Quote from: SHARK on February 06, 2024, 03:51:51 PM
Greetings!

The DM in this campaign group is really fucking retarded. "I'm changing the Forgotten Realms and how Lathander operates!"

Really, now? Like Paladins are not trained for fucking YEARS in monasteries, learning, studying, and practicing prayer, philosophy, theology, and doctrine?

A Paladin or Cleric is not somehow in strong spiritual communion with the supernatural realm?

Sorry, as I said before, fuck this DM and his group of fucking Woke players. This is why you don't play with Woke morons.

Woke fucking morons have no true concept of what a righteous fucking Paladin or Cleric is. They lovee bulldozing you with moralizing BS though. Fuck them.

KILL THEM ALL!

Remember, DEUS VULT!

That is the answer. When someone doesn't like that answer, you fucking run them through with your broadsword, or drag them to the stake and burn them alive for their heresy and lack of faith.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Not retarded, but evil. Destruction is not an accident, but a goal; it is a feature, not a bug.

Quote from: blackstone on February 06, 2024, 07:55:58 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 12:29:03 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

So you don't deny what DM Grognard said?

Good.

Those who live by the sword, die by the sword you self-righteous fucker.

I specifically denied what DM Grognard said. But at least you got the sword part.

Quote from: BadApple on February 06, 2024, 07:44:24 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:41:11 AM
How torches work or how armor works is something the PCs should know, and it would be assumed. Detailed knowledge of monsters, though, is different.

At least in my circles of D&D in the 80s, the player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon. PCs should only have knowledge of monsters their characters have direct experience with. So unless a PC has a particular background with vampires, say, it's considered bad role-playing to rattle off the details of the vampire entry. And the DM was within bounds to introduce different types of vampires, so that players couldn't rely on having memorized the Monster Manual entry.

A central part of paladins, like clerics and warlocks, is the deity they are tied to.  If they don't know how their deity works or what they expect from their vassals they it's the same as if they don't know how their armor works.  This has nothing to do with the monster manual.  If a god wants to erase undead then what does it matter what GM changes there are if it's still undead?

In the quote, I was responding to daniel_ream about his tangent regarding monsters -- not to the specific case of Cipher's campaign.

In the big picture of Cipher's campaign... I wasn't there to judge the tone of how everyone acted - so yeah, I'd believe that they were jerks about it. Still, in the big picture, the DM and all the players thought one way, and Cipher thought the other. The answer in the end should be that the game goes the way that the DM and other players thought. There can and should be different ways to run D&D.


There's a lot of vampire fiction -- including specifically Forgotten Realms fiction -- where vampirism is a malevolent curse, but someone under that curse won't necessarily succumb to evil, and the vampirism might even be cured. In cases of innocent victims cursed to be undead through no choice of their own, it's reasonable that a paladin of Lathander would make sure undead are laid to rest or cured, rather than always immediately attacking to destroy them. If, say, a sorrowful ghost pleads that her family be properly buried, a paladin might bury the family and make sure the ghost passes on, rather than immediately attacking to destroy it.

(I vaguely recall an AD&D module has something like this - where the ghost of a murdered victim gives the PCs information about his killer. I can't remember which module it was, though, and if it was Faerun or not.)

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 06:56:32 PM

Quote from: BadApple on February 06, 2024, 07:44:24 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:41:11 AM
How torches work or how armor works is something the PCs should know, and it would be assumed. Detailed knowledge of monsters, though, is different.

At least in my circles of D&D in the 80s, the player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon. PCs should only have knowledge of monsters their characters have direct experience with. So unless a PC has a particular background with vampires, say, it's considered bad role-playing to rattle off the details of the vampire entry. And the DM was within bounds to introduce different types of vampires, so that players couldn't rely on having memorized the Monster Manual entry.

A central part of paladins, like clerics and warlocks, is the deity they are tied to.  If they don't know how their deity works or what they expect from their vassals they it's the same as if they don't know how their armor works.  This has nothing to do with the monster manual.  If a god wants to erase undead then what does it matter what GM changes there are if it's still undead?

In the quote, I was responding to daniel_ream about his tangent regarding monsters -- not to the specific case of Cipher's campaign.

In the big picture of Cipher's campaign... I wasn't there to judge the tone of how everyone acted - so yeah, I'd believe that they were jerks about it. Still, in the big picture, the DM and all the players thought one way, and Cipher thought the other. The answer in the end should be that the game goes the way that the DM and other players thought. There can and should be different ways to run D&D.


