Post/Author/DateTime	Post
gixanthrax 10-30-07, 08:44 AM	O, here is the setting: The party: Sorcerer 7, Druid 5, Cleric 5 , Rogue/Ranger 6/2 plus an DMPC of whom we know that he is a ranger of about LVL 11 or so. Our Total magical equippement totals as : 2 BOH, 2 +1 Daggers; 2 Wands of Cure light wounds, +2 Gloves of dextority, 1 cloak of resistance, 2 Rings of protection +1 and 3 Bracers of armor +1. On top of this we have about 6000 gp together. It was the last evening ever for this party as it consisted, because we will get to play with new Chars in the Underdark soon. After having fought for severeal evenings and killing lots of evil guys who all belong to the same militia who raids the little secluded Island, we finally approach to their HQ. The HQ is on 3 Layers. Ranger and Rogue/Ranger Proceed to take out 8 guards with Bows who stand in seperate Watchtowers on layer 2( each of them about 30-35 HP) so i figure they are lvl 3or4 Fighters. In the meantime the rest of the party battles on layer 1 with 10 Fighters( also in the same level range) and two Archers who seem to be about LVL 7 or 8 with an AC of over 25, so we take quite some beating, but manage to kill them. While approaching to layer 3 we are attacked by a heavy ballista, some bowmen and some magic missiles. Now finally we manage to enter layer 3 just to see our last few enemies escape into a tunnel, we follow them, kill 4 enemies of about LVL 3-4 just to end in a very big cave, with the last two visible enemies standing some 60 feet away, prepared to fight... That was the moment when things started to go really bad. They yell at us to give up. None of our party is at full hit points any more, the sorc has hardly any spells left the cleric is also quite empty and the druid even more so, but we knew, this is going to be the final stand ouf an interesting campaign, but: These Two turn out to be LVL 7 Fighter and a LVL 14 barbarian. Being assisted by their boss, a male adult black Dragon. We gulp in astonishment, as this is the first dragon we evre happend to meet . So battle starts. The DMPC starts be shooting into our sorcerers back( Dominate anybody?) just to be sneaked by the rogue. A hefty battle ensues leaving only the black dragon( down to about 100 P thanks to the druids animal companion and and summoned crocos), a sorcerer without any spell left, a druid in wildshape without any spells and unable to hit the dragon short of a 19 or higher and the rogue now standing toe to toe with the dragon who just decimated 4/5 of his HP during one full attack hardly able to hit the dragon and doing a max. of 3 damage thanks to DR... so.. We fled. just as that, the absolute anticlimax. The DM tried to pursue us that we might have defeated the dragon if we had stayed a little longer and the loot would have really been great ( say 100k Gold and magic items worth 200K Gold). Should we have continued to fight and die in Honour( we are all CN...)?
Windspear 10-30-07, 08:54 AM	Definatly reasonable. How are you expected to defeat a dragon like that?! The DM must have had some sort of a plot device ready to save your hide, but you were right to run away.
Grumman 10-30-07, 08:57 AM	Dying with honour is for fools and good-aligned NPCs. If you thought that you didn't stand a chance, there's no point in feeding yourself to a dragon. Doubly so when the DM seems to have balanced the encounter for his DMPC instead of the actual players.
Sunic_Flames 10-30-07, 09:05 AM	Dying with honour is for fools and good-aligned NPCs. If you thought that you didn't stand a chance, there's no point in feeding yourself to a dragon. Doubly so when the DM seems to have balanced the encounter for his DMPC instead of the actual players. Signed. Add to that, even without him why is the party ranging from 5 to 8?
gixanthrax 10-30-07, 09:30 AM	The DM told us that there "was no device to save our hides" It was just the last evening ever of the campaign and he wanted a furious final, because with the loot we could have stopped adventuring, and so he wanted areally remarkable encounter... The DMPC was set up to have no chance to make his will save against the dominate spell, it was set up to make the task alittle more difficult 4 us. The party ranges from 5-8 because it was set up as a "begin at lvl 5 campaign". The sorcerer and the rogue participated each of the about 20 gaming days and therefor managed to rise in experience ( the rogue had reached lvl the same evening as the final encounter was, the sorc being 700 XP away from lvl 8). The druid is new to the party and joined us for thefirst time, but is an experienced player and the cleric, who didn`t participate in all our gaming sessions died the last time we played and so had to restart at lvl 5.
Empirate 10-30-07, 09:41 AM	I'm impressed you even made it through all those powerful mooks at level 5 (some of you)! Quite a feat for such a group. No way you could beat an intelligently played Adult Black Dragon alone, let alone all the other stuff. Are you running extra-powerful builds, gestalt or anything? I can't see how you would have accomplished even what you seem to have.
Grumman 10-30-07, 09:43 AM	A level 6 party, against CR 7, CR 11 and CR 14 enemies simultaneously, and your DM wanted to make it more difficult? Your DM is an idiot. His idea that every PC should begin at level 5 instead of beginning close to the party's level only adds further evidence.
leo_neil316 10-30-07, 09:46 AM	Personally I'd say the fact that your group managed to take down a fighter of the same level, a barbarian -twice- your level and not all die to the -dragon- backing them up is effing miraculous. To put this into some perspective, theres a thread around here somewhere where a group of four guys at around level seven were out to fight a young adult black dragon. The general consensus was that the only chance in hell they had was lots of luck, metagaming and a dragon who's favorite mode of attack was 'walking backwards with his eyes closed trying to kill people with flowers'. Your party had nothing even remotely constituting a chance there, and managed to inflict a fair amount of damage and survive to retreat. That sounds like a 'win' to me.
Sunic_Flames 10-30-07, 09:52 AM	Personally I'd say the fact that your group managed to take down a fighter of the same level, a barbarian -twice- your level and not all die to the -dragon- backing them up is effing miraculous. To put this into some perspective, theres a thread around here somewhere where a group of four guys at around level seven were out to fight a young adult black dragon. The general consensus was that the only chance in hell they had was lots of luck, metagaming and a dragon who's favorite mode of attack was 'walking backwards with his eyes closed trying to kill people with flowers'. Your party had nothing even remotely constituting a chance there, and managed to inflict a fair amount of damage and survive to retreat. That sounds like a 'win' to me. Maybe the DM was just playing them really badly. I've been in a game where an APL 5.2 group (5, 5, 5, 4, 3) was put up against a CR 13 and 2 CR 8 humanoids. Both the 8s were put down, and the 13 took some fairly heavy damage before managing to subdue the group. Had they stayed in the non KOed range for 1-2 more rounds, that would have been a win. Everyone involved was a new player, not even knowing how to optimize (much less doing it).
gixanthrax 10-30-07, 10:14 AM	Personally I'd say the fact that your group managed to take down a fighter of the same level, a barbarian -twice- your level and not all die to the -dragon- backing them up is effing miraculous. The general consensus was that the only chance in hell they had was lots of luck, metagaming and a dragon who's favorite mode of attack was 'walking backwards with his eyes closed trying to kill people with flowers'. Your party had nothing even remotely constituting a chance there, and managed to inflict a fair amount of damage and survive to retreat. well The barbarian and the fighter didn`t really pose that much of a Problem. We wer quite good positioned, our sorc managed to do some damage to bar band dragon alike with his last lightning, the druid managed to summon alltogether 5 crocodiles who did some serious damage, his familiar did his work too, the cleric sent one spiritual weapon and than grabbed his bow,my Rogue Cleric shoots 3 arrows /round for 1W6 +6 each thanks to favored enemy human and good strength.... The dragons way of attack was : ound one: Line of acid. ound two: kill first crocodile. round 3: kill next croc( man they really did damage to him) round 4: line of acid. After then: He charged andnearly killed our cleric who died the next round. Aftrerwards he finished off another croc while the other two were smashed by the barb... On the next round he nearly killed my rogue and then we fled... But if we had been totally fresh well this dragon could have been beaten. It´s not that we are über, we are in fact a rather low power, very low magic party it`s just that we are quite good in teamwork and strategy, able to prevent our enemies from attacking us unimpeded...
