Your party rounds a corner and comes face-to-face with an orc (or goblin, or whatever).
Your GM says "Roll initiative."
You win, and go first.
My guess is that 99% of the roleplaying groups out there would act on a preconceived generalization about the orc (or goblin) race and attack. However, is attacking the orc unprovoked an evil act? Is it racist? After all, they haven't done anything (yet) to provoke the attack, and you have no proof that they will do anything.
If you think attacking a character because of their (fantasy) race is evil, how many Paladins (and GMs) just sweep that grey area under the rug and don't talk about it?
I mention this because having an orc or goblin PC is a possible choice in Pathfinder. I also like to introduce new players in an organic way, rather than "poof", player X appears out of thin air. Also, as a player, I've almost killed a new half-orc character joining the group in this same way (we had recently been fighting orcs), not realizing that the half-orc I saw was supposed to be the new PC.
I'll admit that I think it is evil to attack anyone unprovoked, but my characters have done it (see the above example) and as a GM, I do nothing about it when my players make those choices.
|
Your party rounds a corner and comes face-to-face with an orc (or goblin, or whatever).
You say to them 'you round a corner', but where exactly is this corner of which you speak?
That's what's missing from this scenario; it is divorced from the preceding context.
If the PCs have been tasked with tracking down the orc raiders, who recently attacked the nearby town, then the orc's presence is likely to be both expected, and viewed in the worst possible light.
And I don't think you can fault the players (or the characters) for acting in a prejudiced manner.
|
"Shoot first and ask questions later" isn't a "good" aligned behavior. Whether this has lasting consequences for the player is another matter. Most classes can commit an evil act or twelve before having the alignment conversation change conversation with their GM. The Paladin, obviously, is a different story.
I would expect a Paladin, or anyone trying to play a paragon-type character, to TRY and not jump to conclusions about the enemy's behavior and attack first. Sometimes intent is obvious, and sometimes, like when raiding the creature's home, irrelevant. But even in those circumstances, the honorable thing to do would be let them surrender. They can't surrender when dead...
I like the idea of introducing the character organically, however unless you're ready for the confrontation, I'd add some description to it. "You see a goblin ahead, but something tells you this is no ordinary goblin". Fair warning, and all that.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Initiative shouldn't be rolled until someone declares combat. So if the GM is saying roll initiative, that implies that the orc is about to attack you - this is your chance to react quickly to that fact.
If the GM is declaring initiative when a peaceful orc approaches, the GM is jumping the gun.
Like many things what is important in this context is Location, Location, Location as why you are in the Location.
Are you in a town ruled by law or are you raiding a lair full of evil monsters that have attacked the local population?
If you are in a goblin village, then WHY are you in a goblin village? If you went there to stop the evil things they are doing you are fine. If you are just out killing creatures for their treasure and have no evidence that they are actually doing anything other then fishing, farming, and singing songs.
The answers to the above questions will let you know if kill on site is OK, or if you have to ask questions, or if you are flat out evil and greedy adventuring party.
Initiative shouldn't be rolled until someone declares combat. So if the GM is saying roll initiative, that implies that the orc is about to attack you - this is your chance to react quickly to that fact.
If the GM is declaring initiative when a peaceful orc approaches, the GM is jumping the gun.
I would go with this. The DM is putting you in a lose/lose situation by declaring initiative. Either you forgo your turn, and possibly get attacked, or you attack unprovoked. Those were the only two possible outcomes once the DM declared initiative to be rolled.
There are times where initiative should be used outside of actual combat situations, but generally it is the DM's reponsibility to make sure everyone knows if the situation is combat or non-combat when they declare initiative.
|
|
I also like to introduce new players in an organic way, rather than "poof", player X appears out of thin air. Also, as a player, I've almost killed a new half-orc character joining the group in this same way (we had recently been fighting orcs), not realizing that the half-orc I saw was supposed to be the new PC.
That's certainly happened to me; not with a new PC, but an existing one.
In 'Dragon Mountain' (2nd Edition boxed campaign), my psionicist PC got captured and replaced by an imposter, who I played for some time, sending the others down irrelevant tunnels, taking out rival squatter monsters, learning the PCs tactics and item command words, heh, heh).
My PC escaped from his cell, and hid among the kobold tribe, via his shape-shifting powers, and went off on patrol, looking out for his old group.
