Richard died of gangrene from a single
crossbolt wound in the shoulder. We take modern medicine for granted,
and it is difficult to conceive of the lethality of cuts and wounds in
the ages prior.


> Apparently if you go back far enough there are no references to giving
> to the poor, resisting John or even being a notable archer. The
> historical truth, if any, seems to be buried good and deep under piles
> of steaming folklore.
>
> --
> Kevin Lowe,
> Tasmania.

True, but we are speaking of the legendary Robin Hood, not the man he
really was.

MadKaugh
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 4:54:43 PM

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

Madkaugh wrote:
>
> First off, thanks, you managed to keep your response civil, which I did
> not. Sorry.

Don't give me too much credit. I only bat around .100
on the "keeping things civil" chart. ;-)


> spreads to the innocent = indiscriminate
> hangs around a long time # indiscriminate
>
> spreads to the innocent # lingering
> hangs around a long time = lingering
>
> A disease that is both indiscriminate and lingering will have a larger
> impact, true. That doesn't mean that the words mean the same thing.

Okay, granted. But there's nothing inherently Evil
about something "lingering." Take away the
indiscriminate nature of the harm, and it can "linger"
forever without being any Evil-er.

In other words, a lingering contagion may be more
damaging than a non-lingering contagion, but its
lingering-ness has nothing to do with why the contagion
is Evil in the first place.

-Bluto
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 5:43:36 PM

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

In article <431259d9.20654951@news.telusplanet.net>,
rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 01:55:13 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

> What coup? He may be mismanaging the realm (in fictional portrayals)
> but John was placed in authority over England legitimately by the
> king. Where's the usurpation?

I admit that I haven't hit anything resembling source material in years,
but my recollection was that John declared himself King at some point.
Am I on crack? The wikipedia refers to John usurping the throne in a
couple of different film interpretations, but it gives no more detail
than that.

> Note, incidentally, that in the actual
> Robin Hood stories, Robin routinely greets his victims by announcing
> that he's the King of Sherwood. Hardly the mark of a loyal resistance
> leader in opposition to a usurper. Has there ever been a depiction of
> Robin Hood, even in those Hollywood bastardisations of the character
> where he's ordered his victims to halt in the name of King Richard, or
> even Hereward the Wake?

Dunno.

> Robin Hood is not a loyal resistance leader in any portrayal close to
> being "classic". He's a romanticised brigand, a thief with a heart of
> gold. He doesn't "rob from the rich and give to the rightful king".
> He robs from the rich and gives to the _poor_. Good, yes.
> Honourable, no.

Apparently if you go back far enough there are no references to giving
to the poor, resisting John or even being a notable archer. The
historical truth, if any, seems to be buried good and deep under piles
of steaming folklore.

--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:36:38 PM

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

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> Madkaugh wrote:
>
> > spreads to the innocent = indiscriminate
> > hangs around a long time # indiscriminate
> >
> > spreads to the innocent # lingering
> > hangs around a long time = lingering
> >
> > A disease that is both indiscriminate and lingering will have a larger
> > impact, true. That doesn't mean that the words mean the same thing.
>
> Okay, granted. But there's nothing inherently Evil
> about something "lingering." Take away the
> indiscriminate nature of the harm, and it can "linger"
> forever without being any Evil-er.
>
> In other words, a lingering contagion may be more
> damaging than a non-lingering contagion, but its
> lingering-ness has nothing to do with why the contagion
> is Evil in the first place.
>
> -Bluto

True, if it was a blessing, not a contagion, lingering would be a good
thing. It's more of a multiplier that a definer.

MadKaugh
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:52:17 PM

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

On 29 Aug 2005 09:05:32 -0700, "Madkaugh" <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Honorable in the sense of keeping his word to his captives, not
>murdering out of hand, and treating others with a degree of respect.

"Honourable" doesn't mean "nice". You can be honourable and mean as
hell. Now, if a Robin Hood character releases his captives because
he gives his word to them, that might be honour, but ordinarily I'd
assume he releases his captives simply because he has no desire to
kill or keep them. I wouldn't be comfortable with a Robin Hood who,
for example, would abide by a parole when captured instead of just
seizing the first opportunity to escape.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 9:01:07 PM

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

David Johnston wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2005 09:05:32 -0700, "Madkaugh" <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Honorable in the sense of keeping his word to his captives, not
> >murdering out of hand, and treating others with a degree of respect.
>
> "Honourable" doesn't mean "nice".

Nice doesn't equate to much. It can be a fairly negative codependant
game.

It is vaguely like polite, and I'd say it is pretty clear that you can
be polite on the surface and still be unlawful and evil.

Ok, quick impression, nice is kind of neutral, but suspicious. If
someone is nice to you, you want to know why. If they are overly nice
or inapropriately nice, warning bells should be going off. I'd want my
kids to be cautios if someone is too nice. If there is a good reason
for nice behavior, especially in terms of relationship, then "nice" can
build the relationship. Otherwise, it is a trap.


> You can be honourable and mean as hell.

I'm not tracking with that, do you have an example? Are you thinking in
terms of a ranking Nazi general or some such?

You can be lawful and mean. Mean is not the same as evil, but they tend
to go hand in hand. I cannot off hand think of why a good character
would be mean.


> Now, if a Robin Hood character releases his captives because
> he gives his word to them, that might be honour, but ordinarily I'd
> assume he releases his captives simply because he has no desire to
> kill or keep them.

In the context of reading the classical legendary Robin Hood, would you
assume this? I think the point of the classic legend is Robin occupies
the moral highground, and the legend will hammer that point home any
way it can.


> I wouldn't be comfortable with a Robin Hood who,
> for example, would abide by a parole when captured instead of just
> seizing the first opportunity to escape.

