| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| TomJag302-11-07, 07:56 PM | I just returned from Winter War 34 where I played VERS7-01: In the Halls of the Mountain King, a Regional Special set in the Verbobonc Region. The goal of the mission was to kill all of the Duergar Dwarves in some caves. This included murdering babies and children. When the author of the adventure was asked if this was correct, players were told that it was even a good thing to kill the babies. I am shocked that this adventure was approved by the RPGA. I'm certain that it's not one that I would want to have as a model of what the RPGA is trying to accomplish. It was traumatic to some of the players, a young lady in the group was shuddering at the thought of murdering the babies, though she thought she could force herself to kill the mothers that were carrying their infants. Other players were not so affected. I listened as some players joyfully described how they were stomping on the babies. I have enjoyed several Living Greyhawk adventures in the past and I was sure that there had to be a plot twist that would prevent this outcome. Had I known that this was the case, I would never have signed up for the session. I don't see where this event was necessary for the plot, some other target could have just as easily been inserted. I believe the author and those who approved the adventure should be censured for putting in such a plot. |
| The_Jester02-11-07, 08:25 PM | Is the RPGA encouraging it? No, of course not. Even if LG was the RPGA as a whole has little say over what goes on in each individual campaign. There wasn't a "write mods where babies are killed" mandate sent out. There are 32 regions, each churning out 8 regional adventures. Then the five metaregions putting out 6 or so each year. Then the 20 or so regular Core mods plus the specials for a total of over 300 adventures each and every year. Even divided between eight guys and over 12 months that's almost 4 mods a month plus the Campaign Standards, jobs, homegames, families, etc. One questionable mod slipped through. I agree that it's a pretty terrible situation as described. It may have been presented differently as an outline or there might have been other options the party failed the explore. And it does seem much of the problem came from the DM and the other players at the table who were unable to see how much the story troubled someone at the game. But coming away from the situation blaming the entire RPGA and Living Greyhawk for what amounts to a bad gaming experience? That's a stretch. |
| Haro02-11-07, 09:48 PM | Recently I played a regional that put the PCs in a situation of having to decide whether to murder a bunch of slavewomen impregnated with the seed of something horrible (no spoilers) or to try all but impossibly to return a few to a temple where they would very likely die giving birth. Any serious attempt to rescue the slaves meant the death of those you were racing to rescue (Svirfneblin, so some PCs weren't that keen to aid). Without being too sappy, it was a gut-wrenching decision that genuinely moved all the players at the table. We were all quiet for the next half hour after we'd moved on because of the moral dilemma. I played a priest of Moradin who put up a feeble case to try and rescue some of the captives. It was absolutely superb stuff and the best LG encounter in my 150-odd mods of experience. What I'm saying is certain situations may call for hard choices to be made and if run poorly or misunderstood by a DM can result in the reaction of the topic starter. I can't comment on the scenario in question though, only personal experience. Joe |
| JohnduBois02-11-07, 09:51 PM | I think that this is an issue that is far more appropriate to bring up with the Verbobonc Triad and VTF Circle Rep rather than the open boards (especially since many VER specials are run at multiple cons). You can find contact info for the Verby Triad on the Verby website, and contact info for the VTF Circle guy (I think Tim Sech, but don't hold me to that) in the LGCS draft. Also, be fully aware that I'm making this suggestion primarily because I would be infuriated if a player in my region posted something like this on an open board without contacting the author, Triad, and Circle (and waiting for a response before e-mail the Circle) first. |
| bhale18702-11-07, 09:59 PM | ... |
| bhale18702-11-07, 10:09 PM | Reposting avoiding my previous spoilers.......... I played the same mod, and I think same table. It honestly did not bother me at all, but I have a rather twisted sense of humor and I can certainly see how/why it would bother other players. |
| catsclaw02-11-07, 10:50 PM | Reposting avoiding my previous spoilers..........It's hard to see how there are any spoilers, since as an interactive it'll never be run again. I played the same mod, and I think same table. It honestly did not bother me at all, but I have a rather twisted sense of humor and I can certainly see how/why it would bother other players.I played as well, although at a different table; my understanding was killing the children only happened at APL 2 -- at APL 4 the mission was to slaughter the women. I thought it was in bad taste, at best. We spent a good 30 minutes arguing with the judge before we got started over whether it was an evil act. This was even more problematic because the designers of the interactive clearly thought slaughtering children was a good act (because they're going to grow up to be Lawful Evil) but our judge thought it was an evil act, and refused to say whether he was going to mark an evil act on our AR for following through with it. Luckily, we didn't get far enough to actually reach any children to slaughter, so I avoided that moral dilemma. |
| bhale18702-11-07, 10:55 PM | It's hard to see how there are any spoilers, since as an interactive it'll never be run again. *shrug* I was told it could be run again this year at another con. |
| Asaris02-11-07, 11:04 PM | It wasn't an interactive, it was a special. As I understand it, this means it can be run at other Verbobonc cons. |
| catsclaw02-11-07, 11:15 PM | It wasn't an interactive, it was a special. As I understand it, this means it can be run at other Verbobonc cons.As the code is "VERS" rather than "VERI", I suppose it is a special. Of course, having played an interactive two weeks ago which was, in structure, completely indistinguishable from this one, I'm mystified as to the actual difference between them. |
| Simpi02-12-07, 12:21 AM | I just returned from Winter War 34 where I played VERS7-01: In the Halls of the Mountain King, a Regional Special set in the Verbobonc Region. The goal of the mission was to kill all of the Duergar Dwarves in some caves. This included murdering babies and children. When the author of the adventure was asked if this was correct, players were told that it was even a good thing to kill the babies. Sounds like too literal reading of alignment system = Monster Manual says it's usually evil so it's evil and killing it is quite justified. There was a similiar thing in "Crystal Caverns of the Cairn Hills" when it was still available as some players complained that killing kobold babies was an evil act according to module and they used the monster manual argument. Heck, according to that module genocide is quite ok but using divine energy to inflict damage is a no-no. I prefer more shades of grey stuff.... Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad |
| jstorrie02-12-07, 01:44 AM | For the record, your DM must tell you ahead of time if your actions will be 'Evil Acts.' So your anti-slaughter DM, if he did not, was breaking the rules in the LGCS. Contact your regional triad and ask them about the mod. They're the ones that edited it and approved it for play, not the Circle. |
| Puggle Halfwine02-12-07, 03:06 AM | There was a similiar thing in "Crystal Caverns of the Cairn Hills" That module ranks amongst my top five modules ever played. We had a fantastic GM, but our group comprised of a lot of characters with firm beliefs about the kobolds; my halfling character Puggle didn't want to kill ANYONE ("Size is inversely proportional to virtue!") including his own party, so stood by helplessly while the "morally ambigious" bard with fiendish blood and the "morally bankrupt" wizard/rogue messily slaughtered every kobold they could lay spells or blade upon. The game spawned a very long series of posts on our local In Character mailing list and generally an awesome time was had by all. Modules with "shades of grey" are, very frequenly, extremely satisfying- but it can easily get tiresome (Read; The Drinkers). Some variety is necessary. Personally, I think (given five random modules) their styles should be something like this: Heroic Fantasy - 1 (Orcs are always evil, babies are always good. Kill the former, kiss the later. Orc babies might be a problem.) Shades of Grey - 1 (Kill the orc babies. They'll only grow up to be evil anyway.) Humour and Comedy - 1 (Sir Squeaky Squirrelbane, master of the rat-flail, demands an audience! Apparently there are too many Jêns!) Combat Slogfest - 1 (Welcome to Perrenland. Now roll Initiative.) Epic - 1 (You saved the Voorman's daughter and trapped an unborn dark god under the earth forever! Have an influence point.) (By epic I mean modules which have a significant impact on your local area, such as the Nation Mocked series in Perrenland or modules such as The Fate of Alain in Ratik, rather than self-contained stories.) If wishes were fishes, hey... |
| Potato Weasel02-12-07, 07:24 AM | I would -hate- that mod. And probably bear a grudge against the writer. And it's not just because of the act itself (killing babies, even monstous babies, is pretty much always a no go zone, at least i'd hope so for most people) it's also the fact that there was no obvious choice, you participate in the mod, you're going to end up killing defenseless civilians. Also, if this writer isn't censured, it's opening the door for even worse things. How long till a pc is forced into a non consensual situation? I mean, this writer put in -baby- killing, surely another writer can get away with something along the same lines? It's the fact that, once the door is open, unless it's firmly shut, more things will come crowding through. |
| Puggle Halfwine02-12-07, 07:48 AM | I do agree that there should have been some other way to deal with that problem, but the same could be said of most mods. Having only "one way" tends to get frustrating for the players who feel they're being railroaded. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 07:51 AM | ................. |
| Potato Weasel02-12-07, 08:03 AM | If it was a defenseless, sentient infant, then yes. And note the point -defenseless-. I've played a mod where you can attempt to destroy a red dragon egg, and fight a not defenseless at all baby red dragon, I considered that fair game, especially since it brags about how evil it is. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 08:09 AM | If it was a defenseless, sentient infant, then yes. And note the point -defenseless-. I've played a mod where you can attempt to destroy a red dragon egg, and fight a not defenseless at all baby red dragon, I considered that fair game, especially since it brags about how evil it is. *shrug* I guess I don't take the game as seriously as some. In fact I enjoyed this module more than any other gaming session I can remember for a very long time. |
| gomeztoo02-12-07, 08:37 AM | Would anyone really be so upset if it was T-Rex, Raptor, Dragon, or some other less humanoid baby? Yes. Then again my char is nearly half-dragon so there. IC, had my PC been there, she'd turned on the party if they had gone baby killing. OOC, I think it's a bad idea to put his kind of stuff in a scenario. Gray areas, fine. But there are limits in what you should order PCs to do. And I personally think that, game or not, anyone who thinks it's fun to kill babies (or abuse children in any way) is a sicko. Edit: I'll note though that since I don't know what the scenario is *really* about, all I can make is a general comment. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 08:54 AM | ......... |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 10:31 AM | Crystal Caverns was one of my favorite mods - I don't think we killed a single kobold (apart from the evil cabal), and certainly didn't kill any babies. It was quickly apparent that was a dipolmacy mission. It seems to me that in a situation like that, it is incumbent upon the players to put their foots down. Not a single one of my characters would have done that or countenanced others doing it. This reminds me of that old psychological experiment where someone off the street is asked to administer shocks to someone every time they get a question wrong. Most subjects were willing to give lethal shocks because they were told that was what the experiment required. You can say no. |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 10:32 AM | As for being a sicko for killing an evil fantasy creature infant in a game.........WOW!, no question some people take this game ALOT more seriously than I do.It's not a matter of taking the game seriously, it's a matter of taking their real-life analogues seriously. In the special that started this thread, as soon as you sit down at the table you are told that you are assigned to go and kill all the children so the evil race will be eradicated and never return. Other tables are assigned to kill all the women. You are told that there are no other options, and if you subdue them and bring them back they'll only be executed by those who sent you off on the mission in the first place. That's the definition of ethnic cleansing. This is not presented as an opportunity to role-play an ethical dilemma. This is presented as an obviously good act, endorsed by a lawful good race. You are told at the beginning that if you disagree with the mission, that's fine, but the mission's over. There are no dissenting voices presented, and no opportunities to fulfill the mission without slaughtering babies. It was strongly implied that, if we had a paladin, they would not jeopardize their status by slaughtering defenseless innocents. After the battle everyone is congratulated for their efforts, and again there are no dissenting voices presented. Those are Milgram's classic psychological techniques for ensuring compliance. Sure, it may be only pretend ethnic cleansing, but it's still pretty disturbing stuff. |
| Philistine_Philospher02-12-07, 10:40 AM | I was at the table next to bhale187 during Winter War and thought I might add my 2 copper.... I think it's possible that we need to examine our perspective in passing judgment on the morality of this issue. (With many apologies to any who can claim otherwise) We don't have to deal with a constant swarm of enemies who want to sneak into our homes in the night slitting our throats, taking our land, killing OUR women and children, defiling our Gods, and destroying our society. I can only imagine that the judgments we would place upon actions undertaken to defend our lives and families would be quite different where we placed in such a situation. As we sit in our warm homes at our computers with our mugs of cocoa and armchair quartback the Dwarves' decision to decimate their foe's ability to reinforce the ranks, Clan Rockhall fights a grim and pragmatic battle for survival against the denizens of the dark. Most of us live a comparatively soft and comfy moral existence where our most difficult daily dilema is usually no more complex than whether or not to call that girl/guy back the day after or whether or not to call in sick to play 18 holes. Our table was almost entirely CN and CG dwarven warriors, human clerics of Khord, and barbarians so our in character dillema was a bit less thoroughly debated than other tables might have been. As far as the out of character debate goes I think we should try to extend our empathy to both sides of this conflict, reserve our indignation until we have walked a mile in the platemail boots of Clan Rockhall, and go back to sipping our cocoa and playing games. |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 11:07 AM | I think it's possible that we need to examine our perspective in passing judgment on the morality of this issue. (With many apologies to any who can claim otherwise) We don't have to deal with a constant swarm of enemies who want to sneak into our homes in the night slitting our throats, taking our land, killing OUR women and children, defiling our Gods, and destroying our society. I can only imagine that the judgments we would place upon actions undertaken to defend our lives and families would be quite different where we placed in such a situation.This is certainly the position Iraqi insurgents find themselves in. I'm very comfortable passing moral judgment on their actions, and I find your argument that we can't rather offensive as well. |
| gomeztoo02-12-07, 11:09 AM | You can rationalize any amount of genocide. I am sure a similar kind of rationalization is going on in the world every day. And, in a game with defined good and evil sides, that rationalization may possibly be even more easy, because things tend to be more black and white. But it is still genocide. You still kill small children and their mommies. Even if you manage to convince/delude yourself that it is 'for the greater good' (though I would never ever call it a good act - at the most a well motivated evil act), I would be very uncomfortable when a player would seem to *enjoy* killing small children - even for monstrous children in a game or fantasy that is extremely disturbing, especially in a game that is *played* by children. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 11:09 AM | ............. |