There's a lot of vampire fiction -- including specifically Forgotten Realms fiction -- where vampirism is a malevolent curse, but someone under that curse won't necessarily succumb to evil, and the vampirism might even be cured. In cases of innocent victims cursed to be undead through no choice of their own, it's reasonable that a paladin of Lathander would make sure undead are laid to rest or cured, rather than always immediately attacking to destroy them. If, say, a sorrowful ghost pleads that her family be properly buried, a paladin might bury the family and make sure the ghost passes on, rather than immediately attacking to destroy it.

(I vaguely recall an AD&D module has something like this - where the ghost of a murdered victim gives the PCs information about his killer. I can't remember which module it was, though, and if it was Faerun or not.)

Greetings!

Yeah, Jhkim. I still think it is just fine and good to kill them all.

Yes, there can be some plausibility and even fun in having a campaign that features a *few* Undead that are not evil. Having said that, I don't think it is a good idea to make it some weird campaign rule where Paladins or anyone else gets fucking punished if they don't choose to believe that--or embrace it. If they want to stimp and kill the Undead, that is certainly a natural and reasonable response, regardless of how cool or neat you think having some exceptions might be.

I remember reading a series of Warhammer Fantasy books, by I think it was the Black Library--anyhow, along with a ruffian cast of heroes, there was this one chick, Genieveve Du Monte or something like that. She was sexy, hot, smooth, and very powerful--and an immortal vampire. She had been a vampire for I think, 800 years in the stories. Genevieve had the perpetual appearance of some perky, ripe adolescent girl. She had been bitten and turned into a vampire when she was 16 years old, so that is how she always looked. She was ruthless as fuck, a bit mysterious--but also committed to helping the heroes defeat evil monsters and fight against darkness and Chaos.

I think there are some things that work well in novels, and less well in an RPG.

As a DM, it is fine to say, "Well, there are some Undead that are not evil." Well, ok, good. That does not mean though that the Players--let alone the Characters, in the game world, know that, or believe it.

Some things should just be thrown out there into the wild, and let Players respond to it however they want. The DM should not come along and somehow dammit, I'm gonna force you to respond the way I want! Whaa! Whaa! You know what I'm saying? Just realese it, and let the Players play with that knowledge however they want.

I had a somewhat related situation arise in my own campaign. The group had encountered a group of Ogres while traveling through the Vallorean Empire. One particular player, had in the past befriended Ogres, and knew that some bands and some tribes of Ogres were not evil, inhuman monsters. They could be reasoned with, after a fashion. Ogres within the Vallorean Empire are citizens, and have been accorded the same rights and duties as any other citizen. Many Ogres serve in the Vallorean legions, for example. Anyhow, the group met up with this band of Ogres alongside the road they were traveling on. The Ogres were farmers from the local area, and out doing a bit of hunting. The Ogres greeted the party, as Vallorean Ogres are raised to be somewhat friendly with the humans amidst their communities. Part of the Player group started to cheerfully greet the ogres, and were happy to be meeting them. A different part of the group, however, had different ideas entirely.

They armed up, and let loose with their bows, and launched an attack, swiftly killing three of the young Ogres. One older Ogre survived the attack, and was saved and protected by the rest of the group.

The party almost came to blows against each other on that day. *Laughing* There was HUGE drama that ensued, especially when Imperial Rangers tracked the group down, and arrested three of the Player Characters, charging them with Assault and Murder. Murdering citizens of the Vallorean Empire is an offense that typically gets you crucified. An extra problem that existed was one of the characters--an NPC--is a Vallorean aristocrat, and a high noble. The Character did not appreciate being put into the sticky horned dilemma of honouring the Law--and having some friends crucified--or absolving his friends, but betraying the Law, and compromising his own sense of Duty and Honour.

That episode extended out into a drama-filled mini-series that went on for a good number of episodes before it was resolved, and the party was able to move on to other adventures. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 02:46:38 PM
Well, if people are getting 'triggered' over a fictional game then there is something wrong on their side. So perhaps RPGing isn't a hobby for therm. that or they could just stick to 'cosy' rpgs instead.

No such thing can ever exist because there is NO LIMIT to how insane these nuts can get.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 03:03:50 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 02:52:28 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 02:46:38 PM
Well, if people are getting 'triggered' over a fictional game then there is something wrong on their side. So perhaps RPGing isn't a hobby for therm. that or they could just stick to 'cosy' rpgs instead.

"Having something wrong" is neither a personal failing, nor rare. People on this board get triggered by shit all the time. I've been role-playing for nearly four decades. Your estimation of who should be playing role-playing games strikes me as remarkably unworldly.