Phrennzy 10-30-07, 11:11 AM	Maybe the DM was just playing them really badly. I've been in a game where an APL 5.2 group (5, 5, 5, 4, 3) was put up against a CR 13 and 2 CR 8 humanoids. Both the 8s were put down, and the 13 took some fairly heavy damage before managing to subdue the group. Had they stayed in the non KOed range for 1-2 more rounds, that would have been a win. Everyone involved was a new player, not even knowing how to optimize (much less doing it). Then the DM had no idea how to play either. Or the CR 8's and the CR 13 were hog tied and at 0 hp when combat started.
Grumman 10-30-07, 11:37 AM	It´s not that we are über, we are in fact a rather low power, very low magic party it`s just that we are quite good in teamwork and strategy, able to prevent our enemies from attacking us unimpeded... Sorry to burst your bubble, but you succeeded because your DM made mistakes. The crocodiles needed to pass DC 20 will saves or be panicked by the dragon. That's a 90% chance of running away as fast as they could. Even if they didn't run away, a dragon of that size has an AC of 27 before magic, and DR 5/Magic. Crocodiles have a +6 modifier to hit. Was the druid rolling 20s every turn? Even if they were all hitting, dragons have above-average intelligence, and wings. Combined with the fact that crocodiles do not have wings, he probably would have realised the advantages of getting out of range and eating the humanoids.
Sunic_Flames 10-30-07, 11:48 AM	Then the DM had no idea how to play either. Or the CR 8's and the CR 13 were hog tied and at 0 hp when combat started. The first I'll grant you (I did say everyone was new right?). The second... fighter minions, monk main guy. All of em just kinda auto attacked... Combat lasted at least 10 rounds.
kriskey 10-30-07, 12:07 PM	Your DM wants to end the campaign around level 5,6? That's when the game just starts getting really fun.
Jarsallen 10-30-07, 12:16 PM	In short answer to your question- Yes, you probably acted cowardly and dishonorably. It depends a lot on what the hell you were doing killing all these people in the first place. And how you sell it when you get back home. You did not act unintelligently, mind you. No no, it was clearly the right call for the situation from a pure self-interest point of view. But remember that we get our concepts of bravery from the Light Brigade, and our concepts of honor from people like the Paladin Roland, who would not retreat from a completely unwinnable ambush because he feared they would sing bad songs of him back home in France. As much as the modern concept of honor and bravery has degraded to a kind of base 'ends justify the means' position, the truth is that bravery and honor in a medieval setting and mindset (and it is assumed that the generic fantasy setting is a medieval-esque setting), dying well is more important than living poorly. At least if you want to be considered 'Brave'. Fundamentally the problem with DnD in assessing behavior is that every player character seems to know their level and vital stats. It's evidenced in the discussion above- Effective Party levels are calculated against a dragon's challenge rating, and strategy is based off that? That's not how people make decisions in the real world, and it's certainly not how 'heroes' in traditional stories choose how to act. Heroes in typical fantasy settings regularly go up against powers beyond their capabilities and face near certain death all the time. In some stories they even die. But the fact is that we measure bravery by their committment to goals higher than their own personal safety. The reason I mentioned earlier that it depended on why you were there is because I think that in most assessments of bravery we measure not only how committed a person is to a goal, but the value of that goal. Were you there because you liked killing? Were you there for the phat loot? Were you there because these brigands had killed your father? Were you there because behind the black dragon was a lovely maiden bound to be eaten? Each of these moves the bar, in my opinion, on whether you behaved bravely or honorably in the situation. If you were there for money or loot, I would propose that you're not heroes at all- you're just a bunch of entrepreneurial individuals with swords and spells. Bravery doesn't enter into business ventures, even if that business venture involves cutting up some people. On the other hand, if you were there to save a village from militia we start moving into hero territory, and at that point it's more about assessing whether you completed what you set out to do. If you killed 99% of their crew and killing the dragon was a 'vanity kill', and not necessary to protect anyone, then maybe you can write it off as 'unfinished business' and walk into town with your head held high (after all, honor and bravery are social concepts and therefore largely subject to public esteem- The DM may have been with you when you retreated, but the townsfolk who sing your praises weren't. All they see is a bunch of dead militia and no more attacks.) Finally there's the maiden behind the dragon situation. If you went there to either A) kill the dragon or B) Free the maiden (or achieve some other effect that required the killing of the dragon), then you failed and are a coward. You can redeem yourself (as all cowards can) only by slaying the dragon. If the maiden dies, however, you are definitely a coward and that's on you. That's just my opinion, of course. Effective party level and Challenge Rating don't enter into it in my book, because character level is not something that is posted on a person's forehead for people to see. Deeds, however, are something in-game society can judge you by. When the father of the abducted woman comes to you crying, asking where his child is, you don't get to say "Dude! That dragon was CR 10! What, do I look like I'm made out of hitpoints here! Let me gain a few levels!" You just get to say "Uh, I think midway through a dragon's intestine. Sorry about that, but it was big and scary and it might have eaten us as well if we stuck around!" And that's when he calls you a coward. Cowardism and reasonability are not mutually exclusive as your question suggests. Many many cowards are reasonable. The opposite of cowardice is bravery, however, and you most likely weren't particularly brave.
Salla 10-30-07, 12:57 PM	Running was the smart thing to do. It wouldn't even have been honorable to stay and fight, because you didn't stand a chance unless the DM had severely nerfed the dragon somehow. There's no honor in fighting a battle that you have no hope of winning. Besides, you're CN. This means honor is not high on your list of priorities! :D
leo_neil316 10-30-07, 01:06 PM	In responce to Jarsallen (please keep in mind, this is all just my point of view). Cowardice is the inability to act because of fear. Bravery is the ability to act despite how afraid you may be. If they'd turned around and gone 'Eff that, were out of here' as soon as they saw what they were up against then they'd have been being cowards. But they didn't, they fought to the best of their abilities, it was beyond the point of 'might die' they had, after a long running battle through a fortified position, fought a group of enemies they should have been afraid of if they'd caught them at full strength from ambush. They'd just seen good friends turn on them and then be torn to pieces by these monsterous opponents, the only two left on their feet -tried- to fight the dragon and couldn't hurt it. Remember, when you get told 'it's got x many hit points left' that could mean 'It's not bothered by your attacks so far' while you yourself are 'torn bleeding and the edges of your vision are cloudy' Imagine it wasn't the end of the campagin. They fought for as long as they could realisticly fight and then they fled. But they'd regroup, they would find alies and gain power and come back and....... Well you get the point. Legging it away wasn't particularly -heroic- but it wasn't cowardly. Especially, as you pointed out, since we don't know the context.
Grumman 10-30-07, 01:09 PM	Deeds, however, are something in-game society can judge you by. When the father of the abducted woman comes to you crying, asking where his child is, you don't get to say "Dude! That dragon was CR 10! What, do I look like I'm made out of hitpoints here! Let me gain a few levels!" In case you hadn't noticed, they didn't flee until one of their party members was dead, another seriously injured, and the remaining two were primary spellcasters who had expended all of their spells. And that's when he calls you a coward. And that comment would be driven by emotion, not by logic. What you call bravery, I call insanity. What use is bravery, if it is to be squandered in a suicidal act that achieves nothing?
Drag0nUL 10-30-07, 01:18 PM	To be honest it was a pretty amazing achievement to survive that battle: It was 4 level 5 to 7 characters against characters of levels 8 ,11, 14 and a CR 11 dragon. Played to their full potential they should have flattened you out in 3-4 rounds at most. Unless your DM was really willing to play your opponents dumb/not make full use of their abilities, there was no way in the world you could have won this. I am surprised you stayed as long as you did. If I were level 5, battered and out of spells and saw a large dragon I would be getting out of there really fast. Remember: 'you don't have to outrun the dragon. You only have to outrun your slowest party member.' So, in short, I really think you did the smart thing by running away.