| Philistine_Philospher02-12-07, 11:18 AM | ...I'm very comfortable passing moral judgment... Thats kinda my point... |
| bhale18702-12-07, 11:24 AM | It's not a matter of taking the game seriously, it's a matter of taking their real-life analogues seriously. So are you saying you should only do things in game that you would do in RL? |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 11:25 AM | That was not told to us and in fact we did precisely that. More over, one of our Paladins adopted the entire orphange we created.Then your judge did not run the mod as written. I also think you probably weren't at the same table as the original author of this thread, as he describes listening to other players at the table gleefully describing how they were slaughtering the infants. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 11:26 AM | ......... |
| bhale18702-12-07, 11:29 AM | ........ |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 11:42 AM | So are you saying you should only do things in game that you would do in RL?Not at all. One of the characters I'm playing for Xend'rik Expeditions is a warforged named Warforged. He's Lawful Neutral, reacts violently to any suggestion that he's an individual or has a personality, and will unquestioningly follow any order given to him by a superior officer. He'll happily slaughter anyone and anything. I enjoy playing him, but I wouldn't really say he's fun to play. All I'm asking is moral dilemmas be presented as moral dilemmas, not as fait accompli. If the Dwarvish High Command decides attacking civilian targets is the only way to win the war, players should be given an opportunity to object, and alternate victory conditions. If that's too much work, fine, then rewrite the mod so that all the opponents are conventional military targets. But don't insult players by making them perform actions they think are evil and tell them they're good. |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 11:49 AM | There was only one APL 2 table and as you previously stated you were not there. How exactly do you know the Dm did not run it as written? Have you read the APL 2 mod?There were at least three APL 2 tables. Two of them assembled after the muster. I have not read the mod, but, as I mentioned, we argued with the GM for 30 minutes over this issue. Twice he called and talked to the senior GM about this issue. He also mentioned the exact same issue came up when he slot zeroed it, and his table raised the exact same objections. If there are alternatives to slaughtering the children, they aren't in the mod. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 11:49 AM | ........ |
| Philistine_Philospher02-12-07, 12:01 PM | I believe that the folks who are upset about this have two major complaints at heart. Either.... 1) They find this mission PERSONALLY reprehensible and believe that one's CHARACTER activity reflects their PERSONAL morals. or... 2) Their CHARACTER finds the mission reprehensible and they are PERSONALLY unhappy that their CHARACTER would be forced into possibly missing out on rewards if they made the proper in CHARACTER decision and refused to participate in the slaughter. Issue one presumes that every player identifies with his character on a deep, personal level. It also seeks to perpetuate a game style that is stale, morally unambiguous, juvenile, and judgemental. As for me?... I have no difficulties separating my own personality, morals, and motivations from that of my character. I can play a debauched CE psychopath and sleep perfectly well at night, knowing that I had an interesting peek into a worldview that I would never share. Issue two, at its absolute best, points out somewhat poor writing on the part of the author. At it's worst... this argument is just pure whining because one's character missed out. You can't always have your cake and eat it too. Playing a paragon of justice is meaningless unless you accept the sacrifices that come with that territory. |
| gomeztoo02-12-07, 12:04 PM | Same question Are you saying you should only do things in game that you would do in RL? No. I am saying I am unconfortable with situations where people obviously enjoy doing something that is, in RL, repulsive, and that in a RPGA game, it is unwise to encourage or especiually demand such acts. I also disagree with the author on good/evil, but that is a different topic. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 12:09 PM | No. I am saying I am unconfortable with situations where people obviously enjoy doing something that is, in RL, repulsive, and that in a RPGA game, it is unwise to encourage or especiually demand such acts. I also disagree with the author on good/evil, but that is a different topic. In RL you cannot kill a fictional fantasy creature. You are clearly equating a fictional evil humanoid creature to a RL human baby, and appearantly that is why we view this so very differently. And as stated several times before the act was clearly not demanded of characters |
| Krazykat11207902-12-07, 12:16 PM | Would it be less repulsive if the children (since at APL 2 there were no babies) each had a dagger and used total defense until death? *edit* There in fact are 2 babies at APL 2, my bad. The rest of the children were older, though. |
| Tyrskald02-12-07, 12:18 PM | There was only one APL 2 table and as you previously stated you were not there. How exactly do you know the Dm did not run it as written? Have you read the APL 2 mod? As a judge of one of the aforementioned tables, I can verify there must have been more than one table of the APL 2 version--my table was APL 2, and it was definitely not the one where PCs were rejoicing in the crushing of babies under bootheels. Also, as written and as verified by the author (I talked to him before the slot, and double-checked with him after my players stated their reservations about the mission), the children must be killed, and would be killed if brought back to the dwarves after the mission. |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 12:18 PM | Either.... 1) They find this mission PERSONALLY reprehensible and believe that one's CHARACTER activity reflects their PERSONAL morals. or... 2) Their CHARACTER finds the mission reprehensible and they are PERSONALLY unhappy that their CHARACTER would be forced into possibly missing out on rewards ...Both of these are wrong. My issue comes from the fact that there was an incredibly offensive activity presented in the mod, encouraged by the author, with no valid way of avoiding or objecting to it. It's the premise I object to. The mod was constructed with the idea that slaughtering children and committing genocide was not a morally questionable activity -- and I find that assertion offensive. The RPGA should not be endorsing mods that encourage ethnic cleansing, no matter how many players "sleep perfectly well at night, knowing that I had an interesting peek into a worldview that I would never share". |
| bhale18702-12-07, 12:22 PM | ..... |
| bhale18702-12-07, 12:25 PM | .............. |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 12:39 PM | I really wish you would stop stating there was no way to avoid or object to the genocide. That is an absolutely FALSE statement.I wish you would stop stating there was. I talked with my judge, and my judge talked with the author of the mod. For 30 minutes. There were *no* options presented. I'm happy your judge decided to run off mod. Mine didn't, and it sounds like other tables didn't either. |
| Tyrskald02-12-07, 12:40 PM | SPOILER We were NOT told it was a good act, we were specifically told is was not an evil act-There is a HUGE difference in the two statements. There was clearly an option since one character killed babies and the remaining five refused to do so and in fact were unaware that one member did kill some of them. Furthermore, 2/3s of the babies (5 players thought all the babies) were taken back to Clan Rockhall, and a character agreed to adopt the babies. As a judge of the Special at baby mission, I can confirm that A) the act is to be considered explicitly [as per the author's statement] as a GOOD act, and B) babies brought back would "be executed"--author's words, I checked after a table objection. On the matter of choices for PCs...PCs HAD two options: participate in the mission as-is, or choose to walk away from the mission altogether, possibly suffering penalties of some sort (though I didn't check that for sure), and definitely losing out on gp/xp for the scenario. I remember there was a mod published (a CORE, I think) a while back, which had another unsavory choice to make. In that mod, it was written in, that if Paladins walked away from the scenario, they were to gain full xp (not sure about gp) because they made the righteous RP choice, and did not impinge on their codes. I personally think this sort of thing should have been incorporated into these genocide missions. They were not. On the matter of alignment. It was stated by the author that the humanoid race in question is an evil race, and that alignment in DnD is black-and-white; I could only take him to mean unchangeable. In the Monster Manual's descriptions of "often ___ evil," "usually ___ evil," and "always ___ evil," I believe it says that there are percentages of occurance associated with each alignment description for a race/creature. I.E., even in the case of an "always evil" alignment listing, there is a percentage of the population who will be neutral, and even good. This still doesn't mean that babies would neccessarily BE self-aware enough to BE evil (or good for that matter). One might argue also that they could be converted to neutrality or goodness if reared in a non-evil society. In the Complete Divine, there is a compelling (IMO) discussion on the nature of lawfulness and goodness, as well as the concept of redemption and redeeming evil creatures. In short, it says that one task of Paladins, Clerics or other good folk, could be to try to turn evilly aligned NPCs to another alignment through kindness, prostelization, leading by example, etc. This discussion suggests that only creatures with the [Evil] subtype are unable to be redeemed, though there are examples in LG scenarios of evil outsiders who have other alignments than their typical ones--that's another story, however. My two coppers... |
| gomeztoo02-12-07, 12:47 PM | In RL you cannot kill a fictional fantasy creature. You are clearly equating a fictional evil humanoid creature to a RL human baby, and appearantly that is why we view this so very differently. Yes, I do. It is simply very hard for me NOT to. It just somes that way, and once that association is there, it s hard to get rid of. Now, I have played evil PCs in a homegame. I am one of two people in our regular gaming group that I know who can play evil PCs. Evil PCs that do kill infants. But they are alien abstractions - playing an evil PC is totally different. You know what you are doing is evil, and the opposite of what you would do. I need to get the right frame of mind to play such a PC. I can, but it is a different type of game. In LG, we play heroes. Well, mostly heroes. People, at least, that are lot closer in morality to us. In LG, if someone performs what I consider a vile act, then I wish to be that person's enemy. I don't wish it to be my PC or fellow PC. I am not in the right frame of mind to deal with stuff like that. I just can't turn it into an abstract 'thing' at that point. It's too close for comfort. Being confronted with what I see as vile acts being performed by fellow 'heroic' PCs then is rather disturbing, especially when they are done in a jolly fashion. Now I am not saying that is what happened. I am merely saying that, if that is what happened at my table, it would disturb me. And it migth disturb others. Again, we make games that are played by children. I think because of that we should take some care what we put in our mods, and how we bring it. And as to your PC's acts, bhale187, these are the choices that set the hero apart. I am happy they were made, and that Vernon changed (?) the requirements. If you need help with the orphanage, contact any of my PCs and they will help in whatever way possible (financial or otherwise). |
| Mystical_Tutor02-12-07, 12:53 PM | Same question Are you saying you should only do things in game that you would do in RL? Yes, when it comes to ethics and morality. |
| pedr02-12-07, 12:53 PM | I know nothing about this scenario except what I've read here. But this seems to be a situation where some characters should walk away from the mission. They should also potentially face punishments. Some will say this is unfair, and perhaps it is. On the other hand, if their characters are press-ganged into or voluntarily join some kind of military or quasi-military organisation under the command of their nation's leaders they have agreed to follow orders. If they then choose not to, they are likely to be punished - the idea that one is not legally obliged to follow an illegal order, and the idea that genocide is evil, are both very recent developments in human morality. In the quasi-medieval World of Greyhawk, someone who is told by the lawful ruler to go exterminate those whatevers is likely to face some very serious repurcussions if he does not. In the context of a living campaign those probably shouldn't be death/permanent imprisonment or whatever, but exile wouldn't be too out of line with the way in which the ruler would have viewed the insubordination, and a 'this character will not be hired/employed/engaged by the nation's authorities ever again' would also be reasonable. Yes, players would complain, but in character it would be completely reasonable. Onnwal had something similar - a module where PCs had to decide what to do with the child of the Szek. If they made one choice, there were a number of modules the following year which they could not play - as the Szek now didn't like them very much for giving his child away! The main player complaint I could see would be that they would have missed out on playing that interactive, possibly missed a session or two of the convention. I actually see that as a more significant, and less acceptable penalty; were I the organiser/triad member/author I'd have tried to ensure that there were alternative events to play - even if they were completely unrelated. Or perhaps a 'dodge the draft' style scenario where the PCs concerned try to escape the country without being arrested for desertion. |
| ithardin02-12-07, 12:54 PM | Wow. I would like to give some background to those who are reading this/posting/etc who weren't at the Special. The special was essentially a follow up to a 3-part module series from year 4 & 5 about Clan Rockhall searching for and reclaiming their ancestral home (Ulthak Nor) in the Lortmil Mountains. At the end of the series Ulthak Nor had been found after 500 years of being lost after Duegar, Drow and Illithid forces invaded. So the special involved basically cleaning out Ulthak Nor and the surrounding area so that the Clan could begin rebuilding, etc. There were 5 missions, 2 were APL 2-6, 2 were APL 6-12, and one was APL 10-16. The only mission that came right out and said who/what you would be fighting was "Duegar Den." They names and a quick blurb of each mission was made available a few days before the con. Attendees at the con were asked to fill out a muster sheet listing there top three choices in order of preference and to list any players they wanted to be mustered with. I didn't play the Duegar mission, and I can understand why some players would be concerned and/or upset. As it happened, my all Clan Rockhall Dwarf table picked the PERFECT mission for us and we all had one of the best gaming experiences of our lives playing it. It is difficult to reconcile choices we as players have to make in-game with the possible real life revulsion those choices create for us. I have burned in my brain the events of the Haun's Mill Massacre in Haun's Mill, Missouri in the early 1800's where several children were brutally murdered for just being Mormon. The justification given by one of the perpetrators was "Nits make lice." As morally reprehensible as that was, I am reminded of my own incredibly ethnocentric elf PC who at the end of a module's combat against Orc chased the orc women and children who had escaped at the beginning of the combat (they ultimately got away though). When questioned about this, his response was "Nits make lice." |
