Good news! Cipher is to join us in our Hyborian Age campaign!

Quote from: blackstone on February 07, 2024, 01:28:52 PM
Good news! Cipher is to join us in our Hyborian Age campaign!

May he crush his enemies, see them driven before him, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 07, 2024, 02:11:16 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 07, 2024, 01:28:52 PM
Good news! Cipher is to join us in our Hyborian Age campaign!

May he crush his enemies, see them driven before him, and hear the lamentations of their women.

You bet your ass he will!

Quote from: blackstone on February 07, 2024, 01:28:52 PM
Good news! Cipher is to join us in our Hyborian Age campaign!

Making lemons out of lemonade.

EDIT: Haha, the other way!

Quote from: blackstone on February 07, 2024, 01:28:52 PM
Good news! Cipher is to join us in our Hyborian Age campaign!

I want to take this opportunity to thank you so much, again, for inviting me to your game!

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 07, 2024, 07:29:34 AM
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.

And, in another post, I gave more context.

We used to sewers to get inside a hidden "dungeon"/jail below the estate of this wealthy merchant. It had around 8 to 10 cages, I don't remember the exact number. I think 3 or 4 where currently occupied.

I said to the DM that I wanted to investigate the empty ones, to determine if they have been used recently and I asked what I needed to roll for that. He said that there was no need for a roll, that I could clearly tell that the other cages where used recently.

Meaning, he was holding a handful of innocent people hostage, one was a child and another one was a young woman.

To what end? We didn't know at that time. This is why I said to either feast on them and/or send them to his Master so the Master can feast on them... or worse.

We had confirmation of the crimes, the extent of those crimes, that the crimes had been going on for a while, that some of the victims were no longer there so either dead or already sent to the Master.

As such, this is why when he faced the vampire spawn, I decided to draw my longsword and shout: "Your foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!".

And this is what stopped the game. Some people in this thread are bending over backwards trying to twist my words, but this is the reasoning behind my actions and my words. The Mayor tasked us with finding out what is happening with the missing people, not to apprehend the culprit.

Could there have been value in letting the vampire remain and perhaps have him give us information on his Master? Yes. I admitted to that in this thread. However, I want to make it clear that it was never brought up. No in character discussion happened about the value of not slaying this vampire on sight.

At best, he was taking people hostage and sending them to slaughter. At worst, he was the one actively feeding on these innocents. Even if the vampire is only following his Master's orders, it doesn't change the fact that some victims are already gone. And, keep in mind at this point we still don't know, it could be that he was the one feasting on them.

Again, could there have been value in finding that out? Yes. But the issue the rest of the Players had with me was never about that, or at least it was never communicated to the be that. It was "you are being a murderhobo" and "you are being a bigot" and "the vampire spawn is a victim!" and "attacking an intelligent creature unprovoked is murder!".

And all of those arguments were made to me as a Player and not to my character. I repeat, no in character discussion ever took place.

Understand, the very same people on this thread defending the vampire spawn for being a victim of his evil master will be the same people demanding a 98 year-old go to prison for the rest of his life because he was drafted by the Nazis as a teenager.  They aren't reacting based on principle; they are simply reacting to defend those who attacked you (because they want to be able to use the same tactics themselves on others).

Dude, you have to understand that if you were playing a game about crime investigation, and you found the DNA of a repeat offender thug at the scene, that GM would probably be annoyed you assumed the criminal was guilty, because his story is about a gang of cops planting DNA to "get those coloreds off the streets!"

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.

Um. jhkim is actually somewhat right on this one. Sorting out a situation has been a core of D&D from the start. Is the ghost evil or just lost? Will helping it do more good than just putting it down?

Its D&D you NEVER know when something is not exactly what you thought. Pops up enough in the modules too from TSR.

If anything wotc seems to have lost this and you see far more black and white encounters than shades of grey.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 07, 2024, 09:37:17 PM
Understand, the very same people on this thread defending the vampire spawn for being a victim of his evil master will be the same people demanding a 98 year-old go to prison for the rest of his life because he was drafted by the Nazis as a teenager.  They aren't reacting based on principle; they are simply reacting to defend those who attacked you (because they want to be able to use the same tactics themselves on others).

At the very least, some comments and attitudes in this thread have given me an idea on what was going through the minds of the people in that online game. So, it has been a learning and eye opening experience.

Quote from: Omega on February 07, 2024, 10:13:48 PM

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.

Um. jhkim is actually somewhat right on this one. Sorting out a situation has been a core of D&D from the start. Is the ghost evil or just lost? Will helping it do more good than just putting it down?