The PCs found us first, and I was laid out by the party ranger. Reverting to my true shape, I was given a quick cure, and hobbled off to what I thought was a quiet corner, where a secret door opened, and I was backstabbed by a lowly kobold footpad.
Another game, the DM decided to run a gritty, 'good thieves guild vs the Mob' kind of game, and introduced all the PCs separately, as witnesses to a street fight, intending us to band together with the 'good' guild to clean up the streets. One PC moves up too close behind another, who was engaged in combat, the other player either wasn't paying attention, or was just being awkward, and cut down the 'sneaky backstabber' from full hp to dead in one crit, before he had tme to tell us his name or roll a single die.
Your party rounds a corner and comes face-to-face with an orc (or goblin, or whatever).
I think racial... or rather species, profiling is somewhat justified in a D&D world. I think it depends on where you are. If you're invading the orc lair and you NEED to kill the orc or have an entire clan on you, then you're as justified in killing the orc than you are for invading the lair (warren.. colony? What the heck do you call a group of orcs?)
If you're in the middle of town and you round the corner of an inn.. different story.
My guess is that 99% of the roleplaying groups out there would act on a preconceived generalization about the orc (or goblin) race and attack. However, is attacking the orc unprovoked an evil act? Is it racist?
I prefer the term speciest. Keeps real world issues a liiitle further out.
After all, they haven't done anything (yet) to provoke the attack, and you have no proof that they will do anything.
Location location location.
If you think attacking a character because of their (fantasy) race is evil, how many Paladins (and GMs) just sweep that grey area under the rug and don't talk about it?
most. Most of my characters would split the middle ground and use either nonlethal damage, or turn them into a turtle and plop them into the bag of holding for a while.
I mention this because having an orc or goblin PC is a possible choice in Pathfinder. I also like to introduce new players in an organic way, rather than "poof", player X appears out of thin air. Also, as a player, I've almost killed a new half-orc character joining the group in this same way (we had recently been fighting orcs), not realizing that the half-orc I saw was supposed to be the new PC.
I'll admit that I think it is evil to attack anyone unprovoked, but my characters have done it (see the above example) and as a GM, I do nothing about it when my players make those choices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would ask my GM what the situation is, does the orc reaching for is weapon and has an angry/surprised look on his face, are we on a peaceful diplomatic mission reaching out to the orcs for help against a common foe that sort of thing determines my action
Your party rounds a corner and comes face-to-face with an orc (or goblin, or whatever).
Your GM says "Roll initiative."
You win, and go first.
My guess is that 99% of the roleplaying groups out there would act on a preconceived generalization about the orc (or goblin) race and attack. However, is attacking the orc unprovoked an evil act? Is it racist? After all, they haven't done anything (yet) to provoke the attack, and you have no proof that they will do anything.
If you think attacking a character because of their (fantasy) race is evil, how many Paladins (and GMs) just sweep that grey area under the rug and don't talk about it?
I mention this because having an orc or goblin PC is a possible choice in Pathfinder. I also like to introduce new players in an organic way, rather than "poof", player X appears out of thin air. Also, as a player, I've almost killed a new half-orc character joining the group in this same way (we had recently been fighting orcs), not realizing that the half-orc I saw was supposed to be the new PC.
I'll admit that I think it is evil to attack anyone unprovoked, but my characters have done it (see the above example) and as a GM, I do nothing about it when my players make those choices.
If the GM says roll initiative it means hostilities can not be avoided to me. Now if he just says I notice a goblin or orc, and I declare an attack on my own that is different.
I agree with other posters that "roll initiative" is code for "bad guys incoming". And with whoever it was that said being a bit racist is justified in a D&D setting.
The racial alignments aren't iron-clad but they're common enough that it's fair to make the assumption that goblins or drow are evil. Sorta like how a solar eclipse is rare enough that most of us assume, quite correctly, that the sun will be shining from morning to evening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a NG Diviner Wizard, I can tell you that forewarned lets me act before their opening hostilities occur precisely because I know hostilities are about to occur.
Standing there and taking it wouldn't make me good, it would make me stupid.
|
Good guys should always walk around hoping to survive the first few rounds of waiting to see what the enemy does, begging it to change its ways and giving a final warning. Anything less is evil and proves Dark Helmet right, evil will win because good is dumb.