Jarsallen 10-30-07, 01:25 PM	There's no honor in fighting a battle that you have no hope of winning. Perversely, I would argue that the most honor comes from fighting battles you have no hope of winning. Imagine a scenario where a Paladin and his squire are travelling the countryside and find a secluded village full of happy-go-lucky peasants. While there an army of evil dudes comes rolling through and is marching on the town. The Paladin and his squire sit down to discuss what they should do: Paladin- My code of honor demands I protect this village, but I am just one man! Perhaps I will challenge their leader to single combat? Squire- And if he refuses? You just slink away? Paladin- Of course not! Squire- Whoa, I wasn't judging! There's like a thousand people in that army! They're going to kill all the men and rape all the women no matter what we do, man. Slinking away seems reasonable to me, largely because it doesn't involve us dying... Paladin- Cowardly... Squire- ...but reasonable. Paladin- Perhaps, my young squire. And I don't hold you here to stand by my side. But if I can stop even one innocent from being killed by my action, if I can give one woman enough time to hide in the forest and not get violated by these monsters, then I have done my duty and fulfilled my honor! Squire- Right, but suppose you can't do those things? Paladin- Some things are worth dying for. Squire- ...right. See ya. (And the squire heads for the hills). I think it's wildly innaccurate and lacking in any historical reference (excepting post WWI) to call the Squire's actions anything but dishonorable (granting that honor was something historically only reserved for knights), or the Paladin's behavior anything but honorable. (As a side note, the reason I mention post WWI is because honor entered its modern state of disfavor post WWI. We as a society stopped viewing honor as something importantly external- How an individual dedicated his life to certain societal expectations, such as service to one's country in war time- and began viewing it as something importantly internal- how an individual dedicated himself to personal ideals, which could include either a staunch adherence to an anti-war position. Pre-WWI honor lead to some incredibly stupid results (see: Verdun), but that doesn't change that it was honor that motivated them. As a result, post WWI society rebelled against some of the tenants of honor, and we get our modern perception that honor is flexible and should be adapted to the situation. Honor demanded that kings spend 50,000 lives taking a worthless hill on some foreign shore because they publicly claimed they would. And honor demanded that the sovereign from whom the hill was taken spend 100,000 lives taking it back as a point of pride, even if its loss was irrelevant to the safety and security of his nation. It's important to recognize that honor has nothing to do with reason or justification. Honor has historically been its own beast that played by its own rules. And that comment would be driven by emotion, not by logic. Probably. I'm not sure that's relevant, however.
Tequila_Sunrise 10-30-07, 02:16 PM	In-character, it would have been reasonable for anyone to retreat regardless of alignment. Out-of-character, I probably would have stayed and fought it out just because it was the last session of the campaign.
Salla 10-30-07, 02:27 PM	Perversely, I would argue that the most honor comes from fighting battles you have no hope of winning. No, that just gets you dead. Fighting a battle that you cannot win, no matter what, isn't honorable, it's just stupid. Imagine a scenario where a Paladin and his squire are travelling the countryside and find a secluded village full of happy-go-lucky peasants. While there an army of evil dudes comes rolling through and is marching on the town. The Paladin and his squire sit down to discuss what they should do: Paladin- My code of honor demands I protect this village, but I am just one man! Perhaps I will challenge their leader to single combat? Squire- And if he refuses? You just slink away? Paladin- Of course not! Squire- Whoa, I wasn't judging! There's like a thousand people in that army! They're going to kill all the men and rape all the women no matter what we do, man. Slinking away seems reasonable to me, largely because it doesn't involve us dying... Paladin- Cowardly... Squire- ...but reasonable. Paladins may be immune to magical fear effects, but that doesn't mean they can't be afraid. The Paladin's best course of action is to seek out reinforcements (such as, say, the local regent's army) as swiftly as possible and prevent this from happening again, as he is powerless to stop it. Paladin- Perhaps, my young squire. And I don't hold you here to stand by my side. But if I can stop even one innocent from being killed by my action, if I can give one woman enough time to hide in the forest and not get violated by these monsters, then I have done my duty and fulfilled my honor! Squire- Right, but suppose you can't do those things? Paladin- Some things are worth dying for. Squire- ...right. See ya. (And the squire heads for the hills). I think it's wildly innaccurate and lacking in any historical reference (excepting post WWI) to call the Squire's actions anything but dishonorable (granting that honor was something historically only reserved for knights), or the Paladin's behavior anything but honorable. I'd call the squire 'smart' and the paladin 'Lawful Stupid'. There is no honor in suicide, and that's what that was. (As a side note, the reason I mention post WWI is because honor entered its modern state of disfavor post WWI. We as a society stopped viewing honor as something importantly external- How an individual dedicated his life to certain societal expectations, such as service to one's country in war time- and began viewing it as something importantly internal- how an individual dedicated himself to personal ideals, which could include either a staunch adherence to an anti-war position. Pre-WWI honor lead to some incredibly stupid results (see: Verdun), but that doesn't change that it was honor that motivated them. As a result, post WWI society rebelled against some of the tenants of honor, and we get our modern perception that honor is flexible and should be adapted to the situation. Honor demanded that kings spend 50,000 lives taking a worthless hill on some foreign shore because they publicly claimed they would. And honor demanded that the sovereign from whom the hill was taken spend 100,000 lives taking it back as a point of pride, even if its loss was irrelevant to the safety and security of his nation. It's important to recognize that honor has nothing to do with reason or justification. Honor has historically been its own beast that played by its own rules. A fine reason to disregard it. That's just stupid. :) Probably. I'm not sure that's relevant, however.
PhaedrusXY 10-30-07, 02:40 PM	And that's why Evil will always win, because Good is dumb.
Sinfire Titan 10-30-07, 02:52 PM	Well, if he really wants you to kill the dragon, rest for the night. Heal up the next morning, find the bastard, and introduce him to the reason why clerics and druids are better than natural healing. By the next day, he should only have a few more HP from when you left him. Be quick with it, you don't want to linger longer than it takes to get a few hits in on him. Keep up the Hit and Run tactics, and you will kill the thing.
Jarsallen 10-30-07, 03:08 PM	No, that just gets you dead. I think we're talking past each other. Your definition of honor seems to bear little resemblance to the historical usage of the word. Again, I am not arguing that honor is in many cases, to the modern mind, stupid. Remember that 'honor killings' demand that a raped woman be killed by her family. Horrible? Yes. But honor is a social construct and within the confines of certain tribal societies honor demands this behavior. Likewise, the medieval world had its own set of codes regarding honor and it's not clear to me why a fantasy setting that borrows so heavily from these images would exclude this important and unifying theme. The Paladin's best course of action... I'm not arguing what the 'best' course of action here is from a practical or pragmatic standpoint. I'm pointing out that honor may demand self-destructive behavior. I'd call the squire 'smart' and the paladin 'Lawful Stupid'. My position is not what modern day perspectives give to a situation. My position is that in an immersive role playing experience meant to emulate a medieval setting with a fantasy twist (which admittedly not all games are, but I feel like the 'core' D&D setting is high fantasy that supports knights in shining armor) the concept of honorable (and brave) behavior is one about individual heroism in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. There is no honor in suicide, and that's what that was. Feudal Japan disagrees with you. Also I point to The Song of Roland regarding people not behaving intelligently in battle. Moreover, it's worth remembering that the overwhelming number of Medals of Honor distributed by the USA are awarded posthumously, and usually for doing things that they know will end in their deaths. The military keeps a pretty good record of everyone who has gotten one, and I think if you read them you'll find a common thread of sacrifice in the face of overwhelming odds. You're welcome to say that the guy who jumps out of a helicopter and tries to hold off an armed militia in order to protect 4 of his buddies trapped behind enemy lines (and is shot and killed in the attempt), is an idiot. Just don't say it to the family of Gary Gordon or Randall Shughart. Actually, best to steer clear of the entire 1SFOD-D entirely. A fine reason to disregard it. That's just stupid. Society has a lot of rules that are stupid. That doesn't mean that if we break them we don't become a pariah.
Grumman 10-30-07, 03:24 PM	Paladin- Perhaps, my young squire. And I don't hold you here to stand by my side. But if I can stop even one innocent from being killed by my action, if I can give one woman enough time to hide in the forest and not get violated by these monsters, then I have done my duty and fulfilled my honor! You see what the problem is here? By getting themselves killed by the dragon, guess how many innocent civillians they will save? None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Staying accomplishes nothing, except giving the bad guys some free equipment.