Its D&D you NEVER know when something is not exactly what you thought. Pops up enough in the modules too from TSR.

If anything wotc seems to have lost this and you see far more black and white encounters than shades of grey.

jhkim is using his usual tactics, the paladin of a god that's against all undead should react exactly as cipher's PC reacted especially given the evidence seen before encountering the vampire, nothing to do with our resident whataboutist's examples.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 07, 2024, 09:37:17 PM
Understand, the very same people on this thread defending the vampire spawn for being a victim of his evil master will be the same people demanding a 98 year-old go to prison for the rest of his life because he was drafted by the Nazis as a teenager.  They aren't reacting based on principle; they are simply reacting to defend those who attacked you (because they want to be able to use the same tactics themselves on others).

Actually they would probably deffend the nazi as they have done with Soros.

Thanks for the added info, Cipher.

What's not clear to me is that you said you had no way to know that the DM was portraying these vampire spawn as possibly (though not necessarily) innocent victims under an evil curse. However, somehow all the other players were on the same page as the DM. If there was no way for you to know, how did all the other players understand this?

I take it that you were faced with what appeared to be the merchant whose house this was. It seems implied that he wasn't offering any violence towards you, and instead was trying to talk with you. Is that right? What was he trying to say? How did your group know what he was?

Basically, I don't get how the other players came to an understanding with the DM. This reminds me how last month I revisited a time back in 2006, where the GM of a Harn game I was playing in posted on HarnForums about how his players were out of line in their violence (i.e. me and the other players). i.e. He posted complaining that we were "murderhobos". However, I and another player joined in on the thread, and we eventually talked through the clash.

https://www.facebook.com/john.h.kim1/posts/pfbid0ca4cb6Qc2bxcXbCAAHrcXDPLSQre9qkGC1ZdWH1id1iKFas19aB1KveDzdnPrH5Fl

---

To be clear - I have nothing against a game where all vampires should be killed on sight and never talked to. I also have nothing against a game where a vampire might be an innocent victim or even a heroic protagonist, and it's premature to instantly kill one that's trying to talk. Either way, it's just a game.

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2024, 11:14:05 PM
Thanks for the added info, Cipher.

What's not clear to me is that you said you had no way to know that the DM was portraying these vampire spawn as possibly (though not necessarily) innocent victims under an evil curse. However, somehow all the other players were on the same page as the DM. If there was no way for you to know, how did all the other players understand this?

I take it that you were faced with what appeared to be the merchant whose house this was. It seems implied that he wasn't offering any violence towards you, and instead was trying to talk with you. Is that right? What was he trying to say? How did your group know what he was?

Basically, I don't get how the other players came to an understanding with the DM. This reminds me how last month I revisited a time back in 2006, where the GM of a Harn game I was playing in posted on HarnForums about how his players were out of line in their violence (i.e. me and the other players). i.e. He posted complaining that we were "murderhobos". However, I and another player joined in on the thread, and we eventually talked through the clash.

https://www.facebook.com/john.h.kim1/posts/pfbid0ca4cb6Qc2bxcXbCAAHrcXDPLSQre9qkGC1ZdWH1id1iKFas19aB1KveDzdnPrH5Fl

---

To be clear - I have nothing against a game where all vampires should be killed on sight and never talked to. I also have nothing against a game where a vampire might be an innocent victim or even a heroic protagonist, and it's premature to instantly kill one that's trying to talk. Either way, it's just a game.

Because the only new player was Cipher.

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2024, 11:14:05 PM
Thanks for the added info, Cipher.

What's not clear to me is that you said you had no way to know that the DM was portraying these vampire spawn as possibly (though not necessarily) innocent victims under an evil curse. However, somehow all the other players were on the same page as the DM. If there was no way for you to know, how did all the other players understand this?

I take it that you were faced with what appeared to be the merchant whose house this was. It seems implied that he wasn't offering any violence towards you, and instead was trying to talk with you. Is that right? What was he trying to say? How did your group know what he was?

Basically, I don't get how the other players came to an understanding with the DM. This reminds me how last month I revisited a time back in 2006, where the GM of a Harn game I was playing in posted on HarnForums about how his players were out of line in their violence (i.e. me and the other players). i.e. He posted complaining that we were "murderhobos". However, I and another player joined in on the thread, and we eventually talked through the clash.

https://www.facebook.com/john.h.kim1/posts/pfbid0ca4cb6Qc2bxcXbCAAHrcXDPLSQre9qkGC1ZdWH1id1iKFas19aB1KveDzdnPrH5Fl

---

To be clear - I have nothing against a game where all vampires should be killed on sight and never talked to. I also have nothing against a game where a vampire might be an innocent victim or even a heroic protagonist, and it's premature to instantly kill one that's trying to talk. Either way, it's just a game.