| rutrow42402-12-07, 12:55 PM | Both of these are wrong. My issue comes from the fact that there was an incredibly offensive activity presented in the mod, encouraged by the author, with no valid way of avoiding or objecting to it. It's the premise I object to. The mod was constructed with the idea that slaughtering children and committing genocide was not a morally questionable activity -- and I find that assertion offensive. The RPGA should not be endorsing mods that encourage ethnic cleansing, no matter how many players "sleep perfectly well at night, knowing that I had an interesting peek into a worldview that I would never share". Obviously genocide and slaughtering children are morally objectionable activities. However, I think the mod presented the truth of the situation - these were not morally questionable activities to the dwarves of Clan Rockhall. The dwarves were doing this as a means for their own survival. It may not qualify as a "good" worldview, and it may not be appropriate as an adventure subject for all players, but it is a valid viewpoint from their (the dwarves') perspectives. PCs and players had the opportunity to not take part if they objected to the mission - the option is not satisfactory (as a PC/player would not play), but it is always possible. LG and DnD encourages ethnic cleansing of many non-humanoid evil species, though it is never couched in that modern term. If a dragon is terrorizing villages, the "heroes" kill it; orcs raiding a town, the "heroes" kill them. If its the dragon eggs to be destroyed, or the last tarrasque is unimportant. 3rd edition made this less black and white (allowing many humanoids to be multiple alignments and not always any alignment), but few adventures leave the possibility to negotiate with the bad guys to achieve the desired results (at least long-term). The black and white of these issues have been around since the beginning of DnD and will continue; IIRC this came up with one of the year 1 core mods. Again it may not be the best idea for a module, and leaves a lot of room for problems both in and out of game, but that does not mean the subject should never be addressed (with proper maturity warnings) or that your viewpoint is the "right" one. |
| thorinXXX02-12-07, 01:02 PM | This is certainly the position Iraqi insurgents find themselves in. I'm very comfortable passing moral judgment on their actions, and I find your argument that we can't rather offensive as well. You might want to drag your sorry butt over here to Iraq before making such statements. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 01:03 PM | ........... |
| Tyrskald02-12-07, 01:05 PM | SPOILER Strange, our DM got up to discuss this with Vernon 2 or 3 times and in the end we did NOT have to kill the children, they were not killed when we returned to the dwarfs and we got full XP and GP. It is not strange at all, I'd venture. There are discrepancies between judges, and event staff all the time. The question one must ask, is whether the event staff's version of what should/should not occur in the mod, or whether the mod author's version should be treated as correct. Of course, a player such as yourself should not be expected to doubt continuity between author's and event staff member's responses to your table's questions about the nature of the missions. SPOILER In fact the player that insisted on saving and even adopting the babies got 3 special certs 1 for bravery, 1 for RP, and one for becoming the father of orphan duergars. The first two certs you mention were to be awarded to PCs meeting certain criteria, and considering the way the judge was running the scenario, and that PC's IC behavior, I don't doubt he would have received the certs. Good for him. As a judge, I would have also awarded anyone I could who did the same thing. That certainly looks like more than one version of the mod was being run, doesn't it? It may be important to consider this when further discussing this scenario, since what was possible at least at one table worked in accordance to the author's explicit intent, and others may not have. I will admit being unfamiliar with the cert for becoming the father of the orphans. Is it possible this was formulate as an ad hoc award, due to the circumstances? We were not told of any orphan cert during the judge's pre-slot meeting, and it appears inconsistent with the author's view of things. I offer this-- if the orphan cert was something intended for PCs who chose to save the babies, perhaps Triad edited the mod in such a way that the author was unaware of that option. Such editing by Triad is common so that regional scenarios can fit and flow and meed regional standards and needs, so that is not unexpected. I'd have imagined the author would have know about this the day of the Special, however. |
| Mystical_Tutor02-12-07, 01:12 PM | I don't see where this event was necessary for the plot, some other target could have just as easily been inserted. I believe the author and those who approved the adventure should be censured for putting in such a plot. The really sad thing, IMO, about this whole issue is the ammunition it gives to anti D&D factions to slamdunk the whole RP community as a breeding ground for real baby killing. Can't authors do any better? There was a COR mod I was in where a similar ethical decision had to be made with no way out. I think authors that are so febble in their ability to imagine and incorporate an escape clause should choose not to write RP modules of any type. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 01:20 PM | ........... |
| kenobi6502-12-07, 01:23 PM | All I can say is that I'm glad I chose a different mission. I played a paladin of Heironeous in this module. Had I been presented with that situation, I would have had to walk away from the mission. |
| CrystalBlue02-12-07, 01:24 PM | Jumping into the thread right now... Every RPGA-sanctioned event is supposed to be a PG affair. That means that kids as young as 7 can play the game. Now, I don't like kids playing my LG, but they can. With that said, the idea that the people that wrote this mod let it through is just unthinkable. It's not a question of if players could or would do it...if it's moral or not. We have lots of evil home campaigns all around. Go ahead and kill infants there. But doing it where 7-year-olds can play? Not acceptable. |
| Tyrskald02-12-07, 01:28 PM | The really sad thing, IMO, about this whole issue is the ammunition it gives to anti D&D factions to slamdunk the whole RP community as a breeding ground for real baby killing. Can't authors do any better? There was a COR mod I was in where a similar ethical decision had to be made with no way out. I think authors that are so febble in their ability to imagine and incorporate an escape clause should choose not to write RP modules of any type. There seem to be at least two camps in Dnd in general, and in LG in particular--those who view the game as battle simulation, and those who view it as a simulated world in which to role-play. The distinctions seem more black and white to the former, and more grey to the latter. In the latter world, the dramatic and compelling choice-making process involving what to do with to-be orphans can make for a great experience (and confers experience through that process). Searching ones' soul and hear leads to a lot of gain, IMO. Negotiating, creative-thinking and finding loopholes around difficult choices can be a lot of fun. What about stealing the babies and setting up an orphanage? What about convincing the duergar to take their women and children and running for their lives? Perhaps these options don't fit well into the typical Living Greyhawk scenario, but in a home game they'd be totally feasible. Anyway, what I wanted to say, is I agree that anti-Dnd factions could use this a fodder, but also, it makes a case that people ARE (or could) use this simulation as an opportunity for reflection, discussion and wider philosophication (is that a word?), possibly yielding growth. That may not be how the enemies of DnD see it, but they'd probably see us in the black and white terms the dwarves use to describe duergar now, don't they? That having been said, someone made a point about children playin mods in which children are being slaughtered. RPGA and LG is owned by Hasbro, Inc. --a TOY company. LG is explicitly a family game, so perhaps more judiciousness could have been used when considering this mod as written. Still, I hope we don't lynch the author simply because he may come from the "battle simulation camp" I suggested above. |
| Bold02-12-07, 01:35 PM | It's hard to see how there are any spoilers, since as an interactive it'll never be run again. That's not necessarily true. First of all, Interactives can be run again. There is nothing about this type of LG event which prohibits them from being run again, and many of them are run multiple times, especially if the region (like Verbobonc) is geographically large. Second, Verbobonc makes further distinction for their different types of Interactives. If they call one a "Regional Special", it's because it probably WILL be run again. And this one will definitely be offered again, as stated by Verbobonc Triad member Vernon Vincent last week: VERS7-01: In the Halls of the Mountain King will be made available for replay. Certain special rewards, however, will be unique to Winter War. ARs, however, will be access-granting and available to any convention that runs VERS7-01. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Verbobonc/message/20601 |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 01:38 PM | You might want to drag your sorry butt over here to Iraq before making such statements.I think you might have misunderstood my post on the board. I was saying the justification presented by Philistine -- that we shouldn't pass moral judgment on the fictional dwarves for their tactics in fighting an invading force -- could apply to the insurgency in Iraq as well. And I have NO problems condemning the terrorists for their actions. It was not intended in any way to slight the US military. My sympathy and support is entirely with the Iraqi people and the US servicemen and women who are trying to do the best in what I can only imagine is a bad situation. Not the terrorists. |
| Krazykat11207902-12-07, 01:42 PM | As I understand it, this was a unique circumstantial cert to formalize an in-character decision to take full responsibility for the children. I will admit being unfamiliar with the cert for becoming the father of the orphans. Is it possible this was formulate as an ad hoc award, due to the circumstances? We were not told of any orphan cert during the judge's pre-slot meeting, and it appears inconsistent with the author's view of things. I offer this-- if the orphan cert was something intended for PCs who chose to save the babies, perhaps Triad edited the mod in such a way that the author was unaware of that option. Such editing by Triad is common so that regional scenarios can fit and flow and meed regional standards and needs, so that is not unexpected. I'd have imagined the author would have know about this the day of the Special, however. |
| thorinXXX02-12-07, 01:43 PM | A theme this extreme should be totally unacceptable in LG. One of the most basic writing tenets is to write to the level of PG-13, and this went well over the line to R. LG is supposed to be about heroes, and heroes simply do not do such things. So, an author should never put the heroes in a position to do them. It is OK to occasionally have to choose between the lesser of two evils, but never to do something that many would consider evil in order to play. |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 01:44 PM | There is ALWAYS an option of walking away, and appearantly you felt the rewards were worth your character joining a slaughter women (APL 4) rather than giving up those rewards.I was playing APL 2, same as you were. We were playing at a table of 4, with 3 level 1s and myself (a level 2). All the other players had never played RPGA before, and one had (I believe) never played D&D before. Had I walked away, they would never have survived the first battle. As it was, we had serious trouble getting as far as we did, and had to call off the mission well before we reached the point where we needed to kill any children. |
| Mystical_Tutor02-12-07, 01:54 PM | And this one will definitely be offered again,... Sigh, this is really sad news. Any triad so desperate for material that they would ignore this ethical impasse by continuing to use this, to say the least, morally questionable issue, is sorely lacking in good judgment. This module (which I have never seen--and will make every attempt to not see) should be sent back to the author or edited to include a tantalizingly stimulating escape allowing the 'right thing' to be done. |
| Bold02-12-07, 02:06 PM | Sigh, this is really sad news. Any triad so desperate for material that they would ignore this ethical impasse by continuing to use this, to say the least, morally questionable issue, is sorely lacking in good judgment. This module (which I have never seen--and will make every attempt to not see) should be sent back to the author or edited to include a tantalizingly stimulating escape allowing the 'right thing' to be done. Well, it's good to know you're not making snap judgments without any first-hand knowledge of the adventure in question. I'm sure hearsay has given you the full story.. :rolleyes: |
| bhale18702-12-07, 02:07 PM | The sad thing is so many people are attacking this mod without having played it and failing to read all the posts of those who did play the mod. I want to say again that this was the best game session I have been in for many years. Just because a DM tells you there is no other choice when you ask OOC, does not mean there is only one option. If you are in the game and find something objectable is required to finish the expressed mission you have the option of in-game refusing and continue the game to find out the outcome and/or out of game simply walking away. |
| thorinXXX02-12-07, 02:43 PM | The sad thing is so many people are attacking this mod without having played it and failing to read all the posts of those who did play the mod. I want to say again that this was the best game session I have been in for many years. Our group (save one character who secretly killed some babies) did the right thing and were greatly rewarded for doing so. Just because a DM tells you there is no other choice when you ask OOC, does not mean there is only one option. If you are in the game and find something objectable is required to finish the expressed mission you have the option of in-game refusing and continue the game to find out the outcome and/or out of game simply walking away. The DM made it clear in game we had to kill them, and out of game said we would not get evil points along with saying we had to kill them to get the rewards. When we saved the babies we still got rewards-perhaps this was a Triad decision since other judges have said they were not aware of such an option, but clearly there was another option in the end regardless of who approved the option. It was obviously a well written mod. The author achieved a lasting reaction in his players. That doesn't matter. Obviously making the heroes party to genocide is inappropriate for LG. We do have younger players. And not everyone deals well with such heavy topics in their hobby. |
| disco5402-12-07, 02:55 PM | I played the Drugar Den special. I certainly have compunctions about killing real life children of any sort. But in a fantasy world you have evil demi-human races, and your character has an alignment. Seriously, if your character would not kill evil demi-human children, then don't. Do what your character would do, and report what you will to the dwarves who sent you on the mission. I hear tell that you can sell dead bodies in Bandit Kingdoms. I guess that's OK if they aren't dead baby bodies? I'm being sarcastic. My point is that there is both good and evil in the real world and Greyhawk. Sometimes hatred breeds evil from good people like where the Dwarves of Verbobonc want to kill Druegar babies. At my table we had to kill the Druegar women, there was no moral dilemma. We kicked in dors and started swinging. You can't tell the men from the women, so we didn't know that we killed the women until every living thing was dead in the Druegar stronghold. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 02:56 PM | Obviously making the heroes party to genocide is inappropriate for LG. Hence my statement of attacking a mod that you did not play and have not read all the posts of those who did play it.................. There was opportunity to do other than the OP suggested. |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 02:58 PM | Just because a DM tells you there is no other choice when you ask OOC, does not mean there is only one option. If you are in the game and find something objectable is required to finish the expressed mission you have the option of in-game refusing and continue the game to find out the outcome and/or out of game simply walking away.That is NOT the issue. That has NEVER been the issue, and your failure to understand that is inexplicable. You are saying no matter how depraved the activities written into a module -- and genocide is about as morally depraved an activity as there is -- we should not object to the content or the ideas expressed in the module because our characters can opt out. This is worse in Living Greyhawk because there is an objective morality. If a paladin commits an evil act, they fall. Clerics lose their clerical abilities. Because paladins can freely slaughter children on this mission without risking falling, that is clearly being endorsed as a good act, perfectly in line with the paladin's code of conduct. That is my fundamental objection. The title of this thread says it all: murdering babies in Living Greyhawk is encouraged, at least in the context of this mod, and that is objectionable.When we saved the babies we still got rewards-perhaps this was a Triad decision since other judges have said they were not aware of such an option, but clearly there was another option in the end regardless of who approved the option.Congratulations. Your table objected to the premise and complained loud enough to get a special dispensation. My table didn't get far enough to have an issue. A third table had characters reach the end and gleefully smash babies to death. |