Jarsallen 10-30-07, 03:32 PM	guess how many innocent civillians they will save? That's not the issue I was addressing. In the post you cite, I'm refuting the concept that suicidal behavior can, in certain circumstances, be honorable. I addressed that issue much earlier when I mentioned that what they were attempting to do determined the measure of bravery/cowardice they showed and whether it was dishonorable to behave as they did.
Hsien 10-30-07, 04:44 PM	Looks like you may have gotten hit with one of my pet peeves. DM creates an adventure, can't wait to use it so instead of modifying to be level appropriate either gives temp boosting items or as in this case brings in the higher level DMPC. That outcome is a natural progression of that, as the party is not ready to handle those challenges so is either saved by the DMPC or fails because the DMPC is not powerful to save them. Either case is not desirable as the adventure needs to be fitted to the party not a DMPC plus a bunch of player sidekicks. So no it was not cowardly, next time the DM wants to bring in a higher level DMPC character, follow Nancy Reagan and "Just say, NO!"
gixanthrax 10-30-07, 05:16 PM	Looks like you may have gotten hit with one of my pet peeves. DM creates an adventure, can't wait to use it so instead of modifying to be level appropriate either gives temp boosting items or as in this case brings in the higher level DMPC. That outcome is a natural progression of that, as the party is not ready to handle those challenges so is either saved by the DMPC or fails because the DMPC is not powerful to save them. Either case is not desirable as the adventure needs to be fitted to the party not a DMPC plus a bunch of player sidekicks. So no it was not cowardly, next time the DM wants to bring in a higher level DMPC character, follow Nancy Reagan and "Just say, NO!" Most of the Time this DMPC was only our guide through the swamps and well ok he had some personal revengeplan against that militia. The only reason that he was on that high level is, that our DM knew that this N/N guy would really nerf up our CN party and OOC talked that it was only a question of time that we would ähm" faiil to make a spot check that he was in front of the bullseye we used for archery training" so he needed him to be strong enough to stand his ground against us... Unfortunately thats exactly what he did 0,1 seconds after the dragon appeared, so instead of firesupport, we were severly suffering from "friendly fire" Well once again it showed that it is best to eliminate DMPCs as soon as they enter the stage...
Dei 10-30-07, 06:03 PM	That's not the issue I was addressing. In the post you cite, I'm refuting the concept that suicidal behavior can, in certain circumstances, be honorable. I addressed that issue much earlier when I mentioned that what they were attempting to do determined the measure of bravery/cowardice they showed and whether it was dishonorable to behave as they did. Okay, Jarslen, you really need to realise that the medieval tales of romance and chivalry (such as the song of Roland) are about as historically accurate and close to mirroring the truth as star wars or fox news. If a knight or paladin sacrificed himself and his men in order to save "just one girl" like that paladin you mention so often, not so much hero material, more idiotic. Someone who sacrificed himself to save 1 person when if he'd lived he would have saved hundreds at a later date (such as the paladin in the scenario you used) would have been viewed as an idiot who had wasted his life. The same with a king who marched 50,000 men off to die just because he'd said he would. He would not have fulfilled a king's duty to hold to his word he'd have been a complete idiot who now had left his kingdom undefended simply because he had done something monumentally idiotic. No, that's not a modern viewpoint, if you look at the historical accounts of battles at the time honour and the like extended roughly so far as accepting a surrender, if you were in a good mood... and you liked the guy. If you were in an ambush you knew you could not win but fought on anyway instead of running you weren't brave, you were a fool. Look at the slaughter of the Battle of Nicopols. The knights who charged headlong into battle and were slaughtered were not lauded for bravery, they were decried far and wide for their bloodlust and stupidity. Same at the Anglo-French battles of Crecy and Agincourt. If their charges had allowed another wedge of cavalry to get into position and win the battle then yes, bravery, their deaths would have meant something, fair enough. But dying uselessly or even worse, stupidly is something completely different. Hollywood films and bard's poetry are not accurate historical accounts. Bravery is doing something that might get you killed despite a fear of death, always has been. Doing something that will definately get you killed on the other hand, that's stupidity. The OP's party fought against odds of around 8 to one including people who were hugely more powerful than them and a dragon that could easily have wiped them out. They fought it, gave a good account of themselves but staying and dying would have done nothing except get them killed, it would have served no purpose. By every meaningful definition of bravery they showed both massive courage and wisdom.
Sinfire Titan 10-30-07, 07:16 PM	By every meaningful definition of bravery they showed both massive courage and wisdom. To emphasize this point: "It takes a lot of brains to know when to retreat. It takes a lot of graves if you don't."
Salla 10-31-07, 03:18 AM	I think we're talking past each other. Your definition of honor seems to bear little resemblance to the historical usage of the word. Which is of little relevance to D&D, which does not take place in real-world history. Again, I am not arguing that honor is in many cases, to the modern mind, stupid. Remember that 'honor killings' demand that a raped woman be killed by her family. Horrible? Yes. But honor is a social construct and within the confines of certain tribal societies honor demands this behavior. Likewise, the medieval world had its own set of codes regarding honor and it's not clear to me why a fantasy setting that borrows so heavily from these images would exclude this important and unifying theme. Just because someone says something is 'honorable' doesn't mean it is, and societal expectations are largely nonsensical. I see nothing honorable in getting oneself pointlessly killed. I'm not arguing what the 'best' course of action here is from a practical or pragmatic standpoint. I'm pointing out that honor may demand self-destructive behavior. Then honor is pretty retarded. My position is not what modern day perspectives give to a situation. My position is that in an immersive role playing experience meant to emulate a medieval setting with a fantasy twist (which admittedly not all games are, but I feel like the 'core' D&D setting is high fantasy that supports knights in shining armor) the concept of honorable (and brave) behavior is one about individual heroism in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. There's a difference between 'seemingly' and 'completely'. The paladin was going to die pointlessly. A woman got away and fled into the forest ... and she's gonna get eaten by a passing owlbear anyway. There's nothing honorable about throwing your life away. Feudal Japan disagrees with you. That just tells me I'm right. I've long considered the futile ... I mean, feudal Japanese honor system to be bull****. "I'm your boss, I command you to die." "Okay." WHAT?! Sorry, ridiculous. Also I point to The Song of Roland regarding people not behaving intelligently in battle. Never heard of it. Moreover, it's worth remembering that the overwhelming number of Medals of Honor distributed by the USA are awarded posthumously, and usually for doing things that they know will end in their deaths. The military keeps a pretty good record of everyone who has gotten one, and I think if you read them you'll find a common thread of sacrifice in the face of overwhelming odds. As part of a larger organization. If Sgt. Genericus picks up a gun and runs headlong into an enemy platoon solo (as the Paladin effectively did), I doubt he's going to get a Medal of Anything. You're welcome to say that the guy who jumps out of a helicopter and tries to hold off an armed militia in order to protect 4 of his buddies trapped behind enemy lines (and is shot and killed in the attempt), is an idiot. Just don't say it to the family of Gary Gordon or Randall Shughart. Actually, best to steer clear of the entire 1SFOD-D entirely. So, are you, or are you not, worrying about the modern interpretations of 'honor'? You say no, then use modern examples to back yourself up. Please to keep the goalposts steady, sir. Society has a lot of rules that are stupid. That doesn't mean that if we break them we don't become a pariah. Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you *should*.
