|
We were in some dwarven mines that had been invaded and subsequently taken over by drow. Party level = 2.
We found a survivor and we decided to take him along with us. He had a broken leg, which the party healer had actually made worse (rolled a 1), but then tried again to set the bone and succeeded. We fought our way past drow and then 2 trolls, we dispatched the trolls with 2 sleep spells and then the roof collapsed on them. We made our way into the vault, and the party healer and fighter went into this closet-like space, pressed two stones in, and then the room rotated so that they were in the "real" vault. The two wizards, including myself, had to wait with the dwarf. I found a trap door, which led down a spiral staircase. I notified my collegue, and we proceeded down the steps. We came to an ancient looking room, everything was covered in several layers of dust. The dwarf followed us down and was in awe of the place. Apparently, this was a long forgotten part of their history, or something like that, and in the middle of the room was a medium-size wood box. Inside was a glass case with a very nice looking sword, gems encrusted in the hilt, and generally just looked very tempting. The dwarf asked us to not disturb it, as it was part of dwarven history, but we wanted the sword. We were out of detect magic for the day, so we couldn't tell if it was magical, but all signs pointed to yes so to speak.
The dilema - (neutral and chaotic good characters) we couldn't justify killing the dwarf, which was the only way to get the sword. Do you kill the only surviving dwarf in the mines for a sword that could be possibly magic?
The dilema - (neutral and chaotic good characters) we couldn't justify killing the dwarf, which was the only way to get the sword. Do you kill the only surviving dwarf in the mines for a sword that could be possibly magic?
IMO killing the dwarf just to get a magic item is an evil act. Do you have the time to rest and then cast Detect magic the next day? That way if it's not magical it sounds like you would loss interest. If it is magically way don't you try to determine what exactly the dwarf expects to happen to the sword if left alone. If you fail then the sword is lost anyways. If you take it now maybe it would improve your chance for success, which would seem like a noble use for it. There must be some way to reason with him over the sword.
If I weere the DM, I'd have the dwarf survivor give in. Sure, this may be the long-treasured Mithral Sword of King Beldin Bonehammer, but surely King Beldin wouldn't mind if the PCs "borrowed" the sword and beat up the marauding drow with it, in defense of the dwarven homeland.
The trouble would come when the adventure is over and some smart-aleck PC suggests taking the sword back to the nearest village and pawning it. King Beldin (or his restless ghost) would most certainly not approve.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Don't kill the dwarf.
Maybe do a knowledge (History) check to see if the sword is associated with a specific battle/hero. Or a knowledge (folklore) to see if a legend is attached to it. If it is a piece of dwarven history, someone may be able to determine who it belonged to/why it is important. If no one has the knowledge skills, maybe bring it up the next time you're at a library to do some research, or enlist the aid of a Bard to learn more about it.
If the item is a historical artifact, the dwarf may be persuaded to allow the sword to be wielded by a "worthy" warrior rather than leaving it alone in the dark.
Murder is always an evil act. Don't kill the dwarf.
If your DM is worth a crap he'll reward the party for doing the right thing in-character by providing an equal reward in some other way. Just because the munchkins like to kill everything and steal every valuable object doesn't mean your party has to. Raise the level of your playing.
I wish you had mentioned the alignments of the characters. It would have been easier to draw conclusions about what to consider as options.
I don't understand the dilemma. Would have been nice to have the sword but do you really need to loot every last thing from everyplace you go? The old "Well they weren't using it" was lame the first time it was ever said.
Edit: Oh and of course killing the dwarf would have been pure selfish evil.
I wish you had mentioned the alignments of the characters. It would have been easier to draw conclusions about what to consider as options.The dilema - (neutral and chaotic good characters)
I think she was asking about a more concise breakdown.
lawful neutral chaoticgood neutral
What's the mix?