| Fleetfang02-12-07, 03:02 PM | I'm shocked by something entirely different here. This mod, as was suspected on Page 1 of this thread, and confirmed again on Page 3, is a Regional Special. There were clearly stated plans before Winter War that this adventure and all five of the related missions (each one with four APLs) would be run again. I'm ashamed that there are Judges and dedicated LGers on this thread -some of you whom I know personally- who posted -and continue to post- spoilers about this module. As you might imagine, hundreds of hours of work went into the effort to make it an massive special event for Winter War and an epilogue to the five-year-long Dwarven Series in Verbobonc. This entire thread is a spoiler and needs to be deleted as soon as possible. In my estimation, jumping onto a public forum like this and talking about the specific details of this mission in the Special, and then replying with blatant spoilers about even more details about the scenario effectively makes it unplayable again. At best, the entire mission will need to be rewritten, in spite of the fact that (distasteful or not) it contains the exact flavor of difficult decisions that Vernon, Mike, and Rob have been creating in the Verbobonc Region in Year 6 and Year 7. Revealing spoilers effectively forces the authors to rewrite it, whether the Triad is comfortable with presenting the choice or not. A relatively minor edit of offering an opportunity up-front to opt out of the mission or to clearly dictate what happens if the PCs (faced with a difficult decision) choose a third option is not a viable option any longer. That's a complete rewrite of a fifth of the module, with four APLs at best. At worst, this kind of utter disrespect could invalidate the ENTIRE special from ever being run again. Personally, I wouldn't blame the Triad in the least if that was their reaction. And I'd really, really hate to see that happen, as I had a blast helping to write one of the other missions and was looking forward to tweaking it for the extended release. I'm sorely disappointed in the lack of respect that has been displayed here. Anyone offering spoilers on this mod -with big bold warnings or not- should be ashamed of themselves. This thread needs to be deleted right now. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 03:08 PM | ----------------More Spoilers------------------ That is NOT the issue. That has NEVER been the issue, and your failure to understand that is inexplicable. You are saying no matter how depraved the activities written into a module -- and genocide is about as morally depraved an activity as there is -- we should not object to the content or the ideas expressed in the module because our characters can opt out. I am sorry your table agreed to kill babies and could not follow through, and I'm sorry to hear another table followed through with killing the babies. My point is you and the other table failed to seize an opportunity to do the right thing. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 03:18 PM | If someone wants to cheat it is going to happen. I offered the spoiler alert to warn those who want to keep the game honest. I'm shocked by something entirely different here. This mod, as was suspected on Page 1 of this thread, and confirmed again on Page 3, is a Regional Special. There were clearly stated plans before Winter War that this adventure and all five of the related missions (each one with four APLs) would be run again. I'm ashamed that there are Judges and dedicated LGers on this thread -some of you whom I know personally- who posted -and continue to post- spoilers about this module. As you might imagine, hundreds of hours of work went into the effort to make it an massive special event for Winter War and an epilogue to the five-year-long Dwarven Series in Verbobonc. This entire thread is a spoiler and needs to be deleted as soon as possible. In my estimation, jumping onto a public forum like this and talking about the specific details of this mission in the Special, and then replying with blatant spoilers about even more details about the scenario effectively makes it unplayable again. At best, the entire mission will need to be rewritten, in spite of the fact that (distasteful or not) it contains the exact flavor of difficult decisions that Vernon, Mike, and Rob have been creating in the Verbobonc Region in Year 6 and Year 7. Revealing spoilers effectively forces the authors to rewrite it, whether the Triad is comfortable with presenting the choice or not. A relatively minor edit of offering an opportunity up-front to opt out of the mission or to clearly dictate what happens if the PCs (faced with a difficult decision) choose a third option is not a viable option any longer. That's a complete rewrite of a fifth of the module, with four APLs at best. At worst, this kind of utter disrespect could invalidate the ENTIRE special from ever being run again. Personally, I wouldn't blame the Triad in the least if that was their reaction. And I'd really, really hate to see that happen, as I had a blast helping to write one of the other missions and was looking forward to tweaking it for the extended release. I'm sorely disappointed in the lack of respect that has been displayed here. Anyone offering spoilers on this mod -with big bold warnings or not- should be ashamed of themselves. This thread needs to be deleted right now. |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 03:24 PM | I am sorry your table agreed to kill babies and could not follow through ...Don't be an ass. I've been polite to you this entire thread. We did the exact same thing your group did. We were told the only option was to kill the children. We strongly objected to the premise. We held up play for a half-hour while we argued about it with the dwarves (and this was after starting 30 minutes late as a late muster). Being told there were no other options except standing up and walking out, we reluctantly agreed to go on the mission. And never reached the end, so I don't know how things would have turned out in the nursery. Your table did not run the module as it was intended to be run. The way it was intended to be run was offensive -- not because of the activities portrayed, but because they were portrayed as the "obviously" right decision. Not just right in the sense that the dwarves thought it was right, but right in the sense that it was absolutely morally correct to slaughter infants in cribs because they might grow up to be evil. If you don't want to play the mods as written, why don't you play a home campaign? |
| Fleetfang02-12-07, 03:28 PM | If someone wants to cheat it is going to happen. I offered the spoiler alert to warn those who want to keep the game honest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but spoilers are not supposed to be posted about modules that have not retired. Am I wrong on that point? And pardon me for saying this, but spoiler alerts are utterly useless. In most cases, they're bug zappers that inexplicably draw in even the most up-standing, well-meaning player. Those who have posted details about this adventure know what they're doing. For someone to hide behind a "spoiler alert" notice doesn't change the fact that they posted a spoiler. And as for "Cheaters are going to cheat..." How often do you see posts to these boards with specifics on ANY adventures? Spoiler alerts or not? The spoilers in this discussion are an insult to the hard work that went into the Special, and an insult to everyone involved in making it happen. Sorry. Maybe that's just my opinion, but as someone who was involved, and as someone who would've liked to have seen this mod enjoyed by people who couldn't make it to Winter War, that's the way I see it. It's ruined now. That's why they call it a "spoiler," isn't it? |
| Mithreinmaethor02-12-07, 03:32 PM | Pulling out my can of gasoline.......WHOOSH Big fire I cant believe is almost a 4 page topic. But I know some half-orcs that are wondering what Duergar babies taste like. Ok now back to reality. If you find the module not up to your tastes or moral beliefs then you need to contact the Triad of this region. You dont need to bring it here to this board and discuss it. |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 03:33 PM | It seems to me that there's a core problem here that no one has so far addressed. The proper thing to do here for a good character, and especially a paladin, is not to "walk away." The correct thing to do is to prevent the attack. That necessarily means that you'd end up with PC on PC violence, which, as I understand it, is grounds for automatic seizure of the character. It seems like an utter debacle. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 03:34 PM | Don't be an ass. I've been polite to you this entire thread. No you've been sarcastically polite through out......... |
| greggh02-12-07, 03:52 PM | Hi there. I have joined this forum today because I want help inject as much factual infomation as possible into what has become an enthusiastic discussion. I will post no spoilers because, as has been stated by Fleetfang, what has already been posted today endangers this Special from every being offered again. The Special was created specifically to allow players to choose in advance which of five missions to play. Everyone was placed in either their first or second choice. Below are the blurbs, so y'all can see what every player knew going in. Here is the blurb for the overall Special: VERS7-01 "In the Hall of the Mountain King" - Clan Rockhall have finished occupying Ulthak-Nor and Granite Keep, and have recovered from the losses sustained during the giant war of 595. Now that their home is secure, they look to cleanse the tunnels and surrounding warrens of any remaining infestation of evil. As in times past, they turn to the residents of Verbobonc and their own clansman to help with this quest. A Verbobonc regional special for character levels 1-15 (APL 2-16). Here is the blurb for the mission the player who began this thread chose to play: VERS7-01A "Duergar Den" (APL 2-8) Explorations of ancient abandoned mines have revealed an old enemy. Clan Rockhall now seeks help from adventurers to exterminate the pests once and for all. Here are the blurbs for the other missions: VERS7-01B "A Race Through Dark Places" (APL 2-8) Dwarven explorers are missing and invaders from the Pomarj may be responsible. Heroes must secure the underground passageways before it's too late. VERS7-01C "A Few Last Words" (APL 6-12) The battle was won, peace reigns at last, but now it is time to clean out the vermin. VERS7-01D "Shadows of the Past" (APL 6-12) Ghosts of an ancient evil in the deep tunnels have halted plans to reopen the old mines. Adventurers are needed to investigate the haunting and discover the cause of the problems. VERS7-01E "The Quake" (APL 10-16) An earthquake rocks the gathered heroes of Ulthak-Nor. Leaders of Clan Rockhall have asked those veterans of stout heart to investigate this unnatural shock to the area. |
| bitznarf02-12-07, 03:57 PM | It seems to me that there's a core problem here that no one has so far addressed. The proper thing to do here for a good character, and especially a paladin, is not to "walk away." The correct thing to do is to prevent the attack. That necessarily means that you'd end up with PC on PC violence, which, as I understand it, is grounds for automatic seizure of the character. It seems like an utter debacle. This position/debate is entirely subjective. As a paladin would not be stripped of their abilities for doing this (from what I have gathered about the mod while reading this thread), in the D&D game world, it is not an evil act. Whether or not this should ever have been a LG mod is an entirely different debate, one that several others are indeed talking about. |
| ithardin02-12-07, 03:59 PM | VERS7-01A "Duergar Den" (APL 2-8) Explorations of ancient abandoned mines have revealed an old enemy. Clan Rockhall now seeks help from adventurers to exterminate the pests once and for all. The word used was "exterminate." |
| bhale18702-12-07, 04:03 PM | My apologies for the previous spoilers I posted. I posted them with a header with the thought that this would keep an honest player who may later play the mod from reading it. I have gone back and edited my posts with spoilers to hopefully avoid any damage they may cause to a great module. |
| Samwise02-12-07, 04:14 PM | This position/debate is entirely subjective. As a paladin would not be stripped of their abilities for doing this (from what I have gathered about the mod while reading this thread), in the D&D game world, it is not an evil act. Whether or not this should ever have been a LG mod is an entirely different debate, one that several others are indeed talking about. Actually, it is an evil act. An incredibly evil act. And I'd strip a paladin of his abilities for even considering carrying out such a mission. (Accepting it with the intention of subverting it is entirely different.) Whether or not an act might, to some people, be seen as utterly necessary, with no other options possible, does not change the D&D defined moral value of the act. Genocide like that is evil. It doesn't matter if the dwarves can't think of any other way to end the threat, or if in fact there is no other way to end the threat. Killing children because of a threat they might pose is absolutely evil. Indeed, killing any thing simply because it is evil, without any other circumstance, on a presumption of acts that might be committed, is evil. The Hateful Wars, fought to cleanse the Lortmils of orcs and goblinoids, involved numerous evil acts. The destruction of orc breeding dens in the Vesve Forest during the Greyhawk Wars involved numerous evil acts. That both also resulted in numerous people being safe from regular attacks by such creatures does not change that the mass slaughter of non-combatants is evil, with no justification possible. People have suggested "turning the situation around." OK, turn it around. What would you call the alignment of a group of orcs that raid a human village and slaughter all the women and children? How about a group of humans that raid an elven (not drow) village and do the same? The first in particular have the same justification given for this - if they don't, the children will grow up to raid and kill them. Orcs aren't evil just because they grunt and growl at each other, worship Gruumsh, and have an alignment tendency listed in the Monster Manual. They are evil because they do things like raid villages and slaughter non-combatants. |
| mlund02-12-07, 04:17 PM | Well, it seems like the Circle ought to pull the choke-chain on this particular adventure. Sorry, but this goes beyond "tough decisions" and into a kind of content that is not appropriate for the supposedly kid-friendly RPGA venue. I wouldn't want my young nephew playing at a table where the "heroes" are instructed that it is a Good Act to murder innocent infants of a free-willed race of people rather than show mercy and a respect for innocent life when possible. "Often Evil," means that left to the typical society of the race, the child will more likely than not grow up to be willfully evil. Take the child out of that society and you don't get the same results. Ergo the consequential argument of "they'll just wind up being evil monsters so kill them," rests of fatally flawed logic when applied in such a context. This is merely taking innocent life (not Evil life) to avoid inconvenience. Seriously, LG isn't a Mature-rated game and it doesn't even allow Evil PCs. This sort of adventure objective is damaging to the brand and deserves serious scrutiny - Marty Lund |
| pedr02-12-07, 04:21 PM | For what it's worth, the posting of spoilers can be very useful for the discussion of modules by people who have played or judged them. They need to be well tagged. I'm not sure if these boards support the [ spoiler] code test. If not, putting a lot of empty space before the spoiler and making it clear which module the spoiler is for is usually sufficient to allow people who are attempting to avoid spoilers to avoid this one! I don't think a blanket ban on them would be helpful for the campaign, although this forum might not be the best place to discuss them. LGDMs on Yahoo Groups is pretty good for discussions from a judge's point of view. |
| bitznarf02-12-07, 04:22 PM | Actually, it is an evil act. An incredibly evil act. And I'd strip a paladin of his abilities for even considering carrying out such a mission. (Accepting it with the intention of subverting it is entirely different.) I recall someone mentioning that either the mod, the writer, or the senior GM said that a paladin would not be stripped of their powers, that is what I was referring too. If needed I can dig through the posts and find it. This is what I was basing my post off of. If this indeed was not in the mod, I would entirely agree with you; however as judges it is not our job to change the mod in this manner. As far as I know anyway. |
| Fleetfang02-12-07, 04:29 PM | bhale, Thanks for the effort. I'm afraid that the OP, the whole conversation, and the 3-4 pages of spoilers and people quoting spoilery subjects, and all that has probably already collectively killed the chance for this to run at PreGenConMadness or one of the other big Verbobonc conventions. Countless other players could have enjoyed some really fun and exciting adventures, and then shared their personal tales with each other afterwords (since although the 5 missions were set to rerun, no player can play in more than one of them). But I don't expect that'll happen now. Not even accounting for alternate methods of resolution with minor rewriting would seem to be an available option now. Only the Triad will be able to make that call, though. Still, I appreciate your effort to curb your own contributions. The fact that people are blithely disrespecting the work that went into this thing, and personally attacking one of the most hard-working Triads in all of Living Greyhawk because of it... I just don't get what's going on with that, man? |