Dei 10-31-07, 07:42 AM	As much as I hate to agree with Jarsallen, Salla, you do seem to be ignoring a lot of his points. He's not arguing that the concept of honour as he sees it is right or that it has any place whatsoever in a logical mind but he is saying that it did and does exist and that's true. The simple fact is that there were and are people who think like that. They see/saw it as honour, the fact that the rest of the world sees/saw it as retarded is neither here nor there. However Jarsallen, you also need to realise that this concept of honour has never been as over-reaching as you seem to think. All of the examples you have used are of fanatical societies with rigorous codes that held complete dictate within their sphere of influence. Yes, such societies have in the past and still do exist. However such societies/methodologies have never been in the majority in the european medieval culture that DnD borrows from so heavily. Yes feudal japan might disagree with me but hey, guess what, DnD isn't set in a fantasy feudal japan. It is set in a fantasy medieval europe where attitudes and beliefs were quite literally thousands of miles removed from feudal japan. In medieval europe and by proxy the world of DnD you might have come across the occassional fanatic who would never retreat and all of that but just because you wore shiny plate mail and carried a sword did not make you one of them. In fact if you were a powerful, influential man it was seen as your duty to escape death/capture in a situation such as an unwinnable ambush so that you could fight on at a later date/not be used as a hostage. Gary Gordon and Randall Shughart were indeed brave but what they did is by no means the only definition of bravery. Would staying in the helicopter because they believed that getting themselves killed would serve no purpose have made them cowards? No, it would not have. Honour and courage as you see it is defined by fanatical and senseless behaviour. It is stupid and has always been viewed as such to say that courage demands that you take leave of your senses. This is never how it has been defined in medieval europe. True enough, such behaviour *can* be brave rather than just stupid but it is not the only way to be brave. Were the Portugese and Spanish Geurillas of the Napoleonic Peninsular Wars cowards simply because they used hit and run tactics instead of allowing themselves to be massacred in a straight fight by a superior force? What of the American Militia who used exactly the same tactics against Cornwallis? Lets take a medieval fantasy example, Robin Hood's men. They used hit and run, they retreated and hid as a way of life. According to you such people were cowards despite the fact they had dedicated themselves to confronting a more powerful enemy. Somehow I think you might be a little bit wrong on that one. The OPs party confronted a vastly superior force, that makes them brave, end of story. The fact they were forced to retreat from the battle is irrelevant. Is the only way to be seen as brave when fighting such a force to allow yourself to die? No and it never has been in the context that we're talking about.
Endarrion 10-31-07, 08:16 AM	Honor demanded that kings spend 50,000 lives taking a worthless hill on some foreign shore because they publicly claimed they would. And honor demanded that the sovereign from whom the hill was taken spend 100,000 lives taking it back as a point of pride, even if its loss was irrelevant to the safety and security of his nation. It's important to recognize that honor has nothing to do with reason or justification. Honor has historically been its own beast that played by its own rules. Peasants of Town X: "Oh, Great King! Why didst thou send our men to their deaths? That hill wasn't important!" King: "I can't be expected to answer to you fools who have no concept of the abstract ideal of honor!" Peasants: "But, good King. Your army is defeated and we are all that is left. I thinkst that thou art in deep poo poo now." Seriously. I understand what you're saying about honor being self destructive and all, and you're right. But that doesn't keep honor from being fundamentally flawed. And besides, these characters were CN. They have no honor. You can only hold someone to the abstract concept of honor if they hold themselves to it. Otherwise, it's meaningless. From an outside perspective, they were not honorable, I suppose. From a character standpoint, it was good roleplaying. If a party of CN characters stood around and got slaughtered in a campaign I was running, I'd tell them they didn't play their characters true to their alignment.
Sunic_Flames 10-31-07, 09:26 AM	Honor only applies to the honorable. Historical, modern, whatever honor codes always have exceptions that are either treated less honorably, or not at all. Even if the PCs were honorable (they're chaotic, what is this honor you speak of?) they were up against a black dragon and others. Black dragons are CE, the others likely at least one of the two. Since there's no reasonable expectation they'd act honorably even honorable PCs would be under no obligation to extend that to them.
key 10-31-07, 10:42 AM	Did we act cowardly or reasonable? Both. Cowardism and reasonability are not mutually exclusive as your question suggests. Many many cowards are reasonable. The opposite of cowardice is bravery, however, and you most likely weren't particularly brave. Yep. In responce to Jarsallen (please keep in mind, this is all just my point of view). Cowardice is the inability to act because of fear. Bravery is the ability to act despite how afraid you may be. If they'd turned around and gone 'Eff that, were out of here' as soon as they saw what they were up against then they'd have been being cowards. Saying 'eff that' and turning around does not necessarily mean they were afraid. Even if one concedes that they were afraid, they nevertheless did act. Thus, they weren't cowards according to your definition of cowardice. Dictionary.com defines cowardice as "lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc". Thus, with regards to the OP, their actions were cowardly, yet reasonable imo. I don't think it's necessary to twist the meanings of words to justify actions. To me, being a coward is not necessarily a bad thing, just as being brave is not necessarily a good thing.
Dei 10-31-07, 11:05 AM	Both. Dictionary.com defines cowardice as "lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc". Thus, with regards to the OP, their actions were cowardly, yet reasonable imo. Yes because fighting odds of around 8 to one including standing up to dragon really shows a lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition and pain. Oh wait, that doesn't sound right... They stood up to these odds, that makes them brave. Retreat neither counteracts nor detracts from this bravery. Dictionary.com defines courage as: The quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery. it defines suicidal as: Actions that are foolishly or rashly dangerous They faced difficulty, danger and pain in great quantities and retreated not because of fear but because of a reasonable wish to avoid death. This wish does not make them cowards, nowhere in any definition of courage does it say that the bearer of courage has no wish to continue living. The desire to keep living makes them reasonable which as you've pointed out is not a state of mind independent of courage or it's lack. Staying to fight the dragon in their condition would have been foolishly and rashly dangerous. They would have been facing a danger they had no hope of overcoming and this can only be defined as suicidal. Yes it can be a part of the brave mindset but it is not the totality of it. You can be brave without partaking of suicidal actions just like you can partake of suicidal actions without being brave. Saying that only the suicidal can be brave is like saying that only the paranoid can be cowards, it's a superlative and in this case, not a very good one.
leo_neil316 10-31-07, 11:18 AM	Okay dei made my point better than me :)
albinomonkeyking 10-31-07, 12:08 PM	It wasn't cowardice, especialy when you seemed to be calculating the CR of most of your enemies in your head and knew they were virtually all higher than you, metagaming or not you were chancing the odds most of that session. By the by, your DM apparently plays villians like chickens with their heads cut off. No way, no how, in any games of mine, would my players have been able to stand up to what he threw at your group, and you say you aren't even powergamed or optimized. My players always are, I just tend to play my villians intelligently. It wouldn't have been unreasonable to run from the start of seeing the two guys, the dragon, and your buddy DMPC turn on you. However, perhaps in light of the fact that the dragon was probably eating himself it would have been wiser to stay and kill his poorly played scaly hide.
Darknight303 10-31-07, 12:10 PM	If your DM is going to make players start at 5, instead of the av. party level then you have the option to turn that character away. The lvl 8 could have gotten a better cohort. Why would a character add to their group a liability? A character would get destroyed against something meant for 3 lvls higher than they are. Even if the ranger didnt get dominated on you, you still shouldn't have stood a chance. A lvl 5 could almost be one shotted against the dragon. You DM needs to get his head checked, the campaine was sure to end but not because you ended up with enough gold to retire, thats a TPK just waiting to happen.
