|
Post by Andre on Dec 6, 2010 11:51:29 GMT -5
True true... I kind of alluded to it when I said that even as a DM I've probably offended people without even realizing it but I'm glad solardawn put it in far clearer terms than I did.. we don't want to be afraid to type and post anything either ! ...
|
|
|
Post by casdegere on Dec 6, 2010 12:18:49 GMT -5
First off, after re-reading what I wrote, it does sound really bad. Second, mostly what I write, OOC, is for this player to understand why another player is doing what he is doing. It is not intended to "change" what the Player decides what his character does. That is and should be completely up to what each player wants out of the game, their rp experience and out of their character. As a long time RPer, I can roll with whatever happens.
(as a disclaimer, sometimes I am writing at work and quickly. Its a bad habit to not take more time to carfully read what I write sometimes)
That said it is sometimes difficult for party cohesion to play a character with specific morals that are not necessarily the parties morals. my intent was to play Azcot a specific way, Like RIn plays his bard a specific way. He has completely transcended his natural upbringing of an Evil, Red Draconic being. He has replaced deviousness, with honor, cruelty with understanding and compassion, high magic, with martial prowess.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My position on this subject: A salty adventurer knows that not everyone is willing to win honorably. They will do whatever it takes to defeat their enemy or attacker. Rin being a well traveled Bard is very salty.
Azcot knows this however, he knows that Rin could win, especially having all this back up, without going into an altercation going right for an opponents groin or vitals right out of the gate. Or "dirty fighting" to put it another way. He sees Rin as making a conscious choice or perhaps someone who enjoys fighting in this manner. The above post that was badly written was my attempt to find out why Rin does what he does so I as a player can RP Azcot a little more toward the middle ground instead of being so staunch and unyielding. Now as a player I have two choices and I think we did pretty well as I went forward with one of the choices. Azcot brought up the subject to Rin and did his best to influence him through straight RP. (no skills involved) He has said his piece and Rin now can ignore him or heed what he has said.
I as a player understand that no matter where the characters are, if they are attacked they ofcourse have the right to defend themselves, killing if...and this is where alignment comes in, its unavoidable, necessary or accidental if you are of a Good or Lawful alignment. Chaotic alignments will go after evil no matter where its at and stomp on its head. This is true, however I do not necessary agree with the point that fighting dirty right out of the gate, because its more effective in combat is what a Good aligned character would do even if chaotic. (For one it is inherently dangerous to the other characters. If the tone of the combat has been degraded right out of the gate, other characters can expect to be attacked within this established decorum) This ofcourse would be...as a norm...and their are always exceptions. Looking at our group...we are almost ALL exceptions. Azcot does know that Rin tends to enjoy being a loose canon and so he will not be happy about it but it wont change him doing what he can for the parties survival.
|
|
|
Post by nydhog on Dec 6, 2010 14:36:45 GMT -5
Jeez attack eolaer why don't ya lol.
This is direct from the books: "Lawful Good, "Crusader" A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
Neutral Good, "Benefactor" A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..
Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.
Chaotic Good, "Rebel" A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit."
Eolaer is very much CG. He will do what it takes to get the job done, even if it means risking himself to do it. He is not a psychopath by any means, just extremely aggressive in his tactics. He is also not one to be pushed around. Essentially his motto is "Take no prisoners, take no shit". He is much more laid back having grown since the start of the campaign but is still a force to be reckoned with and a bit unstable.
|
|
|
Post by casdegere on Dec 6, 2010 14:53:15 GMT -5
I agree and I really like those examples but also to me part of being a "good" person, regardless of stance, Chaotic, Neutral etc. is not sinking to the level Chaotic Evil is willing to go do accomplish their goals. I guess its about conscience, or lack their of which is not so much an alignment issue I guess, its just a personal one. (I.E. Is a priest that steals that prays to a LG god valid?)