| Samwise02-12-07, 04:34 PM | I recall someone mentioning that either the mod, the writer, or the senior GM said that a paladin would not be stripped of their powers, that is what I was referring too. If needed I can dig through the posts and find it. This is what I was basing my post off of. If this indeed was not in the mod, I would entirely agree with you; however as judges it is not our job to change the mod in this manner. As far as I know anyway. Yes, I caught that. And I disagree. Completely. And if told I couldn't strip a paladin for such actions I'd simply refuse to run the adventure on such a basis. |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 04:37 PM | I recall someone mentioning that either the mod, the writer, or the senior GM said that a paladin would not be stripped of their powers, that is what I was referring too.You're correct -- the writer of the mod in question did state that it was explicitly a GOOD act to kill the children. This leads to the odd situation that I could play mod #1 with my paladin, kill children, and have no problems. I could then play mod #2, do the exact same thing, and have my paladin removed from the campaign for being evil. Simply because different mod writers have different standards of "good" and "evil". The standards should not be so flexible that that's possible. |
| greggh02-12-07, 04:45 PM | A bit more from me in response to post #1 of this thread.... >>> It was traumatic to some of the players, a young lady in the group was shuddering at the thought of murdering the babies, though she thought she could force herself to kill the mothers that were carrying their infants.<<< The "young lady" in question is in fact an adult woman and a veteran of many years of D&D gaming, although this was her first LG Special. After checking with a mutual friend, I confirmed that she was not "shuddering" or repulsed. She was surprised OOC and concerned IC by the dilemma she and her good-aligned character faced. After investigating the limited options and working through it personally, she found a way to resolve it to her own satisfaction and played the adventure successfully for enjoyment (and full character rewards). >>>I have enjoyed several Living Greyhawk adventures in the past and I was sure that there had to be a plot twist that would prevent this outcome. Had I known that this was the case, I would never have signed up for the session.<<< No support was ever provided for such an assumption. There was a blurb for the Special, another blurb for the mission, and information available from the table judge, the author, and the director of the Special. It's not the RPGA's fault if a player's unsupported assumption is not validated. >>>I don't see where this event was necessary for the plot, some other target could have just as easily been inserted. <<< The player has no knowledge of how the events he experienced in this one mission might relate to other elements of the event or the campaign. That doesn't mean they don't. It's well-publicized in the Verbobonc region that player actions matter, and choices have consequences. Most players feel this adds an exciting layer of depth and continuity to the campaign. For those who don't enjoy or appreciate that, I apologize, and respectfully suggest that Living Verbobonc may not be for you. >>>I believe the author and those who approved the adventure should be censured for putting in such a plot.<<< Anyone with a keyboard can express an opinion on a forum. That's what's so great (and sometimes so bad) about them. However, the RPGA, the Living Greyhawk campaign, and the Verbobonc region all have channels that can be addressed if a player has concerns. That's one of the reasons I've enjoyed the RPGA for the last twenty years, and the LG campaign for the last five of those. Everyone's voice can be heard. |
| Verbobonc_Triad02-12-07, 05:01 PM | Well it seems that a statement from a Verbobonc Triad member is in order. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "…. And so you must not fail in your mission if you are to save the town. Our future is in your hands heroes." “Let me get this straight, you want us to not only vanquish the venerable green dragon that feasts on your citizens, but to further destroy all the dragons’ eggs?” “Yes, that is correct” “Well we might have a problem with that as our party is pro-life and what you ask is ultimately the act of murdering an unborn fetus.” “….uhhh…well….more or less..” “Yeah we’re going to have to take a pass on that. Let us know how this works out.” “But you don’t understand, if we don’t remove the eggs the city might be imperil again!” “Sorry Canon Charlie, but our foes must be this high before slaughter them, see ya..” -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Faced with their grim fate the elves had only one choice. Looking up from his seat the elder announced the previously unspoken decision. “We must attack the orc menace at their source. We must drive them from our forest and eliminate any trace of these foul creatures.” “The whole tribe?” “Yes.” “Including the young?” “Yes, otherwise once grown and their hearts filled with hatred, they would return to seek vengeance.” The youngest elf admitted to the meeting stirs with restlessly at these words. “Your not serious right? I mean killing kids? Just because we’re facing a potential genocide at the hands of a cruel race that procreates far faster than us doesn’t mean we have the right to do the same.” “Then what do you propose?” “Maybe we can ask the orcs to move somewhere else. I’m sure they would listen to reason.” “Sounds like a sound plan, why don’t you go talk with them and let us know how it turns out.” It’s true, we produced an interactive that involved a mission to reclaim the homeland of our regional dwarves. It is basically the end to a 3-4 year dwarven sub plot that has been a tremendous success. The basic premise centered on clearing out the evil inhabitants of the dwarven stronghold who once chased the dwarves away many years ago. Needless to say generations of these evil inhabitants have lived and died here waiting for the day the dwarves would come back and attempt to reclaim what was once theirs. And while I’m sure you the gentle reader would love to hear all about what went on, I will limit myself to the baby murdering that has been discussed on this thread. So we as a triad have tackled our region and its plots with two beliefs. First, our enemies do not live in vacuums. They have loves, fears, hates and desires. They have homes, families and the occasional litter. For us this gives depth as to what they might bargain for (as evidenced in our regional scenario Reclamation) or what others might find threatening (a race of evil dwarves settling into the home of their racial enemies). Kind of funny to use the term racial enemy. Tom doesn’t that promote the idea of racism? But I digress. Our second stronger belief is that moral quandaries’ and PC choices make for richer role-playing. For the last two years we have promoted this concept through almost all of our regional offerings. Giving players hard choices and putting them in a position to determine just what their character believes, or for that matter just who their character sides with. We have made no secret as to our intent to put forth situations like this again and again. So when the mission concerning the children came up we decided it would work. I’m mean how many times as an adventure have you gone out and wiped out whole tribes of orcs, lizardmen, kobolds and other evil humanoids. Sometimes they mentioned the young, many times they did not. And though it might not be explicitly addressed in the text, one way or another your killing off young orcs and kobolds and what not. Even if you don’t raise your sword to the back of the little buggers head, you killing his ma and pa, leaving him to fend for himself. Heck the poor runt probably died from starvation. And how about the example I gave you above about the dragons eggs. Is killing dragons eggs tantamount to abortion? Luckily this game uses alignments, and for better or worse, they are fairly absolute. When you encounter an orc or a kobold or mind flayer you don’t have to think too much about if it’s a bad guy or a good guy. In fact the game basically defaults to the belief that if it ain’t waving a white flag, kill it. So while we were explicit as to what you were going to dispatch (babies), it differs very little from saying we want you to go kill an entire tribe or exterminate a whole village of evil humanoids. Then again maybe evil humanoids do their evil at work and live off site. In fact to the dwarves, their people and (from our opinion) their god Moradin, the killing of all Duergar is an right and noble act. So while in the real world such a thing would be vulgar, horrific and immoral, the fantasy world affords far different views. Now with all this said we knew some people would have a problem, or maybe more specifically their characters would have a problem, with killing baby Duergar. On this level we believed the mission worked as well. All the players involved would be taken off guard by the order to kill Duergar babies. It would put them in a position to ask and clarify if this was in fact what they (the dwarven elders) wanted done. From that point they would have to make a personal decision and discuss this between the party. As far as I can tell (I watched two tables early on) this happened. It actually was a highlight for me to watch great players role-playing their choices and presenting them in passionate manner. As was said earlier, some parties took 30 -40 minutes to hash this out, whether it was right or wrong, whether the dwarves were just in ordering the deaths of the duergar progeny. All in all the vast majority of players were troubled with this mission. But to the credit of the players many groups came up or offered up alternative courses of action. And I believe this reinforces the core element of the game; there are always choices. RPG pen and paper games as a whole support an infinite number of paths and choices a player can take. In fact it is probably the thing that keeps us coming to the table. Players always come up with something that the writer and judge don’t think of. And while a scenario, adventure and even an interactive tries to take into account the most probable courses of action, it neverless always happens that a party comes up with a course of action not covered by the text. In this case we believed that players could find a way to circumvent the order (kill all the Duergar) while at the same time carrying out the spirit of their object (remove all the Duregar). In the end we believe we did not communicate that to our judges and for that we apologize to the judges and players. But in no way to we apologize for the writing, or for that matter the premise of the mission. At the end of the day we know that RPGs have little or nothing to do with the real world. When we play we are not casting real spells, we’re not saving a real princess and when we go out to vanquish an orc tribe that threatens the elves, we’re not performing wholesale genocide. RPGs generally deal with absolutes, things are good or evil leaning. Things are evil by nature and not by nurture. Variances from the creature group, whether in alignment or belief system, are the exception and not the rule. I could say more but I believe I said enough. While this might not address your concerns or dismiss them, at the very least your more informed then you were when this thread started. One last piece of business I need to address is with the person who started this thread. To Tom: Hi Tom, Michael Maenza here. Vernon and I were wondering why you didn’t bring this up at the convention. We initially thought it was because you didn’t have time between slots or believed we were unapproachable. Then realized you were the same person who came up 8-10 times demanding your slot zero ARs. I would think that if you had an issue with the mission you could have mentioned it each time you caught us in the middle of something and persisted in asking for the ARs on an hourly basis. I guess it must not have been a big deal and it slipped your mind. We appreciated your opinion and value it, thanks for posting it here. Hopefully next you’ll come to us with your critique or at the very least sign your posts. Your input is valuable to us and we strive to make ourselves accessible to our players. I guess we failed you. Rest assured in the future we will be far more ready to deal with you and your constructive criticism. Or at the very least we now know to jump when you ask for your ARs. Michael Maenza Verbobonc Triad |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 05:09 PM | Well, I disagree with any characterization of killing babies as anything but evil. Author's assurances do not make it so. Leaving all that aside, the only thing separating LG, RPGA, WOTC and Hasbro (?) from a full-out lawsuit, is 1. A seven year old playing the game 2. One nightmare 3. One appointment with a psychiatrist. Seriously. That's it for a negligent infliction of emotional distress claims in most jurisdictions. The presence of spoilers is irrelevant. The module shouldn't be played again for a whole host of reasons, and I would imagine that the people who approved it should be in for a very stern talking to. |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 05:15 PM | Last I saw too, Duergar trend heavily toward Lawful Neutral. Some of my best friend are lawful neutral. |
| mlund02-12-07, 05:23 PM | “But you don’t understand, if we don’t remove the eggs the city might be imperil again!” Note that Green Dragons always have the "Always Lawful Evil" Alignment description. It is part of their mystical Draconic Nature. Free will and choice doesn't enter into it any more than it does for Demons or Undead. “Yes, otherwise once grown and their hearts filled with hatred, they would return to seek vengeance.” Actually, the young in such a condition would in all likelihood, die of starvation and exposure unless cared for by some group. If the young were dispersed among a less-savage society, however, they likely would pose no threat to the Elven community at all. So when the mission concerning the children came up we decided it would work. I’m mean how many times as an adventure have you gone out and wiped out whole tribes of orcs, lizardmen, kobolds and other evil humanoids. Honestly, never. I've wiped out warbands and armies - but never slaughtered all the women and children of a tribe. Sapient races are special among "monsters" because you can reason with and influence them once you take the weapons out of their hands. In this case we believed that players could find a way to circumvent the order (kill all the Duergar) while at the same time carrying out the spirit of their object (remove all the Duregar). In the end we believe we did not communicate that to our judges and for that we apologize to the judges and players. Well, there is the beginning and the end of the problem. Things are evil by nature and not by nurture. Variances from the creature group, whether in alignment or belief system, are the exception and not the rule. This is a mis-statement. "Always [Alignment]" is typically nature / mystic overriding socialization and choice. "Often [Alignment]" indicates that nurture plays a strong role in how each individual develops. It gives you a vantage of the "typical" society and how its members grow up. Nurture obviously plays a major role in the development of humanoids. We constantly have the "raised among race X vs. Y" differentiation highlighted in D&D material. - Marty Lund |
| bhale18702-12-07, 05:26 PM | In this case we believed that players could find a way to circumvent the order (kill all the Duergar) while at the same time carrying out the spirit of their object (remove all the Duregar). That is precisely what I was getting at in all my posts, and exactly what our party did. For anyone to say there was no choice is ludicrous. |
| Verbobonc_Triad02-12-07, 05:27 PM | Monster Manual, pg. 92 "Sometimes called gray dwarves, these evil beings dwell underground." Further down.. "They war with other dwarves, even allying with other underground creatures from time to time." Last I saw too, Duergar trend heavily toward Lawful Neutral. Some of my best friend are lawful neutral. |
| ithardin02-12-07, 05:37 PM | "Seriously. That's it for a negligent infliction of emotional distress claims in most jurisdictions." Qualifying my following response with the fact I do primarily Worker's Compensation law I know of only two jurisdictions that recognize the tort of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)-California & Hawaii. My limited understanding of this fairly new tort law concept is that it is not only highly controversial, but also overwhelmingly not accepted as actionable in most jurisdictions. |