I've went over the events before on this thread.

Here is the run down one more time and with as much detail as I care to write at this hour. We were tasked by the Mayor to investigate some people missing. The Mayor suspected this was either the fault of cultist or monsters. Ruffing up some bandits, we were given a lead. That lead ended up in the city sewers so we could fight some giant spiders. Pretty standard D&D fare so far. However, I must point out, that from the get go there was the anticipation of something supernatural going on and that there's clearly something evil happening here. We were a party of 4 adventurers. A Cleric of Lathander, a rogue by class but he called himself a "swashbuckler", a Paladin of Lathander (my character) and some sort of gish class or fighter/mage multiclass, I am not sure. He could use melee weapons and some sort of magic. I don't really know D&D 5e. I addressed them by their names so I am not sure what class they were using besides the cleric of Lathander, since I know that because after hearing that I asked if I could be a paladin of the same religion so we could all have connections between out characters.

Then, we ended up in a hidden dungeon/jail with many cages, either 8 or 10, I don't remember exactly. 4 of those cages had people in them. I told the DM I wanted to investigate the other cages to see if there was recent activity on them. I was told there was no need to roll, it was clear that some of the empty cages had been used recently. The people still in the cages told us their stories. Through the testimonies of the captives, the party came to the conclusion that this was a vampire's doing and one of the party members told the people in the cages to wait for a bit before we could make sure there was no danger before releasing them. One of the players, I think it was the gish, said that it must be a vampire spawn, since at level 3 there was no way to face an actual vampire and survive.

This is could have been metagaming knowledge. But, I was the new guy at the table and even though I did my best to participate and engage in the game, I was the most passive in terms of leading the party on. Something I did not mind at all. Also, this could be deducted by the information given by the captives and some usage of knowledge lore skills. I don't know. I've never played D&D 5e before. I was just trying to get back into the hobby after years without playing TTRPGs. I mostly went along with what everyone decided, chiming in occasionally with mostly comments to add flavor. If this conclusion was arrived using metagaming knowledge or not, it wasn't really for me to decide or deride. I was doing my best to have fun and be a good player.

The cleric healed the rogue since he had taken damage in our encounter with the spiders before. We were anticipating a "boss" fight after looking for the culprit, who at this point we knew it was this wealthy merchant owner of the estate and was determined to be a vampire.

Again, don't question me about those specifics. I was just along for the ride. Yes, I find the idea of getting ready for a "boss fight" to be metagaming. Once again, I was not about to start wagging my finger and tell the group as the new guy that doing that ruins the game. I wouldn't have run it like that, and if this was my game there are a LOT of things I would have done differently. However, this was not my game and I was the new guest, so I let everything slide.

For the most part, the group was alright. I wanted to play a hero, meaning a party of "Good Guys" and everyone was on the same page. We all agreed not to kill the bandits as there was no need for them to die as long as we got our info. This wasn't really a discussion, when it came time to deal with them I said I wanted to tie them up and no one disagreed or decided to kill them instead. Everyone just went along with my approach. When we were sneaking around the vampire's mannor no one took off to try to loot or bag valuables. We stuck to the mission. Again, as far as I know, things were going great, even though this group played a little more "gamey" than the way I like to play TTRPGs. I wasn't in the mindset of judging.

Then, we opened the door to the study and found the merchant, who at this point is guilty of kidnapping and torturing innocents and most likely guilty of human trafficking at best. At worst, he is a vampire that fed on some of the captives or sent them to his Master.

The DM described the study and said that the merchant was facing the window before turning to us since we made a ruckus by forcibly opening the door. I said that my character draws his sword while shouting "You foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!" and that I wanted to run up and Smite the merchant, who we understood it was a vampire. And that's when the game stopped.

One more time. No one said to me "Maybe he is not actually a vampire". We were all in agreement that he was a vampire. How did the party actually arrived to that conclusion? I am not really sure. I was told that this (what was going on the hidden dungeon/jail) was the doings of a vampire and I took it at face value. Everyone else seemed to agree, as well.

The problem was never that "he could be innocent" or "not a vampire".