Jarsallen 10-31-07, 01:44 PM	In order to respond relatively briefly I'll try to boil down to the key responses to my post: 1) Honor as you describe is not totally accurate historically and is more in common with poetic or literary concepts of honor: Inherent in this criticism is the belief that D&D draws its inspiration from historical records rather than historical prose and poetry, as my contention is only that what setting the game presents seems to draw from historical references. Even if I stipulate that history did not generate a strict code of honor that people today would consider suicidal stupidity, it hardly matters. In a game with wizards and dragons and great quests to save the world from unspeakable evils, I think a belief that the setting is drawn from factual history is ill-founded. Which does the average gaming group seeks to be more like? A historical recreation of middle-ages England, or le Morte D'Arthur? A reenactment of 17th century French life, or the Three Musketeers? Are wizards based more off the pseudoscientists and alchemists and magisters of the ancient world, or off modern interpretations of Merlin? Are dragons based off...god, I don't know what? Dinosaurs?... or are they the cave dwelling, treasure hoarding monsters we see in Tolkein, inspired by stories like Beowulf? In short, it seems clear to me that D&D draws from 'history by poets', and it is more than appropriate to analyze honor in the same way those poets would. 2) Honor was never as far reaching as you make it out to be. I used Feudal Japan because it was convenient to the specific argument that suicide was never considered 'honorable'. I also mentioned the Charge of the Light Brigade, in which some idiots charged a bunch of canons because 'Their's not to reason why'. The Charge of the Light Brigade was considered "magnificent" by other military leaders, but idiotic. History is filled with glorious but ill-fated charges, heroic but doomed last stands, and brave but futile acts of defiance. Society has always respected these individuals, at least up until the modern day when we became more interested in what got done than how it was done. While history is full of people acting dishonorably, or with little regard for honor, it is worth noticing that we don't view dishonorable or honor-neutral individuals as heroic. D&D doesn't seem like its primary purpose was to create characters who most closely resembled footman #6 in the battle of Agincourt. Incidentally, the mention of the Battle of Nicopolis ignores that while the French assault was moronic, it was the Hungarian royal army that was considered the cause of the defeat -at the time-, because they took a more cautious approach of attacking disorgnized Ottoman infantry and flanking than helping the French charge. The French soldiers engaged in what was considered, again, at the time, a heroic attack and the Hungarians, for behaving prudently and effectively, were regarded as, if not cowardly, insufficiently brave. I think it's also an incoherent argument to cite a battle in which a gaggle of French knights, pretty clearly over a matter of national honor, engaged in a suicidal charge into the center of an enemy's army, and then use that same example of how honor wouldn't force people to behave that way. Once again we must differentiate between how people living in that world would judge an act, and how people in this world judge an act (and who is doing the judging in each). 3) Lack of bravery is cowardice. I never meant to imply that one's position on the bravery-to-cowardice scale was a binary construction. There are many points in between the two poles, and most people occupy that grey area. One's position on that scale is a question of what measure of danger you have agreed to take upon yourself and how strictly you adhere to that agreement. It's as easy to apply this principle to modern day soldiers in Somalia as it is to Knights in a Medieval epic as it is to apply to a gang of Heroes in a D&D game (though obviously neutral and evil parties are more likely to not care about honor). A soldier agrees to follow orders, and potentially fight and die for his country- It isn't cowardice to fail to go above that calling, but it is cowardice to go below that calling out of fear. A gang of heroes that assures the local town that they will fight off all the bandits and assure the safety of the area are, yes, cowards if they come back to the town saying "Jeez, no, too tough. It was scary. We out." Now this doesn't really jive with the afore mentioned scenario, because I feel like it's likely the adventurers can head back and say that they've killed all mercenaries but there's a dragon out there, so watch out! They didn't kill the dragon because that's not what they agreed to do and it wasn't what the villagers expected of them (maybe- frankly I don't know all the details. But then nor do any of us aside from the original poster). 4) Would you call 'X' cowards? Questions of guerillas and militias and their respective bravery assume that one is either brave or cowardly. While there is more abiguity in the equation than that, it is worth noting that yes, society generally considers hit and run strategies cowardly. One need only turn on CNN and listen to what adjectives they use to describe terrorists and you will hear the word 'coward' or one of its synonyms. Are their efforts effective? Yes. But there is a hard wired understanding of bravery in the western world that you look a man in the eye when you stab him, and the fact that such behavior would be suicidal in the case of terrorists or guerillas is immaterial to our gut reaction of their behavior. Your question over intellectualizes a societal reaction to behavior. People crash airplanes into a commercial building, causing massive market shock, thousands of deaths, and cripples the target nations transportation's system. This was an incredibly effective attack. Yet our society views these people as cowards because they attacked people who weren't ready for it. Mind you, honor is a societal construct, and bravery of a group is not reflective of bravery of an individual. So while the 9/11 hijackers are bloodthirsty murderers and nothing more to much of the Western world, to the Middle East they died honorably. The guerillas in country X may be considered cowards for their tactics as an organization, but among them individuals may well be very brave in their particular actions during a raid or what have you. 5) That doesn't apply in the case of these adventurers because... I tried to point out in my response that the situation and 'facts not in evidence' play pretty heavily into whether they are cowards or not. For example, if they agreed to kill the dragon, or their failure to kill the dragon would result in some terrible consequence, then their retreat marks them as cowards. If they merely were killing bandits and a dragon entered the fight, then their retreat is a lot more ambiguous. My Paladin scenario mentioned above does hint at one important element of honor that was picked up on by a couple people I think- The Paladin did have a belief that his actions would have an effect on the survival/safety of at least some people. There is of course some question as to what the ratio is- is one life saved enough for a Paladin to risk his own? What is the probability of saving that life that would justify the Paladin taking on this burden? These are questions that can only be answered by the situation at hand, but at the end of the day I think it's important from a storytelling perspective for heroes to act on the hope that their actions will have a positive effect, not knowledge. And unpoken: 6) That's exactly what I would have done! I don't want to think of myself as a coward, so they aren't cowards! Bummer, I guess. I mean, obviously if an overwhelming number of people view bravery as 'Only attacking things you know you can kill', then I suppose by sheer force of will it is possible to redefine the concept. The idea that bravery is not intrinsically tied to one's apprehension that mortality is nigh is silly to me, though.
key 10-31-07, 01:47 PM	Dictionary.com defines courage as: The quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery. They didn't do this. They bailed, remember?
Jarsallen 10-31-07, 02:08 PM	So, are you, or are you not, worrying about the modern interpretations of 'honor'? You say no, then use modern examples to back yourself up. Please to keep the goalposts steady, sir. This deserves a specific response, as you're partially right. When I refer to "Modern" concepts of honor, I refer broadly to the western world's understanding of the word. Most militaries, including the US military, hold a much more anachronistic view honor. While there is some blurring between the two understandings, there are many things that are considered 'honorable' in the military world which are considered just plain dumb in the modern civilian mindset. Again, as honor is a social construct, when there is a fundamental shift in society such as between military and civilian spheres, the concept likewise shifts- in this case to a much more anachronistic model. That said, even the modern military concept of honor is a far cry from Victorian era or even WWI era concepts of honor, but many of the tenants remain the same, and so I used them interchangeably in the interest of expediency.
Dei 10-31-07, 02:09 PM	Okay, so Jarsellen, what about their actions makes you think that they acted in a cowardly manner? They put themselves in danger by entering the scenario fully aware that one or more of them could die. That's bravery. Simple as that. Adventurers as a species are brave. They make a living out of putting themselves in mortal peril which is the very definition of bravery. You've debated long and hard about how their unwillingness to die makes them cowards but you've produced zero proof. You've come out with a whole lot of examples about how a willingness to die is brave and yes, I agree, I never debated the point and in fact supported it in my last post. But you have yet to produce a single example of how retreat from overwhelming odds has ever been considered cowardly even if we rely solely on the world of poetic history. Yes, being willing to die can be brave. No, being unwilling to die is not automatically cowardly and you have yet to provide a single shred of proof or reasonable arguement of why it should be considered as such. That is the crux of the debate and you so far have completely ignored it. As for your point about the circumstances dictating wether or not they were cowards, read the OPs post. He explains all the relevant details of the scenario none of which you have even approached covering. Oh, and Key, read my whole post before you respond to one part of it. Their retreat was not a panicked flight in terror it was a reasoned decision to choose life over inevitable and useless death. If they'd stayed and let the dragon tear the two of them apart what purpose would their deaths have served? What higher cause would have been accelerated by their ends? If delaying the dragon the two or three rounds it might have taken it to tear them asunder would have saved a village or something then you could maybe *maybe* call it cowardice but no such scenario existed therefore there is no basis to assume they left out of fear. Fear would have been running as soon as the dragon appeared, fear would have been running as soon as the first of their team-mates was killed. Bravery was confronting a creature far more powerful than them for as long as they did.