But seriously, context is everything here. A goblin in a town is one thing, a goblin in the warrens that have been raiding the town is another.
I can think of plenty of real wars where enemies have peaceably shared time but if you see the other guys uniform in the field you do NOT take time to ask if he want tea or to fight.
|
|
I can think of plenty of real wars where enemies have peaceably shared time but if you see the other guys uniform in the field you do NOT take time to ask if he want tea or to fight.
Ah, but you're supposed to assess the threat first by the rules of engagement. Anyone who doesn't bother to fuss with that technicality may not fit the Pathfinder description of having a 'good' alignment. Could be they're just 'neutral'.
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check.
Note, not the start of an encounter. The start of a battle. Meaning someone has decided to attack another.
The orc goes for his sword, the wolf snarls and begins to charge, etc. The GM shouldn't be calling for initiative until a character (friend or foe) declares their intention to do harm to another.
It may be possible that the alert fighter can get his sword out and kill the orc before the orc's blade leaves the scabbard, but unless the GM is just being a dick, he can't say the player's acted in anything other than self defense if the opposing side forces initiative to be rolled.
|
|
I can think of plenty of real wars where enemies have peaceably shared time but if you see the other guys uniform in the field you do NOT take time to ask if he want tea or to fight.Ah, but you're supposed to assess the threat first by the rules of engagement. Anyone who doesn't bother to fuss with that technicality may not fit the Pathfinder description of having a 'good' alignment. Could be they're just 'neutral'.
So the heroes are nuetral because all of the "good" guys are dead. yay
|
|
Ah, but you're supposed to assess the threat first by the rules of engagement. Anyone who doesn't bother to fuss with that technicality may not fit the Pathfinder description of having a 'good' alignment. Could be they're just 'neutral'.
I'm fine with it being a neutral act.
Neutral as in 'meh', rather than 'I must uphold the Cosmic Balance'.
You can perform neutral acts all day long.
Where it becomes a problem is when GMs start declaring it eeeeeeeeevil, and pushing for forced alignment change, along with all that entails (loss of divine powers, ineligibility for PFSoc play, etc).
|
|
Ah, but you're supposed to assess the threat first by the rules of engagement. Anyone who doesn't bother to fuss with that technicality may not fit the Pathfinder description of having a 'good' alignment. Could be they're just 'neutral'.I'm fine with it being a neutral act.
Neutral as in 'meh', rather than 'I must uphold the Cosmic Balance'.
You can perform neutral acts all day long.
Where it becomes a problem is when GMs start declaring it eeeeeeeeevil, and pushing for forced alignment change, along with all that entails (loss of divine powers, ineligibility for PFSoc play, etc).
But some seem to believe that good is 100% saintly and to even act nuetrally from time to time makes you not good. It sounds like some demand martyrdom for all good characters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a freaking ORC. Kill it!
I know, I know, in this era of ambiguous morals and angsty anti-heroes and sparkly vampires and sensitivity classes we're supposed to put ourselves in the Orc's shoes. Why is he here, killing and stealing and initiating the creation of little half-orcs? Maybe he's poor and NEEDS to pillage? Maybe the boss Orc is concerned that his killing and maiming quotas are gonna be low for the month? What if he has Mrs. Orc (or several Mrs. Orcs, the sly dog!!) waiting for him in his cave or whatever, relying on him to put food on the table or floor or whatever the hell those monsters eat off of.
And what if he's got baby Orcses at home??? You wanna leave them fatherless? You're contributing to their delinquency and limiting their future life choices, Mister!!
I don't know what kind of game is fashionable now, but if I'm instructed by my DM to roll for initiative, and we're nose to snout with an Orc, the Orc is going down.
|
This isn't meant as a "what you should do," but as a "what you could do" suggestion.
If I'm playing a Lawful Good, honorable or otherwise diplomatic type and I'm not actively pursuing monster X for the purpose of eradicating it, I'll use that split second I have over them in initiative to do something defensive or to intimidate or bluff the creature.
Taking a full defensive action tells the monster you're prepared to defend yourself if they come at you, and the monster should be able to tell you've put up your guard so you're willing to fight if it becomes necessary.