Even considering killing the dwarf would have been the wrong thing to do for anyone who isn't evil. Taking the sword without permission wouldn't have been best choice for the good characters. Using it to help overcome the threat to the dwarves and then returning it to its resting place would have been acceptable with permission from the dwarf.
|
|
I wish you had mentioned the alignments of the characters. It would have been easier to draw conclusions about what to consider as options.The dilema - (neutral and chaotic good characters)I think she was asking about a more concise breakdown.
lawful neutral chaotic
good neutralWhat's the mix?
it was a neutral character and a chaotic good character, just as written. The other two characters were trapped trying to figure out their puzzle. Even then, it was the only piece of treasure we had even seen after a couple hours of play. We ended up leaving it, deciding to begrudgingly adhere to the dwarf's request. The next hallway led out, and as soon as we left the cave collapsed.
it was a neutral character and a chaotic good character, just as written. The other two characters were trapped trying to figure out their puzzle. Even then, it was the only piece of treasure we had even seen after a couple hours of play. We ended up leaving it, deciding to begrudgingly adhere to the dwarf's request. The next hallway led out, and as soon as we left the cave collapsed.I wish you had mentioned the alignments of the characters. It would have been easier to draw conclusions about what to consider as options.The dilema - (neutral and chaotic good characters)I think she was asking about a more concise breakdown.
lawful neutral chaotic
good neutralWhat's the mix?
Ahhh. Build an adventure off of it if you really want it. Go to the nearest dwarven settlement and talk to the elders. Ask about the sword and try and figure out how you can get permission to try and retrieve it.
Or not
Personally, I would not play in a group where killing a member of the party for something like this was even an option. You are suppose to be a team. You have to trust each other to cover each other’s backs. If the dwarf had had the sword, would you have considered killing him to take it?
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Personally, I would not play in a group where killing a member of the party for something like this was even an option. You are suppose to be a team. You have to trust each other to cover each other’s backs. If the dwarf had had the sword, would you have considered killing him to take it?
This would be great, but doesn't always occur in our games. Sometimes, individual character goals/backstory can make situations like the one described by the OP occur quite often.
We've never actually had a situation where killing a party member has happened, but we have had intra-party rivalries before, and it can make gaming sessions quite interesting...
|
|
Personally, I would not play in a group where killing a member of the party for something like this was even an option. You are suppose to be a team. You have to trust each other to cover each other’s backs. If the dwarf had had the sword, would you have considered killing him to take it?This would be great, but doesn't always occur in our games. Sometimes, individual character goals/backstory can make situations like the one described by the OP occur quite often.
We've never actually had a situation where killing a party member has happened, but we have had intra-party rivalries before, and it can make gaming sessions quite interesting...
one person in our party usually gets a grudge against us for some reason and then tries to kill all of us... They didn't want to play anymore, so rather than just say that and have their character go out peacefully, he tried to kill all of us to end the campaign so he wouldn't have to play anymore. That was a different campaign, but all of the same players
Sometimes, individual character goals/backstory can make situations like the one described by the OP occur quite often.
Good point. Still, I have enough antagonism in real life, I do not need it from my friends’ alter egos. (grin)
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
one person in our party usually gets a grudge against us for some reason and then tries to kill all of us... They didn't want to play anymore, so rather than just say that and have their character go out peacefully, he tried to kill all of us to end the campaign so he wouldn't have to play anymore. That was a different campaign, but all of the same playersPersonally, I would not play in a group where killing a member of the party for something like this was even an option. You are suppose to be a team. You have to trust each other to cover each other’s backs. If the dwarf had had the sword, would you have considered killing him to take it?This would be great, but doesn't always occur in our games. Sometimes, individual character goals/backstory can make situations like the one described by the OP occur quite often.
We've never actually had a situation where killing a party member has happened, but we have had intra-party rivalries before, and it can make gaming sessions quite interesting...
Ouch. Sometimes, conflict can be a great plot device, but the situation you describe just sucks. It's one player ruining the campaign for everyone.
