Fuzz's page

Fuzz wrote:

Quote:

or you have another player who doesn't like to fight cos it causes too much wear on his equipment? or one who continually spoils your attempts at diplomacy cos he wants to smash things?

In the first case, someone is playing a waste of space, which they have a right to, but I wouldn't be happy with it in a combat heavy game(I consider such things as disruptive if not more then the worst munchkining and ruleslawyering as a player that contributes nothing to combat is as problematic and causes as much work as a player that dominates appropriate encounters all by himself in one round).

sorry but this made me laugh. The player in question was playing to the hilt a Paladin, talking down to a Goblin who he deemed "unworthy of even the toe of my boot". I actually awarded extra XP as he was doing a truly good job at being in character.

Quote:

In the second case you have a very common roleplay situation in all sorts of parties. Deal with it in character. "Shush Grog you smash later, I need to deal with the talky man first." This seems to me to just be a normal game event, handle it however you do for your group. Barbarian wants to smash, wizard wants to research, bard wants to talk it out, this is just inter party issues.

actually this was a Mage who wanted to smash things (and i think the first time the character got to cast fireball). again, player was rewarded for playing the character rather than playing to type.

In any game i've played only 30 - 50% of the time is anything decided by going to the dice, the 50-70% is done through roleplay, driving the story ever forward and creating a good group dynamic rather than trying to create the most "powerful" character as possible.

what happens if you have a GM who plays an intrigue heavy, combat heavy game?

or you have another player who doesn't like to fight cos it causes too much wear on his equipment? or one who continually spoils your attempts at diplomacy cos he wants to smash things?

i am new to the forums but I have been quite dismayed by the amount of min/maxing that seems to go on within the confines of the boards. Yes I know that some people do like to play the most optimised character they can. Luckily I've yet to play with such individuals and my groups have always stuck firmly to the "rolls stats and see" syndrome.

As far as "x is better than x", all those arguments are moot, as it comes down to the player controlling the character, rather than the combination of feats/skills/abilities that makes a character successful.

I was beginning to worry that there were only Roll-players not Role-players left in the world

Goblins steal the bricks/stones used to remake the wall.

if they are bricks then goblins replace bricks with a weaker substitute (mmm finest goblin dung bricks).

Goblins run tunnels/mines under the wall, so destabilising the foundations making the wall even weaker. plus another tunnel so that when the wall is up they can still get their brethren inside the town.

Hi

Sorry first post, but this thread has had me thinking.

Ultimately as with everything only the DM knows for sure what is going on in a deities mind. If one LG deity wishes to spare the life of someone willing to repent where another LG deity wishes to see justice done, then it is upto their mortal representatives to best interpret their desires.

Personally I do not think it is lawful for a Paladin to break a known and guilty felon out of prison for crimes they know they commited. But that argument is mute as it sounds like the DM in question has already done this. Maybe this is a test of the Paladins moral code, maybe the divinity in question has decided that this particular person would make a fine repentant, maybe the felon weeped at night for the horrors they conducted and the deity took pity.

What is important is what happens if two Paladins of different orders meet and have to fight.

Medieval justice allowed Trial by Combat, essentially a party's guilt was questioned by a good old rukus. if the party or their champion won then it was "proven" that they were innocent.

So if the Paladins recognise each other for what they are then they should meet one on one, and agree terms of the combat (no magic, no outside assistance, no use of devine powers, first to yeild etc) and let skill of arms settle it. This preserves both sets of codes and justice will be seen to have done.