A good Intimidate or Bluff roll might convince the monster to stand down long enough to hear you out. Maybe he's just trying to get home and he's only got his hand on his axe because he expects to be attacked. A Good Intimidate could be a simple "Keep your weapons slung or suffer the consequences!" or, if you're pretty sure the thing is going to attack you anyway, "Just try to hit me, I dare you to see what happens then!
A monster might also refrain from attacking if he sees you cast a simple expendable buff spell like Guidance and he doesn't have ranks in Spellcraft. For all he knows, you just gave yourself fast healing and a +40 STR.
Most of these are nice because they give you a mechanical benefit in combat for at least one round and nobody can really argue you acted in a non-good way.
Obviously, there are going to be times when even the most honorable hero could or should strike first without fear of GM reprisal. Unless their actions were taken with *a complete disregard for the lives of innocent hostages or for clearly selfish reasons, I don't think I'd ever penalize a paladin of Iomedae for drawing first blood against a demon or vampire.
(*I'm talking about a paladin who states he flat out does not care about what happens to the hostages or attacks solely out of a desire for loot and not because its the right thing to do.)
goblins = bad , is it a evil act to kill evil creatures...hmmm
Paladins have it so easy , for the most part.
I came into a situation where my party was hammered by goblins ... violence ensued and the last 2 green skins surrender. I was playing a LG cleric and wanted to bind the baddies up and take them with us. I was out voted by the NG and CG members , so the goblins were interrogated and put to the knife.
This led to a fist fight and me being the butt of several in game jokes.
Whats a LG player to do ? killing is bad , but killing a monster ?
I side with intent, a monster gets slain in the heat of battle before/during / after doing evil is fine.
what's a LG player to do with CE monsters when they surrender ?
|
Need more context.
What is the location? What is the orc/goblin doing? What's the scene going on at the moment? Any identifying tribal markers that indicate he/she's from a tribe that leans towards good/neutral/evil/hostile/get's-on'well-enough-with-us/whatever?
If it's an orc with some villagers' heads hanging from his belt, a fight is probably on. If it's an orc carrying a deer back home, questions would be asked. And maybe see if we could buy some venison off of him if none of us have Survival.
GM simply saying "roll initiative" is a bad call if they intend for anything other than combat to break out. Initiative should only be rolled once one party or another initiates hostilities.
Just can't imagine ever just saying "you see an X" and leaving it at that. What's he doing? Paint the scene and let the players react.
I think the intent in these two scenarios is made quite clear by the GM's words.
Player: I walk into the shop.
GM: You see a shop keeper, he greets you.
or...
Player: I walk into the shop.
GM: You see a shop keeper, roll initiative.
Saying the words "roll initiative" has a clear and direct meaning in the game. It is unambiguous. Violence is about to happen to you. Now, context can make certain actions unacceptable, but those have to be spelled out before hand.
If the GM uses the words "roll initiative" and then tries to say that you were tricked into combat... well, you were, but not by the NPC's, by the GM.
At our table, it isn't uncommon for the players to ask "so... can we roll initiative now?" They're asking if it's okay to start violence, it's basically a different way to say "I'm done talking, I attack."
GM: You see a shop keeper, roll initiative.
Shop Keeper uses GOUGE! It's Super Effective!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I intentionally left the context as neutral as I could, not wanting to color anyone's perceptions. You are not in the orc's home. The orc doesn't have blood-splattered clothes. You are not in a princess's tower. You are not at the town's treasury. It's a neutral place. He may be holding his weapon, but heck, so are you. Don't most characters explore a dungeon with a weapon drawn? However, to those that want "more context":
Context) You are investigating a dungeon/caverns/ruins/canyon/whatever, and you have no information on what may be there, other than a rumor of lost wealth.
Perhaps saying "roll initiative" was a bad choice. Perhaps I should have said "you suprised the orc, and have the chance to make an action". The point was, I think most people (myself included) that were playing supposedly good characters have been/will be guilty of attacking a creature unprovoked, and is that really what a good character should do? I think not. This is particularly important for Paladins, but could be important to anyone (like my example of almost killing the new PC).