The problems were:

1.- "Saying filthy bloodsucker is bigotry"
2.- "Attacking on sight is being a murderhobo"
3.- "Vampire spawns must obey their Master, so he is actually a victim!"
4.- "Lathander would disavow of acts of unprovoked violence. Since I am attacking an intelligent creature before this creature attacks me, that counts as murder"

At many, many points during that discussion, my entire mindset revolved around slaying a vampire, a foul creature of the night that feeds on the living. A mockery of life. No one ever made the argument that we could have been wrong all along, that there was more to this plot and that the merchant could have been innocent. At best, he was determined to be a thrall for a true Vampire, which is in lore and I agree to that approach but that doesn't mean this vampire spawn was necessarily following orders. Something that I did mention. For all we know, he could be the actual mastermind behind the kidnappings and this is just his feeding grounds, no Master involved.

The party disliked me deciding to attack on sight and considered that a "murderhobo" action. Their characters never made a case on why we shouldn't get the drop on the vampire. The players decided that I shouldn't attack on sight. I explained that giving the vampire time to speak means more trouble than its worth. He could be a magic user that uses a spell to turn the tables. He could have minions around that could come to his aid. He could just use the time to flat out escape. This wasn't part of the discussion but, given the events that had transpired as we understood them, at the very least, beating it to a pulp and then asking questions was actually the more sensible option, though I admit that my intentions were always to slay the vampire, not to interrogate it.

After reading comments in this thread, I think that there could have been value in getting information out of this vampire but that was never part of the discussion. I expressed many times that if the other characters have said something along those lines, I would have been open to stay my hand and not attack, although my concerns on relinquishing getting the drop on the vampire are still valid, I could see the value in interrogating him first.

The discussion was never around that and it was always around the 4 points I mentioned. And, the discussion was around the other players telling me, the Player of that Paladin of Lathander, why I was wrong in attacking on sight. There is a reason why I am numbering the points of discussion because they were brought up in that order.

I said it before in my previous comments, the "murderhobo" situation wasn't really that big of a deal. It seems clear to me that they really didn't wanted me to attack the vampire right away, but the biggest issue, the one that was mentioned the most and the one that was discussed the longest during almost 2 hours of talking about this, was the usage of "filthy bloodsucker". The conversation kept coming back to that point.

My reasons are simple. I explained the "murderhobo" allegations pretty quickly, just like I did here, saying that it was in our best interest to NOT let the vampire act and wasting the surprise round was to our detriment, not to our advantage. If that makes me a murderhobo, then so be it. But I'll rather be an alive murderhobo than a dead one or worse, getting jailed like the rest of the captives. However, this was brought up right after I was called a bigot for the usage of "filthy bloodsucker" to refer to this vampire.

Because explaining why I wasn't being a murderhobo was easier, in my mind at least, I started with that one. After explaining my point of view on the importance of getting the drop on the vampire, then the conversation fully revolved around calling it a "filthy bloodsucker". I was specifically told that it was considered bigotry and thus I was breaking the trigger warnings agreements of "no racism, no bullying and no bigotry". The reasoning was that I said those words out of hate, and thus it was bigotry.

I said that the usage was adequate as vampires are foul creatures of the night that must feed on the living to continue their cursed existence. As I posted a few pages back, the Monster's Manual agrees with this take, turning Player Characters that become vampires into "Lawful Evil" and also through the description of the "dark desire" blurb, mentioning that it corrupts their once pure feelings, even those of love and friendship become twisted by undeath. This is all per RAW, which again, I didn't knew at the time, but its still in line with my character's actions. Somehow, it seems I get D&D 5e better then them in terms of the established lore as per RAW, and I am the one that has never played the game before.

During that discussion, I was told that was a bigoted view, since vampires are intelligent creatures that can experience anguish and pain if slain or faced with sunlight and thus, attacking them on sight/in cold blood was considered murder. I explained that it can't be "murder" since vampires are undead and thus, by definition, are not actually "alive". I can admit this was somewhat a semantic argument, but I wasn't the one making that case, I was just explaining my reasoning.

Then, I was told that, as a vampire spawn, he is actually not entirely guilty, or perhaps even not guilty at all, because vampire spawns cannot disobey their Masters. Something that, although is true, goes off a lot of assumptions. Like assuming there is a mastermind behind the kidnappings and this is not just the merchant feeding on the people of the city because... y'know, as a vampire, spawn or otherwise, he has to feed on someone. I replied that, be that as it may, it was actually a mercy to slay the vampire, to release his poor and tormented soul from this undead prison and give him a chance to finally rest in peace as there is now way to cure vampirism and thus, grant rest to his soul. To which it was pointed out to me that I was wrong and that a Wish spell could cure it, however as a 3 level party that's well beyond our means and will be beyond our means for quite some in-game time.