| Samwise02-12-07, 05:45 PM | Monster Manual page 91, "Often Lawful Evil" Monster Manual page 305, "Often: The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not stongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exeptions are common." Yes, the game has definition of alignment. And what has been done has been to rule that a particular action is good and not evil. On that basis, Turrosh Mak and the hordes of the Pomarj are actually good, as they only seek to commit genocide against the dwarves and elves of the Lortmils and surrounding areas to secure their own safety. Indeed, by that reasoning, expecting the dwarves of the Kron Hills to resort to genocide, the duergar were acting in a good manner to try and kill them. As for whether or not killing all the warriors of a group of humanoids, evil or otherwise, will result in the death of the children, this fails as an attempt to justify the killing. If such is evil, then rather than enabling some sort of "mercy killing" justification, it rather suggests an obligation to care for the survivors in some manner. Granted, in some cases (the baby dragon, or for less intelligent creatures, the baby wyvern.) But that pales when you consider that no, you don't actually have to account for these creatures. Just because you go and slaughter the orc horde does not require that you slaughter the orc horde camp followers. Nor does it require directly addressing the issue of the surviving dependants. Especially when the reason for doing so is merely to justify the killing of said surviving dependants. Yes, presenting such a situation and having the players need to make a decision is a reasonable scenario. Unfortuntately, by declaring the slaughter good by default, that need to make a decision is removed, and what you are left with is merely an exercise redefining alignment by expediency, and removing any moral quandary you hoped to explore. Worse, you even lose the challenge of making it a choice between Lawful and Chaotic. |
| Krazykat11207902-12-07, 05:50 PM | Well, I disagree with any characterization of killing babies as anything but evil. Author's assurances do not make it so. Leaving all that aside, the only thing separating LG, RPGA, WOTC and Hasbro (?) from a full-out lawsuit, is 1. A seven year old playing the game 2. One nightmare 3. One appointment with a psychiatrist. Seriously. That's it for a negligent infliction of emotional distress claims in most jurisdictions. The presence of spoilers is irrelevant. The module shouldn't be played again for a whole host of reasons, and I would imagine that the people who approved it should be in for a very stern talking to. Argument about baby-killing as an evil act aside... I remember at least one adventure being tortured by demons (or devils, that part has long since faded from my mind) and was described as having my skin flayed off and then replaced. If everything that could cause a 7-year old child to have a nightmare was removed from the game, they would have to change the name to Bubbles and Playgrounds. Heck, I wouldn't even expect a 7-year old to be able to understand what is occuring in most of the LG modules that I have played. The threat of lawsuits is just another way to make people live in constant fear, which if I remember correctly is the definition of terrorism. |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 06:04 PM | So while we were explicit as to what you were going to dispatch (babies), it differs very little from saying we want you to go kill an entire tribe or exterminate a whole village of evil humanoids.Except that, according to the Monster Manual. They are not all evil. They are usually evil. Killing people because you think they're likely to do bad things is not generally regarded as a good act. I have a problem with the Triad if they think it is.In fact to the dwarves, their people and (from our opinion) their god Moradin, the killing of all Duergar is an right and noble act.Is this the official RPGA position? That my Paladin of Moradin can slaughter defenseless women and children if they aren't of the "correct" race, without bothering to even Detect Evil first? Does this apply to other Paladins? If I'm a Paladin of Heironeous, and I'm traveling with a Paladin of Moradin, can I kill defenseless woman and children if they're Duergar? Can I even if I'm not traveling with a Paladin of Moradin? If not, am I required to forcibly stop the Paladin of Moradin from slaughtering defenseless women and children, or can I just idly stand by and watch? Are there any acts which Moradin doesn't approve of? Can my Paladin of Moradin rape Duergar women hoping to impregnate them and thereby force them to raise Lawful Good children? |
| TomJag302-12-07, 06:09 PM | Michael, I did not approach you after the adventure because it was the last slot of Living Greyhawk I was signed up to play at the convention and I had games in all the remaing slots. I am not an avid Greyhawk player, I play for recreation. This is only the second time that I've played Greyhawk at a convention. I did not come up demanding my slot 0 AR's. I came up and asked Friday afternoon. I was told they would be done later that night. When I asked that night, I was told it wouldn't be till the morning. When I asked in the morning, I was told it wouldn't be till the afternoon. When I asked in the afternoon, I was told that a friend had it. There was no need for denigrating comments on the website. Nothing about killing babies was provided in the preview. I did not ask for a specific adventure that afternoon, just asked for the judge. We players naturally assumed that eliminating them meant fighting those who could fight back. I couldn't believe that an adventure would actually bring us to kill the children. I naturally assumed the author would have a clever plot twist. My character killed no children or babies. My character also never entered the room where the children were. I did not attack the mothers. There was no option provided other than failing the mission. The author was encouraging the players to kill the children and telling us it was a 'good' act. That's ridiculous. Up to the point where we ran into the children, it was a challenging module. It would have been an enjoyable module if the goal had been to fight in to knock off some leader or any other goal. The module did not present us with any alternatives. One table might have found one, but it went outside the bounds set by the author. Being a newbie at Living Greyhawk, I didn't know about contacting the triad. Reading your response to my posting convinces me that I did the correct thing. |
| Mommy was an Orc02-12-07, 06:13 PM | Well, I think a lot of people aren't aware of DYV 5-08, Casualities of War, where you are offered a deal. If you kill the helpless, completely innocent baby, you are given access to Adamantine. As long as you had no previously recorded evil acts, you were fine albeit Neutral. You could even Atone for it and go back to being a Good character. I think from the sounds of it, this Verbobonc mod pales against that one... |
| Verbobonc_Triad02-12-07, 06:30 PM | First off, theres nothing that I like better than arguing with anonymous posters. I get a warm feeling about people who are empowered by their anonymity. That said I will try to address your points. You are correct, duergar are usually evil. In this instance all the adults were evil, the smallest ones (babies), who were 17 to 30 years old, were faintly evil (lawful neutral, with evil tendencies). In fact two of the babies ate some of their younger siblings because they weren't getting attention. Killing something in DnD that is sentient needs little more reason than "orcs hurt us commoners, help us by killing them, they went that way." Very rarely does a group stop and question the orc. In fact they usually sneak in and start slashing at the first opportunity. Killing what is a threat is not an official position of the we triad or for that matter the RPGA. Its called murder and if we practiced it we go to something called jail. Luckily we deal with a fantasy world. It is however the official position of our Dwarven NPC's, if you like you may take it up with them on our role-playing boards. Yes some of our dwarven NPCs would stop at nothing to wipe out the duergar threat, even going so far as to wipe the underground clean of them. As for PC characters, their mileage may vary. We have no control over them as they are played by the players. As for how Moradin or Heironeous feels about this sort of thing, I'm kind of split. I'm thinking Moradin is behind them all the way, Heironeous might have a problem with killing something that was not a worthy opponent. Now as another you might disagree with either the actions of another player, or for that matter another NPC. I would say role-play the situation. Do you believe he is wrong in killing the duergar children? What would you do to stop him? Hmm, how did we get on the subject of rape? When do you have to rape an enemy to remove them from the homeland they forcibly took from you. I think your off topic, so I am done responding to you. Michael Maenza Verbobonc Triad |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 06:34 PM | Monster Manual, pg. 92 "Sometimes called gray dwarves, these evil beings dwell underground." Further down.. "They war with other dwarves, even allying with other underground creatures from time to time." Fir enough, but the I was referring to the following materials Monster Manual, pg. 91 "often lawful evil" Underdark, pg. 12 "Alignment: Most gray dwarves are evil, placing little value on the lives and property of others. They are consumed by envy of anyone better off than themselves, and they display not a trace of pity for those who are not as fortunate. A fair number of duergar, wanting nothing more that to be left alone, lean toward hardhearted neutrality, but few ever become truly good" (granted, this is a forgotten realms book) Monster Mythology pg. 64 "Laduguer's nature is certainly evilly-inclined, but much of this is the evil of a being turned in on itself and bitter at what he sees as being unvalued and rejected by the other dwarf gods. Laduguer is a supremely lawful deity, unbending and harsh and he despises the other dwarf gods as lazy, indolent, and feckless. ... Deity Alignment LE (LN) Worshipper Alignmnet LE, LN, Duergar" granted, this is a 2e book |
| Verbobonc_Triad02-12-07, 06:38 PM | Just three points. First, there is a distinction between the judge telling you killing the babies was okay and good, and the NPC is role-playing as. I appreciate if you could make the distinction. If your going to go on the board and argue about what a NPC did or didn't tell you then I'm going to have dig up my gruff dwarf voice to repsond. Second, it seemed like you did have other choices, in fact it seems as if you CHOSE not to kill the children. Kudos to you for role-playing your character and deciding that the dwarven homeland was not worth the lives of potentially innocent lives. When you say your failed, can you be more specific? What characterizes your failure? Loss of XP or reward on the AR? The disappointment of the dwarves that sent you? Third, you say you did the right thing by coming and posting. Either way I could care less. You would have gotten and given more answers in a better format by approaching us. Michael Maenza Verbobonc Triad Michael, I did not approach you after the adventure because it was the last slot of Living Greyhawk I was signed up to play at the convention and I had games in all the remaing slots. I am not an avid Greyhawk player, I play for recreation. This is only the second time that I've played Greyhawk at a convention. I did not come up demanding my slot 0 AR's. I came up and asked Friday afternoon. I was told they would be done later that night. When I asked that night, I was told it wouldn't be till the morning. When I asked in the morning, I was told it wouldn't be till the afternoon. When I asked in the afternoon, I was told that a friend had it. There was no need for denigrating comments on the website. Nothing about killing babies was provided in the preview. I did not ask for a specific adventure that afternoon, just asked for the judge. We players naturally assumed that eliminating them meant fighting those who could fight back. I couldn't believe that an adventure would actually bring us to kill the children. I naturally assumed the author would have a clever plot twist. My character killed no children or babies. My character also never entered the room where the children were. I did not attack the mothers. There was no option provided other than failing the mission. The author was encouraging the players to kill the children and telling us it was a 'good' act. That's ridiculous. Up to the point where we ran into the children, it was a challenging module. It would have been an enjoyable module if the goal had been to fight in to knock off some leader or any other goal. The module did not present us with any alternatives. One table might have found one, but it went outside the bounds set by the author. Being a newbie at Living Greyhawk, I didn't know about contacting the triad. Reading your response to my posting convinces me that I did the correct thing. |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 06:39 PM | Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)-California & Hawaii. My limited understanding of this fairly new tort law concept is that it is not only highly controversial, but also overwhelmingly not accepted as actionable in most jurisdictions. Well, I am studying for the California Bar (to add to DC, NY & NJ), but it is on the MBE, I did learn it in law school (in 2001), and there are people who bring cases in California, even granting that what you write is true (I don't know). I imagine that one could argue and win a case based on pure negligence, given easily imaginable facts, in any jurisdiction you care to name. |
| Verbobonc_Triad02-12-07, 06:43 PM | The great thing about writing and developing for a region is that you get to choose the alignments for your NPCs and villians. Yes you are correct, Duergar are USUALLY evil, and sometimes they can be something else OTHER than evil. But please be assured when I tell you that these duergar, the moms, dads and children were all evil. I have it on good authority. In fact one of the babies even had a dagger\rattler. If it wasn't for his provocation in shaking it things might have turned out differently. I made that last part up, sorry. Michael Maenza Verbobonc Triad Fir enough, but the I was referring to the following materials Monster Manual, pg. 91 "often lawful evil" Underdark, pg. 12 "Alignment: Most gray dwarves are evil, placing little value on the lives and property of others. They are consumed by envy of anyone better off than themselves, and they display not a trace of pity for those who are not as fortunate. A fair number of duergar, wanting nothing more that to be left alone, lean toward hardhearted neutrality, but few ever become truly good" (granted, this is a forgotten realms book) Monster Mythology pg. 64 "Laduguer's nature is certainly evilly-inclined, but much of this is the evil of a being turned in on itself and bitter at what he sees as being unvalued and rejected by the other dwarf gods. Laduguer is a supremely lawful deity, unbending and harsh and he despises the other dwarf gods as lazy, indolent, and feckless. ... Deity Alignment LE (LN) Worshipper Alignmnet LE, LN, Duergar" granted, this is a 2e book |
| Samwise02-12-07, 06:46 PM | First off, theres nothing that I like better than arguing with anonymous posters. I get a warm feeling about people who are empowered by their anonymity. First off, my identity is very well known. I don't regularly include my name beyond that as I don't want people taking something I say as "official." And I happen get a very warm feeling from people who think they don't have to reply to reasonable concerns simply because a specific signature isn't included, as though that somehow negated the relevance of the comments. You are correct, duergar are usually evil. In this instance all the adults were evil, the smallest ones (babies), who were 17 to 30 years old, were faintly evil (lawful neutral, with evil tendencies). In fact two of the babies ate some of their younger siblings because they weren't getting attention. That sounds like yet another attempt to justify the killing of children, made even weaker by presuming information that the PCs simply could not have. More, it assumes a level of degeneracy not otherwise suggested for the race, making it even more suspect. Killing something in DnD that is sentient needs little more reason than "orcs hurt us commoners, help us by killing them, they went that way." Very rarely does a group stop and question the orc. In fact they usually sneak in and start slashing at the first opportunity. Which can hardly be presumed to extend to children who have never hurt any commoners. Killing what is a threat is not an official position of the we triad or for that matter the RPGA. Its called murder and if we practiced it we go to something called jail. Luckily we deal with a fantasy world. It is however the official position of our Dwarven NPC's, if you like you may take it up with them on our role-playing boards. Killing what is a threat is not murder in the real world. And as this is a fantasy world, an appeal to a real world equivalency, particularly one that is wrong, harms your case more than helps it. As for the dwarves, their in-character opinion is irrelevant. What matters is the general ruling as for how it will impact character alignment. Obviously NPCs shouldn't be speaking in rules terms, so any "assurance" that paladins would not lose their status would reasonably be assumed to be an out of character rules issue statement. And that means taking it up with you. Michael Maenza Verbobonc Triad Sam Weiss Core Reviewer |