To a Chaotic Good person, Evil has it coming to them, however, will the character lower themselves in the eyes of moral decency to achieve victory? This is kind of what Azcot is attempting to determine from his companions and in "his" opinion you can't have it both ways.
In Superhero terms, Superman is somewhat of Lawful Good, Batman more of Chaotic Good.
A few things I love about Andre's campaign thus far...A Red Half-Dragon caring about moral decency and honor, bloodthirsty Bards and Paladins...and a Good Dark Elf...gotta love it!
|
|
|
Post by Andre on Dec 7, 2010 8:53:21 GMT -5
Eolaer's not actually a paladin if that's what you meant , no paladins in the group (not that I think they would last long in this group anyways ) ... also (and there's no way casdegere could have known this of course since this went down before he joined the group) in the dragonlance campaign the bad guys are actually already trying to whack the PC's with groin shots and other called shots to the chest, arms, legs.. so they're basically "fighting dirty" right out of the gate so to speak, that's often their first attack ... I try to encourage the use of called shots from the "torn asunder critical hits" sourcebook ( I mentioned this waaaayyy back but will recap it here again ) to spice up combat, make it more fun ... But not sure I would use superhero morality for this particular campaign though if that helps to clarify things any .... you're not going to see batman removing anyone's testicles and "package" with a whip anytime soon but (again just to clarify) in my campaign this option is completely open to Chaotic Good or Neutral Good characters without any alignment violations or horribly maiming your opponents in other ways too ... again the only restrictions are if an opponent says " I give up" or if an opponent is so horribly wounded he can no longer fight - coup de grace is a bad thing in other words if you're good aligned , see my posts above.... ... In terms of Eolaer's " take no prisoners" approach just to clarify a bit further.. after having it painfully pointed out to him on numerous occasions (the most drastic of which was being shocked into unconsciousness by the gods of light themselves when he tried to "mark" that is scar draconian prisoners ) he's had a life-altering experience after being brought back from near death ... he may not LIKE the idea of taking prisoners but my understanding is he will if he has to (just don't want our newer players thinking Eolaer gets to ignore the alignment restrictions I've set out above and I think Eolaer understands that too ... ) ... Don't get me wrong btw I think it's great that Eolaer has the whole sense of honor thing going on and doesn't go for the groin or stuff like that, as far as I'm concerned that's great RP'ing !
|
|
|
Post by nydhog on Dec 12, 2010 11:24:21 GMT -5
Eolaers has a code of honor (albeit, a lax one). He will take prisoners to appease the gods because that is what they demand, even if he does it a bit begrudgingly.
And Eolaer is FAAAAAAAAAAAAR from a paladin. FAR from it.
|
|
|
Post by casdegere on Dec 12, 2010 12:43:04 GMT -5
Ok, so, would you say that Azcot would get that sense of what Eolaer is? I'm asking because it would be easier to RP that this is apparent.
|
|
|
Post by casdegere on Dec 12, 2010 12:51:32 GMT -5
I would also like to add that the feat, Close Quarters Fighting is WAY overpowered. This game is pretty simple if we just go by the rules. Follow the rules and gameplay is pretty dumbed down and simple. However, There is no stipulation on weapon size being used in close quarters fighting. When it comes to grappling, a character, if he succeeds or fails his grapple check is in the same square as his opponent. I think this feat has a place in the game, even though is completely cancels out Improved Grab and Grapple and their feat language. I think there should be some stipulation on weapon size because a Great sword, a Pike, a Spear, a Lance, a Poleaxe...and Close Quarters fighting? Am I the only one that sees this as absurd?