Eventually, the female player, the one playing a cleric of Lathander, said that Lathander would disapprove of attacking the vampire on sight, as this was a "merciless" action that was an act of unprovoked violence. I replied that the violence was not merciless and was very much provoked, since we had the vampire dead to rights as guilty of at least kidnapping and holding captive a bunch of people, more than the people that remained alive in the cages below his estate, which means something happened to the people that were in the other cages, we just don't know what. At the very least, the violence was not unprovoked. And whether or not it was enough to slay the vampire without imprisonment or a trial, that's beside the point as those arguments should have been made by the characters to each other/towards my character after the fight not the players towards me while the game was paused/stopped.

At different points during the discussion, the point about my usage of "filthy bloodsucker" to refer to a vampire was brought up again and again. Saying that it was "hateful" and that's what qualified as bigotry. I maintained the position that vampires are, indeed, undead monsters that feast on the blood of the living and so both "filthy" and "bloodsucker" are apt qualifiers to describe them.

At no point during almost two hours of discussing this, did the DM made any rulings or comments about the nature of vampires in his game. I said so before in this thread. If I made that attack and the DM ruled that I lose my powers because vampires in his world are considered people and not monsters, and thus striking them down on sight is considered "unprovoked acts of violence", then I would argue that we had plenty of evidence that this vampire had committed crimes even if he was being compelled to by his Master.

If, in turn, the DM would reply to that statement with anything that would amount to "It doesn't matter. Attempting to slay the vampire without being threatened with violence from the vampire is considered murder. Do so at your own risk of breaking your Oath". I would disagree, but without making a fuss out of it I would acquiesce in the interest of keeping the game going and would not have attacked the vampire.

This, however, never occurred. The DM kept mostly silent during the entire exchange. I say mostly because this was played on a call over Discord without video and since I am new playing with this group I don't recognize every single voice that easily. I know the cleric of lathander was female and thus I know the points she made against my actions because of that. This is also the reason why it is somewhat complicated for me to understand exactly who decided that the merchant was actually a vampire. All I know for certain is that someone in the party made the decision/observation and everyone else agreed and that during our lengthy discussion the idea of "the merchant may actually not have been a vampire after all" was never entertained.

At many points during the discussion a lot of people were talking at the same time. This is why I am not really sure if the DM was also participating in making those arguments against me. However, I do know for sure that there was no official ruling communicated to me about vampires being or not being "always evil" as per RAW. The discussion went in circles many times, like I said before, with the "bigotry" argument coming up more than once and me being derided for breaking the agreed upon trigger warnings for engaging in hateful speech.

Also, as I said before in this thread, I stuck around because I really wanted to make this work. Since I am neither a racist or a bigot, I was sure I could just explain my point of view, my train of thought, my reasoning and surely, they would see that it was never my intention to be a bigot by using those words and thus, I never actually broke the trigger warning agreement we all made in Session 0. This was my sole intention in entertaining that discussion. Whether my character's actions were right or not or where in line with his faith or not, is a different topic altogether and one that I believe should have been addressed in-character, if at all. The reason I stayed in the call was because, this being my first time playing a game with "trigger warnings", I wanted to make it clear I never broke them. Not intentionally, anyways.

Only when the DM actually made a ruling, addressing my by my Player name and not my character's name and said that if I moved forward with the attack I would break my Oath, then I decided that a consensus was reached and that I disagreed with that consensus. I said as much, thanked them for inviting me, wished them well and to have fun playing this adventure, said my goodbyes and then left the call.

Less than half an hour later, I got a direct message from the DM saying that I was in the wrong, because the trigger warnings were already discussed beforehand and that I was rude and that with my attitude he would not be able to allow me to play with them in the future. I replied in the most polite way I could think of, that I was not interested in playing with them in the future.


You can see why I didn't go over the situation in this amount of detail before. However, if you read my opening post and my other comments throughout this thread, you will see that this has always been my recollection of the events from my perspective. I admitted that it could be that I just did not "get it". I admitted that I tried my best to remain calm, not to raise my voice and was very mindful of my word choice so as to make sure I didn't use any words that could be considered offensive, insulting, demeaning or condescending while discussing this situation with the rest of the party.

I know this is my subjective take on how things transpired. I know it could be that I wasn't as calm as I think I was. I know it could be that they could have interpreted my words as insulting. However,  I can only be responsible for my own actions and for the intentions behind those actions. I did my best to remain calm and discuss the situation in good faith to try to keep playing the game.

Having said that, I remain firm in my belief that I acted according to my understanding of the setting, my character's background and personality, my character's alignment and my character's religion and that I don't think I was being a murderhobo nor a bigot.