Is this guy still part of your group?
|
Sometimes, individual character goals/backstory can make situations like the one described by the OP occur quite often.Good point. Still, I have enough antagonism in real life, I do not need it from my friends’ alter egos. (grin)
aye - I've had this happen before. One person would practice pickpocketing the party members (causing one to die with a nat 20 to steal a ring of feather fall off someone's hand in Whispering Cairn in the elevator room) This caused much distress in our group, until he used hide and move silently to sneak behind a BBEG and stole a scroll the round before he used it..
but back to the situation at hand, who knows maybe the dwarf was saving you - removing the sword might have caused the cave in in an Indiana Jones sort of way (didn't know the drow were that close behind you now did you). Otherwise, I would ask the dwarf NPC for information about why this should be left this way, and what is so special about this sword - if the drow find another way into this cave later, you might find the BBEG weilding it later in the campaign (or maybe the cave in was an illusion and you can come back and walk right in later on)
Assuming a fairly conventional outlook, ethics in D&D are identical to ethics in real life, except in some of the most strained and stretched situations. This isn't one of those situations. So ask yourself, if you saw someone driving an awesome car and asked them to give it to you and they said "no," would killing them be justified?
The answer:
Now, to make the situation more interesting, let's say that you knew the sword was an ancient artifact needed to save the world from impending doom just an hour away. And the dwarf said, "No, you can't have it." Then, would you be justified in killing him?
Not until all other reasonable objects are exhausted. First you should try to reason with the dwarf. If that doesn't work, simply try taking the sword without his permission. If he should attack you, defense is warranted. Here we get into situations which require finer thought: the level of force used for defense compared to the level of force used for offense. For example, if the dwarf attacked you with his fists, and he isn't a monk (or even if he was and he chose to do nonlethal damage), are you justified in using lethal force against him? In the real world, I'd say "no," but I could see a Neutral character getting away with it in D&D and not suffering an alignment hit (others may disagree).
However, a Good character would, even then, seek to use non-lethal means of stopping the dwarf: nonlethal damage, charm or dominate or sleep spells, perhaps followed by binding. Whatever. But until the dwarf whips out an axe and proves that he aims to kill you if you touch that sword, a Good character is not justified in using lethal force against him.
In the actual situation, it's an absolute no brainer. Even if it were a +5 wounding shocking burst keen adamantine greatsword, simply killing the dwarf because you want the loot and he says "no" is absolutely evil.
|
|
Alright, I should have worded it differently...
Would you be able to justify it? Because we couldn't...
This is what we did
Assuming a fairly conventional outlook, ethics in D&D are identical to ethics in real life, except in some of the most strained and stretched situations. This isn't one of those situations. So ask yourself, if you saw someone driving an awesome car and asked them to give it to you and they said "no," would killing them be justified?
Oh, man, this is a tough question...is the answer...yes?
Hey, my alignment's NE, I would think we'd have some differing opinions!
|
and why is the dwarf still alive.... LOL>
"gem's" that whould have justified my characters for killing anyone.
but lawful's, good's, and Netrual characters never get to prize the rewards of a evil character, but evil characters never reap the rewards latter.
the dwarf was defined on not allowing that sword to leave that vault. His history was more prized then his life for him self. allowing that dwarf to live and passing up such a temptation definitely warrants character rp experience.
Assuming a fairly conventional outlook, ethics in D&D are identical to ethics in real life, except in some of the most strained and stretched situations. This isn't one of those situations. So ask yourself, if you saw someone driving an awesome car and asked them to give it to you and they said "no," would killing them be justified?Oh, man, this is a tough question...is the answer...yes?
Hey, my alignment's NE, I would think we'd have some differing opinions!
There is one area that we can say with certainty that D&D ethics are different from real world ethics.* Unless you so choose to suspend the normal D&D alignment system as a conscious house rule, D&D alignments are absolute. Opinion has nothing to do with it. You can think that rape and murder is a jolly grand old time all you want, that doesn't make it so; at least not in D&D. The vast majority of people and beings in a typical D&D world whose alignment reads "evil" will not, themselves, think they are evil. That doesn't matter. They still are.
*Though many (myself included) will state that absolute morals exist in the real world, too, it is a point of contention for many. However, my point is that we should all be able to agree morals exist as absolutes in D&D. The only point of contention within the game is defining what those absolutes are. But this situation doesn't even have a hint of ambiguity about it.
|
STOP!
TIME OUT
CEASE AND DESIST!
Clearly, you explain to the dwarf -- retroactively, this legendary dwarven heirloom is not safe here, if we, a bunch o' longshanks adventures just stumbled onto this place, goblins, duergar, drow, and even gully dwarves (that'll REALLY get him) will soon find it. To see the sword returned safely to the rightful -- current -- Dwarven Kingdom, we will escort it safely out.