Jarsallen 10-31-07, 02:42 PM	Okay, so Jarsellen, what about their actions makes you think that they acted in a cowardly manner? Recall that my original position was: Yes, you probably acted cowardly and dishonorably. It depends a lot on what the hell you were doing killing all these people in the first place. And how you sell it when you get back home. I then went on to expound (at some length, I might add) about what, in my view, was required in order for them to occupy different positions on the coward-to-brave and honor-to-dishonor scale. Those factors included things like, as I point out in my original opinion, what they were doing there in the first place. None of these issues were addressed in the original poster's first post, which only stated the character levels, challenge rating, and some of the consequences of the battle. So while I can fabricate 'proof' out of the thin air, by perhaps assuming that the characters (not the players) made their decision based on a careful analysis of the tactical situation and came to a joint determination that a retreat was the sensible choice, I opt to stick to only what was said and extract the core issue- What is honor and what is bravery- and discuss that. It's more interesting than the particular discussion to me, but also it's something we can actually do with a straight face. By contrast, there is no way we'll know whether the OP and his party were not roleplaying their characters as completely scared out of their minds. Frankly I think it's reasonable to assume they are good roleplayers and were playing their characters as frightened, as they as players seemed to recognize that the situation their characters were in seemed hopeless. All we have to go on from the original post were the words "We fled." That's certainly not enough to extrapolate that they did so in a tactical retreat, or that they were calm and collected while fleeing. So that's why I'm not interested in providing proof. We don't have any. What we can do is discuss the virtues and failings of interpreting bravery in different ways, and perhaps if we can find some kind of communally agreeable paradigm to answer the question of what bravery is, the OP will be able to apply his knowledge and get an answer to his question. No, being unwilling to die is not automatically cowardly and you have yet to provide a single shred of proof or reasonable arguement of why it should be considered as such. See point 3 above- In a nutshell: Being not-brave is not the same as being cowardly. I explicitly refute this point. However, being not brave when you're expected by the circumstances to be brave is cowardly.
MagicButterfly 10-31-07, 03:58 PM	For one, I agree with Jarsallen completely, and applaud the eloquence and reason in his posts. Obviously, it depends on the situation; if the OP's party was "just passing through", or if they were simply in the nature of an "in and out" mission, then I'd reason they were more than justified in running away. They aren't trying to prove anything, nor are they trying to uphold virtue in any way, shape, or form. A number of posters have pointed out that the characters were mostly-- if not entirely-- chaotic in alignment, and that in this situation their characters would not care about upholding dictates of honor. Fair enough. But the fact that the OP has asked if these actions are honorable indicates that it is important to him or her. I also think that many of the responses indicating that "Fighting to the death is stupid" are arguing from a modern cultural perspective. And, of course, that is also fair enough. If I was faced with a situation in which death is all but certain and success is unlikely, I'd almost certainly turn tail and run as well-- as would, I hypothesize, many people in a modern society (and, granted, a medieval society). We'd value a certain sense of practicality over an abstract code of social proscriptions. And yes, that heroic sense of honor is an anachronism (if in fact it ever truly existed), but it has been immortalized in song and prose-- the same song and prose that Jarsellan cogently argued that D&D is almost certainly based off of. So if the party swore to confront and destroy the threat in this area, running away because the threat is suddenly perceived as too great would be dishonorable. Intelligent? Sure. Practical? Absolutely. I'd probably do it myself... if I was not bound by a particular code of ethics that considers the loss of personal face a fate worse than death. Feudal Japan, ancient Rome-- there were a few cultures that espoused, at their core, the concept of "death before dishonor", at least for a certain subsection of the population. But if you belonged to this population, as the Paladin in Jarsellan's example did, then you would not lightly throw these beliefs away in the face of overwhelming odds. The people would be more likely to "rage against the dying of the light", as it were, which I think is still a more apt fit to the modern concept of heroics than "discretion is the better part of valor".
Dei 10-31-07, 05:00 PM	However, being not brave when you're expected by the circumstances to be brave is cowardly. And in this case there were no circumstances whatsoever that should have lead you to believe bravery was required of them therefore your original statement of cowardice was based on massive and flawed assumptions. First, that they were there for more than personal gain. Second, that their deaths would have made a difference. Third, that they cared about more than their own skins. I can refute two of those straight off the bat. The OP mentions that they were there to accumulate enough wealth to retire from adventuring putting an end to your first assumption. He also mentions that they were all chaotic neutral otherwise known as "an individualist first and last" meaning that they had not dedicated themselves to any higher cause. To serve a cause higher than personal gain they would have to be motivated either by a code thus giving them a lawful alignment or by a love of good or evil. Even if you ignore this logic, if there had been a princess chained to the wall or some doomsday device they aimed to destroy don't you think he would have mentioned that little detail? The combat and their part in it would have made no difference to anyone other than those involved in the combat meaning that the only thing expected of them in the battle was to follow the best course of action open to them. In this instance that was retreat. Even if there were some higher purpose. How would extending the fight by the six seconds it would have taken the dragon to kill them both have served it? To assume that because they failed to overcome the enemy but still live they are cowards is to call all of those you have labled brave because they fought to the death cowards too. They fought an enemy and failed to overcome it, same as these guys. They gave it their best shot, fought to the very limit of their abilities and expended all of their resources in an attempt to overcome their enemy but they failed. This failure though does not equate to cowardice. The only difference between these guys and the paladin you've called upon on numerous occassions is that instead of allowing themselves to be uselessly killed they decided they preferred life. Let's say that the paladin must hold a bridge in order to allow peasants to escape from the village behind him. He expends all of his resources in the battle and fights to the very limit of his power. Unfortunately before the peasants are able to clamber onto the wagon that will whisk them away the paladin is struck such a telling blow that he knows the next blow will finish him and that the peasants will be massacred anyway. Instead of allowing himself to be killed he activates a magic item and is whisked away to a nearby sanctuary. Does this make his stand on the bridge any less brave? Does his decision to lessen the death toll of the day by one make him a coward? He fought as best he could but failed, does the fact that he lived through the failure mean he has no courage? He knew he had failed to save the peasants but chose to live on rather than die. They knew they had failed to overcome the dragon but chose to live on rather than die. What about the people that died in the fight? Are they braver simply because their hearts are no longer beating? Those who lived through it faced the same challenge, showed the same lack of fear in the face of overwhelming odds but were lucky enough to come through it alive. Does this magically transform them into cowards? No, it does not, it simply means they're still alive.
Jarsallen 10-31-07, 06:18 PM	...therefore your original statement of cowardice was based on massive and flawed assumptions. You are referring to the one that included the word "probably" and was immediately followed by a disclaimer? I'm not sure if it's rude to point out, but if you are just noticing that that I acknowledged I didn't know everything about the scenario when I first responded, we might be having this discussion on two different levels. It appears like you're just paraphrasing what I said in the first lines of my first post, except now you're adding "Ha! This proves my point!" after it... But I'm confused now. Your first issue with my post was that it defined honor and bravery under a certain broad set of rules, and right now it seems like you're content using those rules to demonstrate that the OP's party isn't a coward. That's fine with me. That's the purpose of what I posted. If you feel like you have some insight and wisdom of what was going on inside the minds of the party in question, then judge all you want. I'm not interested in debating about whether the OP and his friends were there because of the wealth or because the bandits were raiding all the nearby towns or for some other reason- God knows in my own games we sometimes do things for the craziest of reasons. I can't say how they were playing their characters, or what their character's motivations were, or how they dealt with any of the locals who are to ultimately determine whether they are honorable and brave. If you feel like you can, then rock on for you man! I think, however, you might want to lay off on the analogies. The Battle of Nicopolis proved my point more than yours, the 'Are guerillas considered cowardly' likewise was easily answered in the affirmative, and now you're asking whether a Paladin who abandons a cartload of peasants to a big evil monster is a coward? Yeah dude, he is. He really. Really. Is. How do you think that's going to go over back in Paladin HQ? Paladin 1: Hey, you look all tore up. What have you been up to? Paladin 2: Dude, I was just guarding this wagonload of innocent peasants, from this monster thing and man was it tough... Paladin 1: Well, hey, at least you got those peasants to safety, right? Hitpoints heal up, and armor can be undented! Paladin 2: Hell no! I got out of there! That thing hit me with a paw and I was like...2 HP away from dead. Paladin 1: Yeah, I remember I was guarding town just the other... .... wait, what? Paladin 2: Seriously. The thing was huge. No sense in me dying, you know? Paladin 1: ... Paladin 2: I'm just saying. I'm 12th level. No sense wasting all that killing power guarding some peasants, right? Dudes were going to die anyway. I mean, we just talk a big game about 'every life being sacred' and 'duty unto death', right? I mean, 12 dead commoners is better than 12 dead commoners and a dead paladin! Paladin 1: You...you left people to die? Paladin 2: Dude, no sense all of us dying, you know? Paladin 1: You're a coward. Paladin 2: Sure, but I'm an -alive- coward. Cha-ching. Right? Am I right? Up high! No...no? No takers? What? I'm totally brave! I was on that bridge until I was asked to actually sacrifice something! That should count for something!