I intentionally left the context as neutral as I could, not wanting to color anyone's perceptions. You are not in the orc's home. The orc doesn't have blood-splattered clothes. You are not in a princess's tower. You are not at the town's treasury. It's a neutral place. He may be holding his weapon, but heck, so are you. Don't most characters explore a dungeon with a weapon drawn? However, to those that want "more context":
Context) You are investigating a dungeon/caverns/ruins/canyon/whatever, and you have no information on what may be there, other than a rumor of lost wealth.
Perhaps saying "roll initiative" was a bad choice. Perhaps I should have said "you suprised the orc, and have the chance to make an action". The point was, I think most people (myself included) that were playing supposedly good characters have been/will be guilty of attacking a creature unprovoked, and is that really what a good character should do? I think not. This is particularly important for Paladins, but could be important to anyone (like my example of almost killing the new PC).
Well, for one, it's not egalitarian, and it does completely smack modern sensibilities upside the head. BUT. It is not necessarily evil. Culturally myopic? Yes. Prejudiced? Yes. Not truly evil.
For reasoning - because, as far as your characters know, all orcs are evil. I, for one, would presume it's better to wait and see, however, in a generic dangerous locale, even the (very rare) non-evil orc is more likely to draw steel on strangers than parley: it's not that they wouldn't prefer that people live in general, so much as they are also culturally myopic and prejudiced... generally by the other races' cultural myopia and prejudice. Effectively, unless given good reason to presume otherwise, in a dangerous, uncivilized situation "racial" (and specieist) profiling isn't necessarily evil... it's a survival mechanism.
Now, I'd not call it a good act in any event. If a paladin smites a non-evil creature (orc or otherwise) and realizes "Hey... nothing happened!" then it is most definitely time to see if the other party will talk. They might not, in which case this was "a tragedy that could have been averted"... except it would be foolish to presume otherwise.
An example of why it's not evil to go first: Han Solo and Greedo. It's been oft-reviled that Lucas rewrote (and added effects) that Greedo shot first. Why? Because it's an incredibly stupid thing for him to do. He didn't know Greedo was going to shoot him for sure... but he wasn't going to let the Rodian try. Could he have talked his way out? Probably: he's Han Solo. But such an act was neither expedient nor intelligent. Shooting first didn't make Han evil (though a strong case could be made for his neutrality), but it wasn't necessarily good. He was in a dangerous situation in which he might have been able to talk his way out, given time, but instead he chose the safest most secure rout for himself because it would have been foolish... and he very well could have been gunned down.
Another: perhaps you see a band of orcs of varied alignments. It is distinctly possible (though not probable due to culture) that most are, in fact, lawful! Possibly even lawful good! But if you have a non-good leader (or even a confused or misguided good leader), those lawful orcs will follow his orders to crush what they see as very real threats to their safety and the safety of their families. Especially if said leader has been deceived before, he'll be likely to not trust the words of non-orcs. It's true - they might parley and be friends. But it's just as likely they might kill you for treading on sacred ground, failing to avoid insulting their honor, or because they've been deceived by "your kind" one too many times. It's impossible to tell and if you wait, you're likely to be killed.
Now, all that said, one can certainly go for the non-lethal route. That wouldn't be a bad idea, although it's still very dangerous. If there's a paladin in the party, the paladin can even dispense judgement based on what they perceive in-battle (or after) - killing the evil ones, leaving the non-evil alive. But, IIRC, a paladin's senses don't detect evil from less than 5HD (excepting undead, outsiders, or divine auras). There are plenty of reasons, as already stated for not taking prisoners in a frontier, especially if you're on a clock. And killing them in battle is likely a kinder service than bringing them back to town to be hanged for the crime of being themselves after waiting for a long time.
I'm not advocating that adventurers kill orcs (or other creatures) they come across as a matter of course. I am saying that it's not necessarily an evil act (though it can be). Even good people can have incorrect theories, and just because it grates our modern sensibilities doesn't make it evil.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For anyone having a difficult time imagining this scenario, I have kindly provided the below narrative complete with options and the results of said options.
Choose your own adventure!
You and your companion, Fistbump the Dwarf, are carefully making your way through the musty corridors of the long-thought-abandoned Mines of Mirkool when you round a corner and discover an orc and a goblin skipping in your direction, holding hands and singing a happy tune about birdieses, rainbowses and puppieses. With his free hand, the orc drags a wooden pull-toy shaped like a duck while the goblin appears to be carrying a small basket. A bellows in the duck's midsection makes a distinct "quack" sound as its feet turn and your nose detects the aroma of delicious fresh-baked cookies. You roll initiative and score a 35! The orc and goblin are completely flat-footed! What you do do!?