Now, if to get it safely out you have to use it, well, what true dwarf would have a problem using it to squish a few drow, goblins, duergar -- especially gully dwarves. Heck, that's an HONOR to the sword. And the dwarf who forged it. And his father. And his father's father. And his father's father's....
---------------------------------------
Regarding ethics:
It would be an evil act to kill the dwarf for the sword.
Now, if it were an elf, then it would be okay.
-W. E. Ray
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Most of my PCs would not take the sword, would not permit anyone else to take the sword, and would admire the dwarve's committment to posterity by leaving the goods undisturbed.
My current PC would eat the dwarf alive in front of the others, cast detect magic and detect good in themorning to make sure I wouldn't risk negative levels by carrying it, and either frame someone else for its use or pawn it to someone I need to corrupt.
We got a joint wish spell last session, which the party determined to use to remove a powerful generational curse on one of our party memebers. I wished instead for the curse to be tranferred in full to the family of one of my political rivals.
See? It's all about teamwork.
STOP!
TIME OUT
CEASE AND DESIST!
Clearly, you explain to the dwarf -- retroactively, this legendary dwarven heirloom is not safe here, if we, a bunch o' longshanks adventures just stumbled onto this place, goblins, duergar, drow, and even gully dwarves [i](that'll REALLY get him)...
And kender! Don't forget kender!
|
|
1. By your description, the dwarf does not have possession of the item.
2. By your description, there is no reason to believe that the dwarf has a right to possession of the item.
Lawful Good: Dispute the dwarf's right to possession of the item. If the dwarf does not agree, contact a magistrate and let him work it out.
Chaotic Good: Probably leave the item to the dwarf, who might have a better claim on it. Besides, it's what the cool guys would do.
Neutral: Take the item. If the dwarf tries to stop you, hit him until he forgoes his foolish attempt to claim treasure that is yours by right of conquest.
Evil: Kill the dwarf and take his stuff too.
|
|
1. By your description, the dwarf does not have possession of the item.
2. By your description, there is no reason to believe that the dwarf has a right to possession of the item.
Lawful Good: Dispute the dwarf's right to possession of the item. If the dwarf does not agree, contact a magistrate and let him work it out.
Chaotic Good: Probably leave the item to the dwarf, who might have a better claim on it. Besides, it's what the cool guys would do.
Neutral: Take the item. If the dwarf tries to stop you, hit him until he forgoes his foolish attempt to claim treasure that is yours by right of conquest.
Evil: Kill the dwarf and take his stuff too.
Wait contact a magistrate?!?!?!?! over a sword that belongs to the dwarven community.....
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh
|
|
Wait contact a magistrate?!?!?!?! over a sword that belongs to the dwarven community.....
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Contact the magistrate over the issue of a sword that is claimed both by "the dwarven community" (whatever that means) and by the adventurers as rightful salvage. I don't see why this should be any different than any other issue of disputed ownership.
|
|
Contact the magistrate over the issue of a sword that is claimed both by "the dwarven community" (whatever that means) and by the adventurers as rightful salvage. I don't see why this should be any different than any other issue of disputed ownership.Wait contact a magistrate?!?!?!?! over a sword that belongs to the dwarven community.....
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh
The word "vault" you can not expect to win a ruling in the judicial system when the adventure's salvage included breaking into a locked vault.
with your definition a LG character would not even been aloud in the vault since that would be breaking-in-entering.
|
|
The word "vault" you can not expect to win a ruling in the judicial system when the adventure's salvage included breaking into a locked vault.
with your definition a LG character would not even been aloud in the vault since that would be breaking-in-entering.
Certainly you can. If the dwarves no longer have control of the mines (which they clearly do not), recapturing them is basic salvage/spoils of war. The nature of locks, etc., is not relevant.
If drow are considered to be enemy enough to kill on sight (as it seems they were in the OPs description), then whatever they have when you kill them is spoils. This can be modified, of course, if the party has some obligation in the laws or customs of the world, or if the party has some contractual obligation to the "dwarven community".
The reason an LG party wouldn't just grab the sword and leave is that a magistrate is better able to sort out the tangle of property rights and possible contractual obligations that might be implicated.