| Fleetfang02-12-07, 07:12 PM | Catsclaw, I find it extremely ironic that you have such a big problem with an adventure that featured a delimma like this, considering that your handle is a literary reference to one of the most morally-ambiguous characters in fantasy literature. Sam, It seems to me that PCs could indeed have the alignment information if they A) have a Paladin in the party who can detect evil at will, B) have a cleric who casts the detect evil spell, C) have a cleric with a scroll and the right scroll for the job, or D) if the party decides to round them all up, tie them up and bring them back to the Clan Rockhall Dwarves and insist that they be scanned with a detect evil spell to make sure that they are indeed evil creatures. The knowledge that two of the kids might or might not have eaten others in the nursery is extraneous. Alignment is detectable. Living Greyhawk demands a certain amount of familiarity with the game system. I think it's safe to assume that players are aware of this very basic 1st-level spell. If the Judge said that killing them would not be an evil act, it seems that he tipped his hand. One could deduce that they are indeed evil. Of course, some might consider that to be meta-gaming. So maybe they got into a tizzy simply because they didn't want to use that information. [For the record, I haven't read that mission of the Special, though I did use this logic to deduce just what Mike posted. Scout's Honor.] The point is: there was no one in the module that stood over the party and said, "kill these babies"... and even if there were, there was nothing keeping the player from having his PC walk away from the situation. I have yet to hear anything beyond the "We didn't want to fail/get docked XP/docked GP" argument to justify why people who were uncomfortable with the situation didn't just walk away. They had a choice. And I personally don't think that a DM --in Living Greyhawk, or in any other campaign for that matter-- should be required to become a Choose Your Own Adventure Book. "If you kill the babies, turn to page 47. If you let them live and fail your mission completely, turn to page 61." No, I don't think so. If the players couldn't come up with an alternative plan, I do NOT see how the judge or the author could be blamed for that. And if players don't like morally ambiguous missions, or NPCs that aren't always 100% good guys, or if they want adventures where you aren't forced to think outside the box or make really tough decisions, then it's clear to me that they should avoid playing Verbobonc adventures. They aren't for every taste. You have to be a bit of a masochist as you get into it. But for those of us who are familiar with what Vernon, Mike, and Rob have been dishing out over the last few years, we've learned to trust them. Our characters will get beaten up and seriously put through the wringer both physically and emotionally. But that's what makes Verbobonc great. When the end of this arc comes around and the player characters have been through a living hell to get to where they are, then overcoming the threats wil actually mean something. That's when they'll have a chance to overcome everything that they've been through and become real Heroes. Not just "PCs." If you don't want that, I don't think anyone's going to stand over you and force you to play. Brian Troyan No one of Consequence |
| Mommy was an Orc02-12-07, 07:14 PM | Which can hardly be presumed to extend to children who have never hurt any commoners. How's that known? I think one of the aspects of Evil races is that they often do things that are evil - capturing a commoner and letting their children finish it off seems quite plausible. I have to say, though, this needs to be done really well. The retired Dyvers mod I mentioned, I found completely offensive. Character sheets should be torn up for that. |
| TimRat02-12-07, 07:18 PM | Ok all just so all of you know this is a special mod for verbobonc which means that it doesn't go to the circle for editing. we only edit regional and metaregional adventures. Interactives/special missions/intros we dont edit them like we do the other 2. |
| _metz_02-12-07, 07:19 PM | I think there should have been a choice, as always, to hand them into a good orpahange or something, Idunno. I play in an area where we have 15 year old young girls playing LG and would have been shocked at that. I personally would have had less of a problem. HOWEVER, I agree there should have been a choice involved. NONETHELESS. whinging about it on the boards instead of forwarding it to Triad and dealing with it through proper chalnnels was a little innapropriate. Also, LG is NOT encouraging it so get your facts straight, this is an issue for Triad. However I agree on several points. |
| Philistine_Philospher02-12-07, 07:23 PM | Dear Verbobonc triad... I'd extricated myself from this discussion as I watched it go from a candle to a roaring bonfire. That being said I had to come back for one more comment once I'd noticed that you'd become a part of the discussion. Please know that there are many players out there who deeply appreciate the opportunity to play in a slightly more complex and personally involving LG campaign. Know that your work in making Verbobonc that kind of campaign is well appreciated. Don't let the teeming masses of squeaky wheels get the grease. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 07:24 PM | there was a choice, the parties catsclaw and TomJag3 were not OFFERED an option. The 3rd party playing the same mod was not offered and option, but found one. |
| Haro02-12-07, 07:32 PM | DnD is a game which requires you to murder often and people take great delight in getting better at it in a myriad of ways. Death through combat or any other means is expected and demanded in almost every LG scenario. We delight in buying new books which give new options to murder (Look ma, my bow has the Exit Wound ability - my arrows literally explode through people's chests and hurt others standing behind them!). We delight in disintegrating, disemboweling, detonating and otherwise destroying others, whether they be male, female, human, gnome, demon or angel. A very large part of the game is built on hurting things in an almost infinite amount of ways. Drawing the line at what you percieve as innocent or guilty, deserving or otherwise in a fantasy game is the height of folly. Just as big a folly is arguing the semantics of what it means to murder as opposed to just kill. Players don't have a problem slaughtering everything in eyesight on an average of three occasions per scenario for the most flimsy of reasons. DnD is a fantasy game and does not translate well to real life, whether by the rules of physics, logic or law. Just my two pennies. Joe |
| Samwise02-12-07, 07:34 PM | Sam, It seems to me that PCs could indeed have the alignment information if they A) have a Paladin in the party who can detect evil at will, B) have a cleric who casts the detect evil spell, C) have a cleric with a scroll and the right scroll for the job, or D) if the party decides to round them all up, tie them up and bring them back to the Clan Rockhall Dwarves and insist that they be scanned with a detect evil spell to make sure that they are indeed evil creatures. A detect evil is in no way, shape, or form, the equivalent of a legitimate inquiry into the offenses of a creature, a fair trial for said offenses, or a reasonable basis for which to impose the death penalty. A miserly wretch registers as evil too. And if of high enough level as "more" evil than any putative evil race children. Does being a miser rate the death penalty? Likewise a sleazy thief, stealing from whoever he can. Will you subject every thief to the death penalty? This is murder on the basis of a class ability. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html The knowledge that two of the kids might or might not have eaten others in the nursery is extraneous. Alignment is detectable. Living Greyhawk demands a certain amount of familiarity with the game system. I think it's safe to assume that players are aware of this very basic 1st-level spell. Alignment but not deeds. Nor does it carry with it the force of law. Condemning someone solely on that basis is chaotic in the extreme. Condemning them to death is pure evil. If the Judge said that killing them would not be an evil act, it seems that he tipped his hand. One could deduce that they are indeed evil. Of course, some might consider that to be meta-gaming. So maybe they got into a tizzy simply because they didn't want to use that information. Evil is not the same as deserving of death. The point is: there was no one in the module that stood over the party and said, "kill these babies"... and even if there were, there was nothing keeping the player from having his PC walk away from the situation. No, nobody forced them to. And indeed, any players would bear some responsibility for deciding the situation on a purely meta-game rewards basis. That does not negate the difficulties in presenting such a situation, and the responsibility to present it in a reasonable manner, and to account for various responses. Nore does it negate the responsibility to present situations according to certain standards. And if players don't like morally ambiguous missions, or NPCs that aren't always 100% good guys, or if they want adventures where you aren't forced to think outside the box or make really tough decisions, then it's clear to me that they should avoid playing Verbobonc adventures. There is a difference between moral ambiguity and taking a contract to personally slaughter women and children. And a greater difference between presenting a corrupt NPC as an obviously corrupt NPC (even if not revealed immediately), and presenting an NPC whose actions are above such review. They aren't for every taste. You have to be a bit of a masochist as you get into it. But for those of us who are familiar with what Vernon, Mike, and Rob have been dishing out over the last few years, we've learned to trust them. Our characters will get beaten up and seriously put through the wringer both physically and emotionally. But that's what makes Verbobonc great. If you have to be a bit of masochist, there is a rather obvious, albeit impolite, corollary. Are you really sure you want to quantify it in that manner? When the end of this arc comes around and the player characters have been through a living hell to get to where they are, then overcoming the threats wil actually mean something. That's when they'll have a chance to overcome everything that they've been through and become real Heroes. Not just "PCs." By murdering children. They've become somethings all right, but not real heroes by a long shot. Sam Weiss |
| Samwise02-12-07, 07:38 PM | How's that known? I think one of the aspects of Evil races is that they often do things that are evil - capturing a commoner and letting their children finish it off seems quite plausible. Sure, it's plausible. Of course by that standard, anyone living in the low/thieves quarter of a city is "obviously" caught up in the moral and legal crimes of those dominating the area. Are they all equally valid targets for extermination, with or without some magical review of their specific alignment? Or how about I really turn the meta-gaming around? How many curses out there make people radiate evil or necromancy? Condemned to death without appeal by the wandering paladin! |
| Verbobonc_Triad02-12-07, 07:38 PM | Well this is a whole other matter. No one, whether PC or player should be hamstrung into doing an act that is objectional to the player or the PC. My opinion is that players should have options or the judge should at the very least be empowered to adjust the scneraio based on party actions. If catsclaw and TomJag3 could email me off list, or post here, the basics of what happened I would appreciate it. Tom, I have your table tracking sheet, so I will contact the players directly to see what happened as well. If other players at the tables are around go ahead and post your take on how things transpired. Ben, thanks for the heads up. Michael Maenza Verbobonc Triad there was a choice, the parties catsclaw and TomJag3 were not OFFERED an option. The 3rd party playing the same mod was not offered and option, but found one. |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 07:39 PM | Regardless of the options presented, an adventure where the goal is to kill babies is deeply offensive, and completely inappropriate in any professionally run campaign, especially one that opens its arms to children playing. I've played at tables with 10 year olds, eleven year olds. And as a parent, if my child came home and told me what he did in his adventure, I'd be shocked and appalled. There's plenty of room for difficult role playing decisions without running headlong into the Book of Vile Darkness. That, at least, has a disclaimer. |
| Haro02-12-07, 07:52 PM | Regardless of the options presented, an adventure where the goal is to kill babies is deeply offensive, and completely inappropriate in any professionally run campaign, especially one that opens its arms to children playing. I've played at tables with 10 year olds, eleven year olds. And as a parent, if my child came home and told me what he did in his adventure, I'd be shocked and appalled. You're kidding right? So if your child came home and said he played a game where he cast a spell at a lady that made her helpless and unable to move so it would be easier for another player to decapitate her, you be ok with that? The same child gleefully recounts the next encounter where he knocked someone off a bridge, where they fell 300ft to their deaths. The child then expresses remorse but only because he couldn't get down to loot the broken corpse. There are an incredible amount of ways a child could wax lyrical on the shocking ways he did something that would be considered sadistic, reprehensible and disgusting were it to be done in real life. None of these have been brought up. Again, it's a fantasy game. If you do not feel your child is mature enough to disassociate actions in a game and actions in real life they shouldn't play the game. Same goes for adults. DnD isn't for everyone, no game is. Joe |
| Britt02-12-07, 07:54 PM | As I'm sure you all are aware, I have not had much time to keep up with non-LGCS issues for the past week. I have glanced at this thread, but have not had time to read all the posts yet. I do, however, want to make a few comments on the general nature of this topic. First, I want to caution everyone to be careful when describing what was intended or portrayed by the authors and/or an adventure. A lot can happen in between the writing, editing, GMing, and reception of an adventure. On this particular issue, there are likely multiple levels of miscommunication, misinterpretation, and differences of opinion that are all contributing to a disproportionate reaction when compared to the actual situation. I seriously doubt that the Verbobonc Triad intended to portray the idea "murdering babies in LG is encouraged." But, between differences of opinion on what constitutes evil, the nature of evil in LG, what variances of evil deserve what punishments, the GM possibly (not saying he/she did) portraying the situation in a different light than intended by the author, and the player possibly perceiving the situation in a different light than the GM or the author intended, you can get vastly different results. Second, even with the possibilities of misinterpretation, there are areas that have to be approached carefully. As the LGCS indicates, content needs to be tailored to the audience by the GM. Sometimes the GM cannot accurately judge what is appropriate for a particular audience, and that can lead to problems. This is usually not intentional, but it does happen. The best thing to do in this situation is to bring it up to the GM; mention that you are offended by a situation. If the GM does not then modify the content or cannot due to the nature of the adventure, you should bring it up to the Senior GM, the author, and/or the issuing authority (usually Triad). Discuss the issue with them and, hopefully, resolve the issue at the source and at the time of the event. When an issue is not discussed at the time it occurs, it is much more difficult to tease out the facts and problems of the event afterwards. It also helps maintain a more amenable atmosphere and increases the chances of a resolution. Third, I'm sure the Verbobonc Triad has noted this complaint and fully realizes the impact of the situation. I doubt they are going to say "screw you! we'll do what we want!" They will likely take this complaint to heart and try to avoid similar situations from arising in the future. As volunteers that try to keep this campaign running and growing, they don't want to offend players if they can help it. Sure, offense is sometimes unwarranted, but that doesn't mean you should ignore it in future situations, even if you disagree with it in that instance. That said, the easiest way to get a result in this situation is to approach the Triad directly, with well-reasoned and polite discussion. Bringing up a problem in a public forum in this manner does not increase the chances that the Triad will pay attention or treat you with respect; all it does is create lengthy topics that are only tangentially related to the actual problem and possibly make someone look bad when they really shouldn't. That shouldn't be the goal in any context, so please keep this in mind when future problems arise. So, in conclusion, please remember that many factors have probably contributed to this particular situation. There are likely multiple levels of miscommunication and differences of opinion. If you have a problem, please remember to approach responsible persons as soon as possible in a polite and reasoned manner for the highest probability of resolution and follow the proper channels: GM, Senior GM, Con Coordinator, Triad/Circle, then public. I'm sure the Verbobonc Triad has heard your complaints and will note them; further debate should be about academic issues of whether children can be evil and deserving of death, or similar topics, not whether the Verbobonc Triad has screwed something up. |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 08:04 PM | You're kidding right? No, I'm not. |