1. You've gotta be kidding. I attempt to disbelieve the illusion. There is no freakin' way this is really happening. Turn to page 17
2. They look harmless enough, but this could be a trap. I take a full defensive action and keep an eye on them, but let them pass. Turn to page Q
3. That is too adorable. I ask the goblin if I can have a cookie and compliment the orc on the craftsmanship of his ducky. Turn to page 2d12+8
4. Those monsters have fresh-baked cookies and an awesome duck toy?! I am totally killing those suckers and taking their stuff! Eat sneak attack death, you filthy, prancing $#*+-lickers! Turn to page @(*&$!
5. Orcs and Goblins are evil and stupid and should be killed on sight! I smash the goblin's basket right over his stupid head and stab him in the nuts while he's blinded by gooey, delicious, melted chocolate and Fistbump stomps the orc's ducky to pieces and then feeds him those pieces! Turn to page 100xp
|
Your party rounds a corner and comes face-to-face with an orc (or goblin, or whatever).
Your GM says "Roll initiative."
You win, and go first.
This is the "Han shot first" scenario. Greedo was intending to shoot, but Han rolled a higher initiative and got a crit.
If my GM says "roll initiative," it means either I've told him I'm intending to start a fight or that he's telling me the NPC is starting a fight.
Alignment doesn't factor into it, unless I'm the one declaring that I'm starting the fight.
Why does rolling initiative mean you must fight? Rolling initiative represents how fast one responds to a threat (real or perceived), not whether there's actual danger.
We roll initiative whenever there's the 'risk' of a fight (as in, PCs stumble across armed or dangerous-looking NPCs/monsters). New players are forewarned of this, and it actually leads to great RPing when two rugged groups make peace after some rounds of 'readied actions' (tense glares and lifted weapons).
i.e "No, you put YOUR weapon down!" (ready another attack if...)
If anything, it forms a bond and/or rivalry right off. Good stuff.
Yes, sometimes an advantage is lost against strangers, but usually the PCs know who/what they're going after and why. Don't they?
Plus, if they come to you, it's you who gets to Full Attack with a nice clean conscience as the readied Holy Smites rain down. :)
Is it more dangerous to be Good? Hell, yes. Suck it up (or just do good quests for the glory/XP/wealth, you neutral wannabe).
Was Han being good? No. The whole point was to scare the country boy (Luke) with what rough characters he'd be dealing with. Later we learn Jabba (slaver/very evil blob) sent Greedo, and therefore Han wasn't firing on "random encounter" or "rightful agent of decent businessman" (evil act, even if practical), but on "hired thug of BBEG", making it a neutral act (though perhaps Chaotic, which suits Han.)
BTW, Han didn't often talk himself OUT of trouble, but into it.
Also, frontier justice, outside of fiction, is more often an oxymoron than not. Justice being lawful, and frontier justice being dispensed by..., well, anyone. (I had one Lawful PC seek out legal status so he could dispense justice in the field without dragging captured bandits/pirates back. He earned it, and thereafter both PC & player beamed with delight at the "Judge Dredd" simplicity of it all. "Tomorrow's your trial. See you in the morning." (Whistles as he goes off to guard duty and begins making nooses.)
JMK
Oh, and as for speciesism, the DM should really make it clear at the outset which way the world runs and the gaming style. Is it clear-cut, "don't worry about modern sensibilities" rousing action-adventure with black and white hats? ("Lord of the Rings") Or are there more shades on the spectrum? ("Game of Thrones")
Speaking of which, think of all the good characters working for evil factions (the dwarf being the most prominent). Should he be killed because of his allegiance to his evil brother (who has only been nice to him when others were cruel)?
Anyway, a DM should prep his players. There is no default answer, nor default playing style.
This would never happen
1.either the orc screams "kill them" and I say now everybody roll iniative.
2. the goblin is attacking from stealth, I roll the damage and then we roll iniative, gobo started it.
3. We have social interactions,they go south and I say "the orc reaches for his sword" roll iniative.
Flat out going straight into combat is something my PC's usually start.