I'm not sure what you mean by "uncomfortable with ..." in this context.
I'd peg him as not lawful, already pretty much of a given,
dishonorable, and this particular act seems morally neutral, since we
do not know the motivation.

MadKaugh
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 10:18:47 AM

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

Madkaugh <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just a side note to add to the confusion, I happened to be reading the
> Monster Manual I for no good reason, and in the description of "Angel"
> is the statements: "Angels can be of any good alignment." then
> "Regardless of their alignment, angels never lie, cheat, or steal. They
> are impeccably honorable in all their dealings and often prove the most
> trustworthy and diplomatic of all the celestials." - In other words the
> Angels write-up contradicts the definition of lawful/chaotic.

A chaotic person /can/ act honorably. For one thing, it's only part of
that alignment axis. Gratuitous respect for tradition, family, and
authority (or lack of it) is another big part, as are one's stand on
personal freedoms. Second, chaotic angels may avoid dishonesty simply to
avoid the suffering that it often causes -- they do it to avoid hurting
people rather than out of a respect for honesty.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 1:14:34 PM

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

On 29 Aug 2005 10:04:27 -0700, "Madkaugh" <madkaugh@yahoo.com> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> Richard is portrayed as being interested in conquest, but disinterested
> in ruling. He is also protrayed as brave and commanding in battle, but
> cruel to his captives.

The Angevins (Henry II, Richard I, John) were in an on and off war
with the Kings of France - had Richard not been interested in war he'd
have lost lands, and vassals. He was not merely king of England,
something English historians have a tendency to ignore.

> In any event, Richard was captured by Leopold of Austria while
> returning to England, and an enormous ransom was paid for Richard's
> release. This was gathered from all of England, and could almost
> certainly not have been accomplished without John's cooperation (my
> opinion, no source).

John was very tardy about paying the ransom, especially the second
time (Leopold had sold Richard to the King of Germany, who upon seeing
how quickly the english came up with the cash, demanded they come up
with that much again).

> It seems to me that Richard was content to have his brother
> administrate, and John was content to leave his brother the title.
> Their family had a history if in-family warfare, and Richard and John's
> relationship is tame in comparison.

Actually, John revolted several times, and in the end Richard gave
John control of very little, and left his seneshal, Willaim Marshal,
running most of England.

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 1:14:35 PM

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

"Madkaugh" <madkaugh@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1125358441.179823.124750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I defer to your superior knowledge of their history; so how the heck
> does John end up being in power to sign the Magna Carta? Just by
> outliving all the other bastards?
>
Richard was dead by then. John only had to outlive one bastard.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 10:15:44 PM

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

Madkaugh wrote:
>
> Just a side note to add to the confusion, I happened to be reading the
> Monster Manual I for no good reason, and in the description of "Angel"
> is the statements: "Angels can be of any good alignment." then
> "Regardless of their alignment, angels never lie, cheat, or steal. They
> are impeccably honorable in all their dealings and often prove the most
> trustworthy and diplomatic of all the celestials." - In other words the
> Angels write-up contradicts the definition of lawful/chaotic.

1) There is no contradiction, as Bradd has already
explained.

2) By prefacing the statement with "Regardless of their
alignment," the MM authors are explicitly identifying
an exception to the general rules; thus, if there *is*
some contradiction, it's been addressed.

-Bluto
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 1:37:01 AM

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:55:36 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > Yes, I know some modern historians think he was an effective
> > administrator and all that. However, that's only a minor part of what
> > makes an effective king, and John lost Normandy to the king of France,
> > was forced to sign the Magna Carta, signing over to the barons a
> > considerable number of powers that were traditionally the crown's.
>
> Which makes him the founder of the modern democracy; the bastard!
> They should have hung onto their power, like the Tzar did. 8]

That claim is ever so slightly over-rated, seeing as the Magna Carta
transferred power to the barons, not the commons.

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 1:37:02 AM

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

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:g3a8h1d5b2tgrh9shudch38704g4u3mu1b@4ax.com...
> > Which makes him the founder of the modern democracy; the bastard!
> > They should have hung onto their power, like the Tzar did. 8]
>
> That claim is ever so slightly over-rated, seeing as the Magna Carta
> transferred power to the barons, not the commons.

What would you refer to senators as? ;) 

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
August 31, 2005 2:54:45 AM

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:24:23 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:g3a8h1d5b2tgrh9shudch38704g4u3mu1b@4ax.com...
>> > Which makes him the founder of the modern democracy; the bastard!
>> > They should have hung onto their power, like the Tzar did. 8]
>>
>> That claim is ever so slightly over-rated, seeing as the Magna Carta
>> transferred power to the barons, not the commons.
>
>What would you refer to senators as? ;) 

Almost powerless.
Oh, you're not Canadian. Never mind.

--
The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out
the conservative adopts them.
Samuel Clemens, "Notebook," 1935
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 6:14:12 AM

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

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:55:36 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>>>Yes, I know some modern historians think he was an effective
>>>administrator and all that. However, that's only a minor part of what
>>>makes an effective king, and John lost Normandy to the king of France,
>>>was forced to sign the Magna Carta, signing over to the barons a
>>>considerable number of powers that were traditionally the crown's.
>>
>> Which makes him the founder of the modern democracy; the bastard!
>>They should have hung onto their power, like the Tzar did. 8]
>
> That claim is ever so slightly over-rated,

That was the plan.

> seeing as the Magna Carta transferred power to the barons, not the
> commons.

What it really did was begin the process of limiting the absolute
power of the ruling elite. It established written law as being supreme
to the immediate will of the King, and began passing the ability to
write the laws down the chain towards representatives of the mob.

Not to say that you don't know more about it than I.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
!