Now your changing the scope of the argument. We are talking about playing 'imaginary elf-games' and the zero damage they can do - unless someone is mentally ill or damaged. And if that's the case they should do another activity.

To be fair. There are some really fucked up DMs and players who get off on getting someone invested in a RP and then ruining it deliberately.

Catch is. X cards are meaningless and useless in that case.

Quote from: oggsmash on February 03, 2024, 03:29:15 PM
I think I need a clear, concise definition as to exactly what triggered means...because it looks like the goal posts are moving around so much that anytime you make a remark of disagreement you were "triggered"?   Thing I hate about marxists is their constant and consistent manipulation of language to always try to have a word or two than can be a "catch all".

Happens way too much as any and every term gets twisted by some nut to eventually mean "everything on earth".

Storygamers: Whats an RPG? Everything on earth. No really. I've heard RPG redefined into literally reading a book or watching grass grow.

Storygamers again: Whats storytelling? Everything on Earth.

Whats triggered? Everything on earth."

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 06:56:32 PM

Quote from: BadApple on February 06, 2024, 07:44:24 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:41:11 AM
How torches work or how armor works is something the PCs should know, and it would be assumed. Detailed knowledge of monsters, though, is different.

At least in my circles of D&D in the 80s, the player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon. PCs should only have knowledge of monsters their characters have direct experience with. So unless a PC has a particular background with vampires, say, it's considered bad role-playing to rattle off the details of the vampire entry. And the DM was within bounds to introduce different types of vampires, so that players couldn't rely on having memorized the Monster Manual entry.

A central part of paladins, like clerics and warlocks, is the deity they are tied to.  If they don't know how their deity works or what they expect from their vassals they it's the same as if they don't know how their armor works.  This has nothing to do with the monster manual.  If a god wants to erase undead then what does it matter what GM changes there are if it's still undead?

In the quote, I was responding to daniel_ream about his tangent regarding monsters -- not to the specific case of Cipher's campaign.

In the big picture of Cipher's campaign... I wasn't there to judge the tone of how everyone acted - so yeah, I'd believe that they were jerks about it. Still, in the big picture, the DM and all the players thought one way, and Cipher thought the other. The answer in the end should be that the game goes the way that the DM and other players thought. There can and should be different ways to run D&D.


There's a lot of vampire fiction -- including specifically Forgotten Realms fiction -- where vampirism is a malevolent curse, but someone under that curse won't necessarily succumb to evil, and the vampirism might even be cured. In cases of innocent victims cursed to be undead through no choice of their own, it's reasonable that a paladin of Lathander would make sure undead are laid to rest or cured, rather than always immediately attacking to destroy them. If, say, a sorrowful ghost pleads that her family be properly buried, a paladin might bury the family and make sure the ghost passes on, rather than immediately attacking to destroy it.

(I vaguely recall an AD&D module has something like this - where the ghost of a murdered victim gives the PCs information about his killer. I can't remember which module it was, though, and if it was Faerun or not.)

Except, the Monster's Manual of 5e on page 295 says this:


PLAYER CHARACTERS AS VAMPIRES

The game statistics of a player character
transformed into a vampire spawn and then a
vampire don't change, except that the character's Strength,
Dexterity, and Constitution scores become 18 if they aren't
higher. In addition, the character gains the vampire's damage
resistances, darkvision, traits, and actions. Attack and
damage rolls for the vampire's attacks are based on Strength.
The save DC for Charm is 8 + the vampire's proficiency
bonus+ the vampire's Charisma modifier. The character's
alignment becomes lawful evil, and the DM might take
control of the character until the vampirism is reversed with
a wish spell or the character is killed and brought back to life.


So first of all, you become Lawful Evil if you become a vampire per RAW.  And the methods to cure vampirism are a Wish spell, which is a 9th level spell. Good luck finding a Wizard that knows it and then double good luck having the gold to pay for the service.

The other option, involves the vampire being slain. Once again, as per RAW, my character was actually showing mercy by providing a way for the vampire to be revived as a human, if such a thing was within the party's means and/or desires.

I understand not every game has to be played RAW. But, it has always been common courtesy to explain what is outside of RAW and I've said many times in this thread that this was never announced to me. The DM never said "I am making a ruling now, vampires are not always Evil" or during our session 0 and the other parts of Session 1, he never said "by the way, in my game vampires are not always evil."

This was never discussed before hand, neither in character or out of character.