That said it is in black and white but I just do not like D&D circumventing its own rules. During our little fight, Sangrias almost knocked Azcot unconscious, with a -4 to hit doing subdual. He did so due to his use of a greatsword, capable of doing massive damage....even in close quarters. Azcot is probably better at Grappling then most anyone of his size, however a character with only 2 levels of fighter almost knocked him unconscious because of that feat. I suppose Azcot could have changed tactics and he might in the future when he meets someone with that feat but IMHO, that feat is WAY overpowered to have no stipulation on how it can be used in Close Quarter Combat.
|
|
|
Post by darkalloy on Dec 12, 2010 15:21:01 GMT -5
I could see using a great sword in CQ. Simply because while they were meant for hacking at you opponent, nothing says you couldn't keep it sharp enough to slices the enemy as they squeeze you or if you pull the sword just right. However as you state a lance, spear, poleaxe, pike, whip, and hell even a flail would be hard to use in really tight spaces. I mention flail because it relies on a full range of motion like a whip. A glass studded whip like Rin's however would be easy to use as it would be like using armor spikes, as would say like a morning star.
|
|
|
Post by flak on Dec 12, 2010 20:56:05 GMT -5
I think it's a feat to try to avoid grappling. You, know, try to bat them away. However, once Azcot finally got a hold of me, I was screwed; no way of escaping aside from sneaky tactics. Next time, you won't be as lucky. Muhahahah....
|
|
|
Post by darkalloy on Dec 12, 2010 21:30:47 GMT -5
Hmm... I think we are thinking of a different feat Cas. I think there is one similar in name or the description is almost the same as CQF. The feat's just like if you were to grapple with out improved grappling all it does is counter that. Hmm... why do I feel like I've seen a CQF feat with what Azoct describes listed under it before though?
|
|
|
Post by casdegere on Dec 13, 2010 7:30:35 GMT -5
My point was mainly that, Azcot is a supreme grappler and Sangrias is not a full fighter. He easily could have knocked him unconscious. However, there were other tactics that Azcot could have taken to even out the smack down without doing any lethal. All in all though it only really helps you with grappling and takes away from martial combat so I guess its just a trade-off.
|
|
|
Post by Andre on Dec 13, 2010 9:40:49 GMT -5
I see casdegere's point but I'm a bit reluctant to tinker with the "official" D and D rules as they're written , only because I find it really muddies the waters if I have to keep track of the current rules (which I'm the first one to admit I don't always do a great job of ) and remember rules we changed to boot ... I like having a "living rules book" like casdegere in the group (that's a compliment Casdegere ... dark alloy is also a living rule book too whom I appreciate ) , makes life much easier for me as a DM but I am embarrassed to admit as far as casdegere's comment above that " Follow the rules and gameplay is pretty dumbed down and simple. " that I'm even dumber and simpler since I have a hard time sometimes keeping up with the rules as is .... However if it's something casdegere feels strongly about we could always put it up to a vote?
|
|
|
Post by casdegere on Dec 13, 2010 18:29:55 GMT -5
I think CQF does have a place in the rules just like any other feat, however as open ended as it is, its just overpowering in my opinion with its ability to take a grappler's abilities and make them useless. The main thing that does this is its lack of attention to weapon size in CQF. I think using any weapon larger then say...a Light weapon brings this feat into a much more realistic playing field. SO basically having no rules for Close Quarters fighting at all is what makes the feat so powerful. I do hear what Dark is saying about using a large weapon but consider that simply pressing a blade up to someone, though it may hurt them, it requires the body, the arms, the wrists, the hands, the force and strength of a fighter to properly employ a greatsword or any weapon for that matter. Being jammed into a single square and trying to employ a large weapon to me is well, kind of difficult. I do not wish to upset Sangrias or ruin his game experience in the least. Azcot did grab him eventually but not until he was 1 hit away from falling unconscious. That said I believe some sort of compromise is in order. Perhaps a -2? Would be fair for using a large weapon in close quarters, or -4 for a weapon with reach? Now I do not think of myself as a rule guy. I am quick with finding information as I have access to lots of information at my fingerprints. It is not anything other then that. I've made some errors but only because i did not see the rules in black and white and went by memory. Shame on me.
|
|
|
Post by Andre on Dec 14, 2010 8:46:08 GMT -5
Well you have a greater command of the rules than I do, you and dark alloy that's for certain ...
|
|