| Anguus02-12-07, 08:28 PM | Well I was at the table with the paladin that found a way around what we've been discussing. We had been told that there were 2 rooms with children and the paladin only knew of one. The fact is it's a fantasy game, were regularly we say and do things none of would ever dream about doing in our real skins as it were. How often have one of us let ourselves be cut, or had fire or lightinging thrown on us knowing it would happen? Give it a rest people, the fact is I know of one person that did the act this thread is about. That person saves lives for a living. What your character does is not what you would do unless your playing yourself how boring is that? *shrug* it's a way to relax not get all hot under the collar. If there is a problem with underaged or younger people in a mod perhaps the LG staff could have the auther post a disclaimer about theme that would keep the smaller children out. I had an amazing time on this mod, from watching the paladin stand up for what he belived was right , to yes I was the one that did the nasty at our table by shutting a door so no one would see it happen to sighing as once again our paladin did the right thing and let a noncombatant flee it was a thought provoking mod.... *shrug* it's a game I play a zealot.. If the author reads this thread I hope that's what he takes away is that ALOT of us truly liked it and want to see more from him. |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 08:30 PM | If there is a problem with underaged or younger people in a mod perhaps the LG staff could have the auther post a disclaimer about theme that would keep the smaller children out. That, it seems to me, would solve 90% of the problem. Though you might still have a problem with PC on PC violence. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 08:36 PM | Though you might still have a problem with PC on PC violence. We almost had that problem with a tween age kid at my last table that forgot his riddlin and his manners (in character and out) |
| yorkus02-12-07, 08:39 PM | RPGA is run by Wizards, which is owned by Hasbro a childrens toy company. They, as you know, have a very strict policy on drugs and equality. Do you really believe as you sit there in your dank computer room surrounded by your minis and roleplaying books that such a company would condone actions like the murder of babies? No, no I dont... Dont try and justify it because deep down you got a kick out of it, roleplaying your character or not. It was obviously a mistake and should have been rectified. It wasnt, regardles of excuses efforts should be made so that it doent happen again. |
| Anguus02-12-07, 08:40 PM | Yeah I heard to day was somewhat glad I played up. The truth of the matter is Player on Player violence should be an issue pretty much anytime you've got a paladin that's actually played as a paladin grouped with a rogue that isn't very subtle. Realistically though it doesn't happen like it should because we make exceptions for each other. |
| Anguus02-12-07, 08:53 PM | Yeah I got a kick out if, sure did. Sorta proud of it actually. Maybe I'm just a really bad person. Maybe one of them people that has a house with a room painted all black and a drain in the floor with lots of sheeps blood and babies innards in it. It's a game you have the fun you put into it and if someone can't distinguish game from reality they shouldn't be playing. Hey perhaps we should punish the news media because someone drowned their child because they saw that in the news and thought they should do it to. People are people some will find a reason to be upset, some will do what they think they can get away with, but 90% will just sit quietly and hope to be left alone. |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 08:58 PM | First off, theres nothing that I like better than arguing with anonymous posters. I get a warm feeling about people who are empowered by their anonymity.Just because I didn't bother to fill out the "public profile" hardly means I'm trying to be anonymous. My name's Chris Bergstresser. RPGA #29877471. I was playing at Tyrskald's table.Now as another you might disagree with either the actions of another player, or for that matter another NPC. I would say role-play the situation. Do you believe he is wrong in killing the duergar children? What would you do to stop him?No. There is no room for subjectivity here. Greyhawk is a world in which you can directly ask your God whether an action is good or bad. I don't need to decide if I think it's a good or evil act, all I need to know is whether Pelor, or Heironeous, or Moradin think it is. However, since you believe the individual gods can disagree over whether a specific act is good or evil (even going so far as saying to one Paladin an action might be required, while for another preventing that action is required) you have, effectively, done away with the alignment system entirely. Paladins can freely violate their code of conduct, as long as they're behaving in a way their god agrees with. This is all, it goes without saying, completely non-canon. Worse, your suggestion to "role-play the situation" is impossible. Your god says killing this tied up person is morally required. My god says preventing you is morally required. Either we have to fight, or one of us is going to lose their paladin abilities. In LG, where we cannot fight, this is a serious problem. Hmm, how did we get on the subject of rape? When do you have to rape an enemy to remove them from the homeland they forcibly took from you.If you're seriously worried that the Duergar are going to outbreed you, and you further believe that your blood is pure (and Lawful Good) and their blood is tainted (and Lawful Evil) it's not a stretch to decide that forcing the women to bear good children (or, at worst, neutral children) is going to be the best way to eliminate the Duergar threat. It even makes some military sense. And it's been used, historically, as a military tactic. Come on, I thought you liked challenging moral debates. Show me how, given the cosmology you've outlined, this is any more questionable than killing defenseless women and children, and tell me if my Paladin of Moradin can commit these acts without committing an evil act. |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 08:58 PM | People are people some will find a reason to be upset, some will do what they think they can get away with, but 90% will just sit quietly and hope to be left alone. You can afford to be cavalier about liability, but Hasbro cannot, and nor can the people who run Living Greyhawk. I can assure you that Hasbro didn't allow this to be set up so that they could be sued. |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 09:05 PM | Come on, I thought you liked challenging moral debates. Show me how, given the cosmology you've outlined, this is any more questionable than killing defenseless women and children, and tell me if my Paladin of Moradin can commit these acts without committing an evil act. No way a Lawful and Good diety condones killing non-combatants without trial. I could see a Neutral or Chaotic Diety, but then only truly, irredeemably evil non-combatants. |
| bitznarf02-12-07, 09:09 PM | No way a Lawful and Good diety condones killing non-combatants without trial. I could see a Neutral or Chaotic Diety, but then only truly, irredeemably evil non-combatants. Just curious, but do you have any rules support there? I'm not saying you don't, I would just like to hear it. |
| ragecage7902-12-07, 09:15 PM | No way a Lawful and Good diety condones killing non-combatants without trial. I could see a Neutral or Chaotic Diety, but then only truly, irredeemably evil non-combatants. Seems someone hasn't seen the business end of a morally ambiguous Pholtite. :P |
| catsclaw02-12-07, 09:18 PM | I find it extremely ironic that you have such a big problem with an adventure that featured a delimma like this, considering that your handle is a literary reference to one of the most morally-ambiguous characters in fantasy literature.I had the handle long before I read any Fritz Leiber. Lucky happenstance. And for about the fifth time, I do not object to the premise of the adventure. I object to the idea that slaughtering defenseless children can be considered a good act; that paladins, clerics, and other good characters can participate without becoming neutral at best; and that the entire dwarven nation that endorsed this strategy will not suddenly lose access to any good-aligned gods.I have yet to hear anything beyond the "We didn't want to fail/get docked XP/docked GP" argument to justify why people who were uncomfortable with the situation didn't just walk away.Then you still aren't listening. I object to the entire premise -- that in a world where things are objectively good and objectively bad, slaughtering innocent civilians is, in any way, objectively good. |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 09:25 PM | Just curious, but do you have any rules support there? I'm not saying you don't, I would just like to hear it. That's how I'd read the entry for good v. evil, and lawful good, PHB page 104-105. Good implies altruism, respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commit to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relelntlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need and speaks out against injustice As for Law v. Chaos, I don't think that the PHB really supports my conclusion. However, I think its hard to argue that a prejudging of non-combatants to death is "lawful" in any meaningful sense of the word. A law that permits such an outcome is invalid because it is inherently unjust. Justice implies due process of the law, not writs of attainder, general warrants and summary execution. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out isn't a lawful attitude; it's a chaotic attitude. |
| garyjohnson02-12-07, 09:32 PM | DnD is a game which requires you to murder often "Murder" isn't the same as "kill" - but you talk about this further on in my message, so I won't go on about it here. :) and people take great delight in getting better at it in a myriad of ways. Death through combat or any other means is expected and demanded in almost every LG scenario. Except by those of us who try to negotiate with opponents, persuade intelligent opponents to surrender, and so on. I personally find it frustrating that authors and DMs sometimes prefer to have every conflict end in combat to the death, to the point of excluding other methods of resolving conflicts. A very large part of the game is built on hurting things in an almost infinite amount of ways. Drawing the line at what you percieve as innocent or guilty, deserving or otherwise in a fantasy game is the height of folly. Just as big a folly is arguing the semantics of what it means to murder as opposed to just kill. Players don't have a problem slaughtering everything in eyesight on an average of three occasions per scenario for the most flimsy of reasons. Well, I do have a problem with that. Please don't assume this style of play is the only appropriate style of play - the style of play you describe may well be the majority style, but it's not the only style. There's no One True Way of gaming. For example, I also find it frustrating when scenarios include "no-win" situations, because my play style preference is that heroes can always find a way if they're willing to make personal sacrifices, try harder, and so on. Scenarios like the one you described earlier that had a "no-win" situation where the characters couldn't save the victims without letting other victims die have a built-in conflict with my preferred play style, and usually reduce my enjoyment of the game. Thinking about it, I wouldn't have found it a moving and sad situation that enhanced the roleplaying, I'd have found it a frustrating and irritating situation that pulled me out of character. :) DnD is a fantasy game and does not translate well to real life, whether by the rules of physics, logic or law. I disagree: if it didn't translate well to real life, we couldn't play it because we wouldn't be able to describe what our characters do or why we do it. for instance, just because some of the physical laws of our universe don't apply in a D&D universe (for example, the square-cube law) doesn't prevent the majority of the physical laws of our universe applying in the D&D universe a majority of the time - for example, the laws that explain gravity, tides, seasons, sunlight, and so on. Likewise, the characters don't exist in a moral vacuum - they exist in (IMO) a simpler moral structure, where good and evil (as well as lawful and chaotic) are objective absolutes, rather than the subjective relatives that they are in the real world (again IMO). That doesn't mean we can't apply real world moral philosophy to events in the D&D world - but it does mean we can exclude significant chunks of it (for example, the debate about whether morals are absolute or relative), because they've already been decided by the set-up of the D&D universe. Cheers, Gary Johnson |
| LGMoses02-12-07, 09:50 PM | i'm really not wanting to get pulled into this little soiree but would it have been ne better to let the children live? Wouldn't they have surely slowly starved to death? |
| bhale18702-12-07, 10:00 PM | There were options available to allow the babies to live and be raised in a good home, those options were not presented to players they had to develop the ideas themselves. |
| bhale18702-12-07, 10:01 PM | Regardless of the options presented, an adventure where the goal is to kill babies is deeply offensive, and completely inappropriate in any professionally run campaign, especially one that opens its arms to children playing. I've played at tables with 10 year olds, eleven year olds. And as a parent, if my child came home and told me what he did in his adventure, I'd be shocked and appalled. There's plenty of room for difficult role playing decisions without running headlong into the Book of Vile Darkness. That, at least, has a disclaimer. that reminds me of something I heard once.......... Maybe you're just too easily upset by things. |
| ragecage7902-12-07, 10:05 PM | As for Law v. Chaos, I don't think that the PHB really supports my conclusion. However, I think its hard to argue that a prejudging of non-combatants to death is "lawful" in any meaningful sense of the word. A law that permits such an outcome is invalid because it is inherently unjust. Justice implies due process of the law, not writs of attainder, general warrants and summary execution. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out isn't a lawful attitude; it's a chaotic attitude. I think that would depend on who's writing the laws. A lawfully aligned region can be fascist or xenophobic, but not necessarily chaotic. |
| myshkingfh02-12-07, 10:15 PM | I think that would depend on who's writing the laws. A lawfully aligned region can be fascist or xenophobic, but not necessarily chaotic. Okay, I'd argue that WW2 era Germany (fascist) or Japan (xenophobic) were genuinely lawful, but granting the point, a lawfully aligned region that was fascist or xenophobic, wouldn't also be good. In fact, it might be a good fit for Deurgar. that reminds me of something I heard once.......... I'm wondering if you're seriously comparing taking a level of ranger or picking up EWP Spiked Chain to killing babies. Really? |
| bhale18702-12-07, 10:17 PM | I'm wondering if you're seriously comparing taking a level of ranger to killing babies. Really? I'm wondering if you're seriously comparing slaying a monster in a game to slaying a RL baby. Really? |
| thunderspirit02-12-07, 10:20 PM | I'm wondering if you're seriously comparing slaying a monster in a game to slaying a RL baby. Really? Quoted for truth. |
| Istaran02-12-07, 10:28 PM | I would like to know why murdering babies doesn't require reporting to the local triad, possible alignment shift, need for Atonement, and risk of losing your character (at the very least having it added to your file and weighed in when your character performs other evil deeds).. but a LN cleric of Wee Jas needs to be reported every time they rebuke a group of undead to make them easy targets for destruction or smack an evil necromancer or other villain with an Inflict Wounds spell of any level. The former seems more undeniably evil than the latter. Britt has said elsewhere that any channelling of negative energy needs to be reported because it is an evil act even if done for a good purpose. How much more so for killing innocent infants? |
| WizO_Shadow02-12-07, 10:33 PM | ::attempts several times to begin her comments but is taken aback by the sheer forwardness of it all:: 1. I didn't detail read everything. A thread like this gets locked and then read later. 2. Thread is being locked. This is such a hot-topic issue that we're not even going to continue with this on these boards. If you feel that you need to take action. Take it up with your local triad although I did see a triad post here and there throughout the thread. WizO_Shadow RPG Boards Team |