So a PC says "I hit him with my axe." I roll initiative for that. And if that character is first, he catches the opponent flat footed. Granted the rest of the party usually hates when this happens.
As someone who hangs out in bars, and gets beat up a few times, I think aggressive body language is pretty clear.
-that said a Chaotic Neutral character can just have a 'let's kill every orc I see' thing going on. I've happily played some psycho racist characters. I'm running a barbarian who attacks anybody he doesn't know who casts a spell, since he's suspicious.
what's a LG player to do with CE monsters when they surrender ?
Do CE characters surrender? I thought most CE characters and creatures are in the rabid frenzy fight to the death, or the "Now I shall rule in hell!" type. I don't think you can be too bright and be CE since CE is defined partially as hating all order and all good. We've met LE people. Heck we might even be LE people in real life, but are there any civilized CE people not doing time, or mentally unhinged?
|
|
I intentionally left the context as neutral as I could, not wanting to color anyone's perceptions. You are not in the orc's home. The orc doesn't have blood-splattered clothes. You are not in a princess's tower. You are not at the town's treasury. It's a neutral place. He may be holding his weapon, but heck, so are you. Don't most characters explore a dungeon with a weapon drawn? However, to those that want "more context":
Context) You are investigating a dungeon/caverns/ruins/canyon/whatever, and you have no information on what may be there, other than a rumor of lost wealth.
Perhaps saying "roll initiative" was a bad choice. Perhaps I should have said "you suprised the orc, and have the chance to make an action". The point was, I think most people (myself included) that were playing supposedly good characters have been/will be guilty of attacking a creature unprovoked, and is that really what a good character should do? I think not. This is particularly important for Paladins, but could be important to anyone (like my example of almost killing the new PC).
This is why I no longer play good characters. Neutral lets me kill the damn orc for the general good and move on with the adventure. Many of my neutral characters do good and heroic things in ways many of you consider 'not good' or 'bad wrong think'. So fine, you can call me neutral, I'll ditch the good moniker, and get on with what I consider good behavior.
Seriously, how is it reasonable to hobble a good character with peaceful, sensitive morals of the 21st century in a roleplaying game simulating a much more primitive, violent period. In many periods of history, killing a predator or a cultural enemy was good, as it increased the chance of your clan/family/village's survival. Now you're eradicating an endangered species or committing murder. This type of projecting morals and values onto other cultures and time periods is the very definition of ethnocentrism, and frankly, it seems to be getting wildly out of control in these type of discussions.
I intentionally left the context as neutral as I could, not wanting to color anyone's perceptions. You are not in the orc's home. The orc doesn't have blood-splattered clothes. You are not in a princess's tower. You are not at the town's treasury. It's a neutral place. He may be holding his weapon, but heck, so are you. Don't most characters explore a dungeon with a weapon drawn? However, to those that want "more context":
Context) You are investigating a dungeon/caverns/ruins/canyon/whatever, and you have no information on what may be there, other than a rumor of lost wealth.
Perhaps saying "roll initiative" was a bad choice. Perhaps I should have said "you suprised the orc, and have the chance to make an action". The point was, I think most people (myself included) that were playing supposedly good characters have been/will be guilty of attacking a creature unprovoked, and is that really what a good character should do? I think not. This is particularly important for Paladins, but could be important to anyone (like my example of almost killing the new PC).
Context doesn't matter, in my opinion.
What does matter is that the use of language while playing this game is important. As a DM I never ask for initiative until one of two things is true:
1} The players have declared an action (including speaking) that mechanically requires it.
2} The NPCs/monsters involved are going to declare an action that mechanically requires it.
As others have said in this thread, "roll for initiative" means someone has done something hostile. Someone's started casting a spell, someone's drawing a weapon, someone's inhaling for a breath weapon... stuff like that.
That all said... how a Good-aligned character wishes to react to hostility is their choice. Such a character rolling high initiative may elect to speak to their party members encouraging non-lethal damage, retreat, or other passive actions. They may want to try one last attempt at some other diplomatic action. That is where context comes into play.
A Good cleric going full combat on a King in his audience hall because he's started to cast a spell... no, that's not Good. Kids, remember to ask for your Spellcraft checks! Don't want to kill the King because he's casting zone of truth.
