|
Your orcish party rounds a corner and comes face-to-face with a human (or elf, 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 human (or elf) race and attack. However, is attacking the human 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 human or elf 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-elf character joining the group in this same way (we had recently been fighting elves), not realizing that the half-elf 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.
Sorry, should I have started a new thread for this one?
What does your heart tell you?
thrum-thrum, thrum-thrum, thrum thrum
In a dangerous place, on a world where Orc tribes are evil, but exceptions exist...
You round a corner, you see armored Orcs without uniforms but with weapons, but you're not here to fight Orcs, and...
YOU DON'T KNOW YOU'RE A CHARACTER IN A GAME,
What do you do?
Well, you ready yourself to launch a spell in case things get violent. Oh, can't "ready" outside of "combat", but since you don't know you're a character, you do it anyway (and on a distant world where cars are abundant, dice are rolled for initiative even though there's been no violent intent yet, no real combat).
OR
You react, other people are reacting too, including the Orcs to your presence. Nobody's sure what's happening when because it's all a blur of simultaneous action and babble, until (distant world...initiative is rolled.)
OR
Crap. The ranger HATES Orcs (and actually pulls his weight when facing them), but we don't have the resources to fight them. I'd better make peace before the ranger flies off the handle and I have just the gift to buy these Orcs off if I could just present it before that ranger spews out hateful words.
(Roll initiative, but wait he's trying NOT to start combat, just beat his ranger friend.)
You can roll initiative to find out how your PC's 'reality' plays out in situations where who goes first matters. I have found it very playable to call for initiative in all "likely" combat situations, and have had good RPing experiences from Mexican Standoffs, especially if parlay works. Generally the initiative continues until tensions ease and everyone's okay breaking out of initiative. (This doesn't mean somebody isn't being duped though. Sense Motive then comes into play.)
To say your character doesn't react/fight until initiative is rolled is silly. To say some sign of combat came first is disingenuous (though the gunfighter example was cool), as you may very well have surprised the Orcs. You'd still need initiative, before the Orcs did anything.
In the really dangerous battles, where people are worried about lost actions "making peace because I'm Good", the danger's usually apparent enough to launch right into full battle anyway. (Or something's wrong with the story development.)
Just saying, playtest rolling initiative in "likely combat" situations (with some that aren't). It works fine, and if you play with oddball players like I do, it can be hilarious as the reasonable PCs try to out-initiative the rash ones.
JMK
|
To the OP : in a neutral context (ie, not in the middle of a fight against the orcs), most of my group will wait and see (= delay or, most often, ready an attack in case the newcomers assault us) as we have a devious DM who is quite likely to have the obvious enemy (here, the orcs) actually be an innocent bystander, or worse an ally with the knowledge required to defeat the real menace.
That's called metagaming, BTW.
I'd like to take the time to thank the OP for starting another annoying alignment thread and wasting all of our time. Especially with such a flawed "moral" scenario that's missing all context.
Here's to you alignment thread guy.
~sets empty glass down.
1) I did a search for related threads before posting this, and didn't see one.
2) No one forced you to participate.
On to more constructive posts...
Which of course raises the question of what do you do with the "defenceless, helpless, little orc babies" when you've finally slain the last orc (and lady orc) who attacked you without mercy and you're ready to push deeper into the caves they were guarding to stop the Dread Lord Whoever from destroying the world.
It's probably best that most modules and most GMs just gloss over such things.
Rise of the Rune Lords:
Replace the word "orc" with "goblin", and this scenario actually occurs in Burnt Offerings.
Also, FORGET INITIATIVE ALREADY!
In Carrior Crown I ran a LG Priest from Lastwall who had the Mark of Law of a citizen. My write up made clear that "stranger" was just that, an unknown quantity. The orcs in the region were AT WAR with Lastwall and the damage even one spy getting away could do to the general population was such they were not ever given the benifit of the doubt.
No one seemed to have a problem with this interpritation.
Of course I also thing that surrender is a 0-phase reaction, I win initiative and the orc drops to its knees begging for mercy, at which point quarter is given. The attack MIGHT be ruled neutral in a vacuum, but even Paladins only get in trouble for Evil acts, not neutral ones when they are reasonable. Otherwise the whole "paladin's can cooperate with undead" senerio in Ashes at Dawn can never work, which Piazo assures us can.
|
You don't need to get a new rating when you release your movie on a new medium (DVD, Blueray, etc.) You do need to get a new rating if you edit scenes. Otherwise you have to release it as an "Unrated" version. For all they know, you could have added a scene where a dude has sex with a pie.
That really would have split the flandom.
|
i got in the habit , a long time ago, of holding action in the first round. i do this for 3 reasons:
1. holding action allows my character to position its self in the best way to flank etc. to assist my party.
2. if im playing a good character it gives me the ability to prevent bad situations like this you're describing
3. if im playing an evil character i can use one of my actions to apply poison to my blade or other dirty trick.
but yeah a good character SHOULD always be penalized for attacking without using judgement, a good alignment is one of restraint.
a good alignment is one of restraint.
That sounds more in line with the lawful alignment
|
|
Ok I wasn't going to read all of this so what I have to say may be already been said.
The single most important 'fact' in this entire scenario is what is the GM's view of the generally hostile humanoid races - goblins orcs etc.
Are they irredeemably evil, designed or designated to be the foes of all good or neutral races everywhere?
If so then see an orc and kill it - baby orcs cannot be trained so it is better to kill them now before the grow up and become a threat to other people.
The food that orcs eat, the goods that they steal etc etc are harming the society and peoples that you are part of.
In this case then you are not only allowed to attack them without provocation, but are expected to.
IF however there exists good aligned orcs no matter how rare or it can be shown that they can be made members of the society or brought up to reject their evil ways then NO you should not immediately attack , but rather attempt to parley or at worst subdue before determining the final threat. Eben if you win initiative (sorry) then you could be able to intimidate or threaten them to pause until the situation is made clearer.
So basically it comes down to worldview - black and white or gray?