EDIT: Also, here's another gem from the same entry in the Monster's Manual:

Dark Desires. Whether or not a vampire retains
any memories from its former life, its emotional
attachments wither as once-pure feelings become
twisted by undeath. Love turns into hungry
obsession, while friendship becomes bitter
jealousy. In place of emotion, vampires pursue
physical symbols of what they crave, so that a
vampire seeking love might fixate on a young beauty.
A child might become an object of fascination for a
vampire obsessed with youth and potential. Others
surround themselves with art, books, or sinister items
such as torture devices or trophies from creatures
they have killed.

Once again, per RAW, vampires are not only evil in the sense of their alignment listed as Evil but also they suffer from this "Dark desire" which twists their "once pure feelings", corrupting even friendship and love.

Quote from: Cipher on February 06, 2024, 11:12:14 PM
Once again, per RAW, vampires are not only evil in the sense of their alignment listed as Evil but also they suffer from this "Dark desire" which twists their "once pure feelings", corrupting even friendship and love.

That will get whitewashed come 6e.

Quote from: Omega on February 06, 2024, 11:25:17 PM

Quote from: Cipher on February 06, 2024, 11:12:14 PM
Once again, per RAW, vampires are not only evil in the sense of their alignment listed as Evil but also they suffer from this "Dark desire" which twists their "once pure feelings", corrupting even friendship and love.

That will get whitewashed come 6e.

Perhaps, I don't really care. I don't even like 5e. I just agreed to play that game because I really wanted to play. I am just pointing out that, by RAW, there's plenty of evidence that shows vampires are always evil and not just in name, but in very tangible ways, described in that "dark desire" blurb.

Going against RAW is perfectly fine, but if not communicated then there's no way for the players to know. I was never told this and so my character assumed that RAW was being followed and that vampires are the filthy bloodsucking horrible mockery of life that they have always been in D&D.

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 06:56:32 PM
If, say, a sorrowful ghost pleads that her family be properly buried, a paladin might bury the family and make sure the ghost passes on, rather than immediately attacking to destroy it.

I like how moral relativism is so pervasive in every single argument you make. It's great. Paladins MIGHT NOT immediately kill undead if they plead for mercy! Hey, divine right says kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. By killing the undead and releasing their souls to the afterlife, they can be at rest.

AD&D is fucking frontier justice, and the morphing into modern Seattle stupidity about morality is fake, gay, and lame.

Going over the original post, this stuck out for me.

QuoteThe story so far that there had been some kidnappings in a city and the Mayor suspected cultists or monsters. We did some investigating, ruffed up some bandits for info, killed some spiders in the sewers and eventually it was revealed that a wealthy merchant was responsible because he is a Vampire Spawn, gathering flock to feast and/or to send to his master.

So, as usual IME, the ethics of killing undead in general is mostly irrelevant to the specifics of the game, where the opponents are usually up to some nefarious deeds. It may be possible to cure an undead without destroying them, but again, usually IME, that's a route that's usually impractical. Stop stopping the bad guy, take a few weeks to research undeath and the nature of their curse, quest for a cure of some sort, hope they stopped feeding on the poor villagers while the party was doing all that shit. No? Sucks (haha) to be them.

jhkim supporting a "the criminal is the TRUE victim!" narrative?

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 06:56:32 PM
There's a lot of vampire fiction -- including specifically Forgotten Realms fiction -- where vampirism is a malevolent curse, but someone under that curse won't necessarily succumb to evil, and the vampirism might even be cured.

There's a lot of fantasy fiction -- including specifically Forgotten Realms fiction -- where a single exceptional drow is part of the inherently lawful evil society that raised them, but does not necessarily succumb to evil, and might even be seen as heroic.

Explicitly exceptional cases do not disprove general patterns.

QuoteAD&D is fucking frontier justice

I think this is the crux of the matter right here.  D&D is based on pre-1980s sword & sorcery, not contemporary West Coast mores.  There are no police, social workers, justice system, presumption of innocence, or pre-trial detention.

Quote from: Brad on February 07, 2024, 06:56:46 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 06:56:32 PM
If, say, a sorrowful ghost pleads that her family be properly buried, a paladin might bury the family and make sure the ghost passes on, rather than immediately attacking to destroy it.

I like how moral relativism is so pervasive in every single argument you make. It's great. Paladins MIGHT NOT immediately kill undead if they plead for mercy! Hey, divine right says kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. By killing the undead and releasing their souls to the afterlife, they can be at rest.

AD&D is fucking frontier justice, and the morphing into modern Seattle stupidity about morality is fake, gay, and lame.

  When something is a IRL personality feature its going to show up everywhere IMO.   I think we forget a lawful good paladin is much more Solomon Kane and much less some weenie standing around wondering what the "most good" thing to do is.