Just because I've called for initiative doesn't mean combat has to happen, but it does mean round-by-round actions are in play. A wise character evaluates what's happening to gauge his response to that. Most circumstances don't have enough context to go by... either you don't have Spellcraft, or you don't know the bad guy/monster personally. So most of the time shooting first, asking questions later is just fine by me. I'd expect 99% of the time I call for initiative there isn't context that I'd penalize a Good character kicking butt.
It's an Orc kill it.
Also initiative has been rolled, that means that the orc is about to get to you.
On the very slim chance that the orc is a good guy and thought that you were the bad guy and thus became hostile, well that's why atonement spells are for.
Your party rounds a corner and comes face-to-face with an orc (or goblin, or whatever).
Your GM says "Roll initiative."
You win, and go first.
My guess is that 99% of the roleplaying groups out there would act on a preconceived generalization about the orc (or goblin) race and attack.
Actually, I say that 99.99% of all roleplayers would act on the threat they have been shown.
Note the course of events:
It's not
The GM demanding the init roll heavily implies that combat is imminent.
Combat is not initiated by the person who rolls the highest initiative and acts first.
Combat is initiated by whoever calls for initiative.
That person "starts to act" first. The guy who wins initiative is the fastest, so he follows through.
It's like the typical Western film duel: Two gunslingers face off, one goes for his gun first, but he's not necessarily the first who shoots (i.e. uses an attack action). It's because of him that initiative is rolled. Init is called because he went for his gun. The gunslinger who actually wins initiative will be the one who shoots first, but he's not the one who started it all.
Same here: You walk around a corner, see an orc, and the GM calls for init. That means the orc is going for his weapon or starts swinging. Even if you have a really agile character who beats him to the punch (heh heh heh), he just reacted to the begin of hostilities.
So Han shot first, but Greebo still started it all. If George Lucas understood this very simple fact, he wouldn't have had to change his film and start a history of film changing that vexes generations of fans.
Don't be a Lucas!
Lucas changed it because the ratings board was going to up the rating on the special editions if he didn't. There is photographic proof of him wearing a 'Han Shot First' t-shirt. Blame him for a lot of things, but don't blame him for that one.
And we all know how stupid the rating boards can be.
I still can't understand how they see ok a game with splatter and blood everywhere but they have a problem with an erotic scene who shows a woman in underwear only.
Lucas changed it because the ratings board was going to up the rating on the special editions if he didn't. There is photographic proof of him wearing a 'Han Shot First' t-shirt. Blame him for a lot of things, but don't blame him for that one.
All versions of the movie DVD have a PG rating. I call bogus on this explanation.
There are interview from 1997 where he talked about wanting to make Han a more sympathetic character. Since then he's backtracked and realized the error of his ways.
Believe it or not, both groups I play in have made alliances with opponents and a good many are now on our payrole. We have done our share of knocking baddies into the next time zone, so to speak, but we have found negotiation a very useful way of getting not only information, but strong NPCs as allies. Some would see this as a bad thing, though we see it as just another tool in our arsenal.
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check.
Note, not the start of an encounter. The start of a battle. Meaning someone has decided to attack another.
The orc goes for his sword, the wolf snarls and begins to charge, etc. The GM shouldn't be calling for initiative until a character (friend or foe) declares their intention to do harm to another.
It may be possible that the alert fighter can get his sword out and kill the orc before the orc's blade leaves the scabbard, but unless the GM is just being a dick, he can't say the player's acted in anything other than self defense if the opposing side forces initiative to be rolled.
+1
if the DM says roll for initative they should be telling you why.if you have no way of knowing why then you are probably surprised and will know after the surprise round.
Lucas changed it because the ratings board was going to up the rating on the special editions if he didn't. There is photographic proof of him wearing a 'Han Shot First' t-shirt. Blame him for a lot of things, but don't blame him for that one.All versions of the movie DVD have a PG rating. I call bogus on this explanation.
There are interview from 1997 where he talked about wanting to make Han a more sympathetic character. Since then he's backtracked and realized the error of his ways.
Actual, the rating explanation makes some amount of sense. There was no PG-13 before 1984. So many earlier movies which had a PG rating before that would have been re-rated as PG-13 if they were re-rated.
I remember it distinctly, as I was 7 in 1984. My older sister taught me to rent pre-1984 PG movies before we were allowed to rent PG-13.