StruckingFuggle 10-31-07, 06:36 PM	I wanted just to point out something with the medal of honor example. The difference in the case of the guys who jumped out of the helicopter to buy time for their buddies? They risked their lives for a tangible goal. They died trying to save their friends, accomplished more than they lost, and stood a chance of it actually doing something. Like the Seven Samurai, too - sure, more than half of them died, and they went in outnumbered, but they stood a chance and were actually trying to accomplish something ... ...and the fact that, at least going in, there was a chance and it was for something less abstract than "honor" makes a huge difference.
Dei 10-31-07, 06:53 PM	Paladin 2: Sure, but I'm an -alive- coward. Cha-ching. Right? Am I right? Up high! No...no? No takers? What? I'm totally brave! I was on that bridge until I was asked to actually sacrifice something! That should count for something! Or how's this for an alternative where paladin 1 isn't an idiot: Paladin 1: Well, hey, at least you got those peasants to safety, right? Hitpoints heal up, and armor can be undented! Paladin 2: No brother, I failed in my duty, I was not strong enough to halt the beast and was forced to retreat from it. The peasants were slain and there was nothing I could do to prevent it. Paladin 1: Take no shame in failure brother, you fought to the very limits of your strength, no man could ask more of you. Had you died then there would be no chance of avenging those lost that day. Paladin 2: I know, it was my duty to live and come to you so that together we could hunt it. Paladin 1: Aye, come into the temple. When you have been healed the two of us together shall track down this monster and many more besides. If in this scenario Paladin 2 said, bugger that, I'm not facing that thing again or ran from death when his death might have actually meant something. Then yes, I agree, cowardice. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, running away is not cowardice and anyone with enough sense to not need to be reminded occasionally to breath will realise that yes actually, 12 dead commoners is better than 12 dead commoners and a paladin. It might not be better than 6 dead commoners and a paladin but if by retreating a paladin can reduce the death toll of a day from 13 to 12, I call it a win not cowardice. When you allow death to overtake you, knowing that it serves no purpose it's not courage, it's suicide.
Axiomatic_vampire 11-01-07, 07:44 AM	I really don't have much to say on the honor question, that's all relative. I mostly just wanted to pop in at the end and repeat that you DM is a jerk and he hates you. Seriously. I'm an inexperienced DM prone to mistakes, but never ever freaking ever would I pull a gomer move like that. Send him coal for christmas.
Jarsallen 11-01-07, 11:24 AM	But I've said it before and I'll say it again, ... ...and anyone with enough sense to not need to be reminded occasionally to breath will realise .... I see where this is going, and I'm not going to meet you there. I don't have a lot of tools in my rhetorical arsenal to deal with the argument "You are stupid if you don't agree with me." I recommend you calm down, and on this topic we're going to have to agree to disagree. Neither of our arguments seem to have persuaded the other, and I'm sure other people can come to their own conclusion. Hopefully this helped the OP a bit in determining whether they were cowardly or not.
gixanthrax 11-01-07, 02:14 PM	as to the question about the honor of our retreat: In the round where my rogue was so severly hit, the ensuing actions were: Sorc: Invisibilty and away through the small tunnel through wich we had entered thecave Druid: Wildshape into a fast moving bird and out of the cave at the backside Me: Complete withdrawal through the tunnel... And in contradiction to what some posters may think: Our DM is not ajerk, ad he does not hate us. If he hated us, he would have sent a line of acid into the tunnel thus most likely killing me and the sorcstarting to chase the druid in the next ...
Axiomatic_vampire 11-01-07, 02:49 PM	as to the question about the honor of our retreat: In the round where my rogue was so severly hit, the ensuing actions were: Sorc: Invisibilty and away through the small tunnel through wich we had entered thecave Druid: Wildshape into a fast moving bird and out of the cave at the backside Me: Complete withdrawal through the tunnel... And in contradiction to what some posters may think: Our DM is not ajerk, ad he does not hate us. If he hated us, he would have sent a line of acid into the tunnel thus most likely killing me and the sorcstarting to chase the druid in the next ... And yet at the same time, I just don't feel like I'm overreacting. Ok, ok...I take it back. He's probably a very pleasant guy that I'd quite like socially, and of course he doesn't hate you as a person. But the DM incarnation of him seems to maybe hate your party. That's all I'm saying. There was some party-hate happening.
Jarsallen 11-01-07, 03:01 PM	Sorc: Invisibilty and away through the small tunnel through wich we had entered thecave Druid: Wildshape into a fast moving bird and out of the cave at the backside Me: Complete withdrawal through the tunnel... What happened to the Rogue?
Grumman 11-02-07, 12:53 AM	What happened to the Rogue? I'm pretty sure he was the rogue. The cleric was already dead.
Jarsallen 11-02-07, 11:48 AM	Ah. What happened to the cleric? Did you just leave him there?
gixanthrax 11-03-07, 07:39 AM	The cleric was already dead and the dragon was sitting between us and his carcass. Yes I was the rogue. Yesterday the DM tld me that it was only a young adult even though he had Hit points of an adult and could cast some 3 rd level spells We ended the gaming session as soon as the last one of us ( me ) enterde the tunnel, because it was already 2 am, we had been playing for roughly 8 hours and two of the players had lectures at university at 8 am.
Sezarious 11-03-07, 09:48 AM	I think we all understand your view Jarsallen, that an honourable death is a fine thing, but often, this concept of honour (sometimes mistaken for pride), irritates me. In Troy for instance, when Archillis challenges Hector, they could have peppered the man with arrows and Hector would have watched his son grow up. I think you really see it as a selfish action or cheating to retreat, heal up and fight again, but you have to remember the key thing, that the party isn't a group of Paladins, but a group of Neutral ones who because of their allignment, could even leave the campaign and never go back. However, they're not. Is it wrong to rest when you're tired? To drink when you're thirsty? To eat when you're hungry? It was either fight for the sake of a fictional characters "Honour", or to be a clever gamer, know when you're beaten, retreat, Rest, then win later. I just can't see how unless you protected another player from death or something, what satisfaction you would get out of not resting and getting your character killed all for the sake of honour in the game. If you can escape, heal and finish the job afterwards, why not? If you're happy to reroll your character all for the sake of it, fair enough, but i would rather not.
Tectorman 11-05-07, 02:07 PM	Hi, I found something interesting in the Monster Manual that pertains somewhat to this. Page 10, in the opening part about Angels, it says the following: "Angels can be of any good alignment. ... Regardless of their alignment, angels never lie, cheat, or steal. They are impeccably honorable in all their dealings and often prove the most trustworthy and diplomatic of all the celestials." That means that the chaotic angels are not only honorable, but impeccably so. Furthermore, they are no more or less honorable than the lawful angels. This leads me to believe that honorable action has nothing to do with the law-vs.-chaos part of a creature's alignment. Furthermore, since both Knights and Samurai and able (and required) to act honorably but still able to be good or evil, this means that the angels' ability to act honorably isn't tied to their "good only" alignment, either. Thus, the fact that those adventurers were all CN has nothing to do with how honorable they were (or were capable of being). And actually, this makes since, as Paladins are required to be both lawful good and act honorably. If it were a function of that alignment, then that part of the code of conduct would be redundant.
Jarsallen 11-05-07, 03:54 PM	It was either fight for the sake of a fictional characters "Honour", or to be a clever gamer, know when you're beaten, retreat, Rest, then win later. Sure. And I don't care one way or another how it is decided. I mean, players play for fun and some players get a kick out of telling a good story about their characters. Sometimes that story ends with a glorious death, and the player is happy. Sometimes players don't like it when their characters die, regardless of how it happened. The question was not, however, "Would we have had more fun if we stayed and fought the dragon?". It was 'Were we cowards by running away from the dragon?' And now that I have more of the facts, I suspect the question was asked because the player of the dead cleric probably spoke up and called the people that left his corpse in the cave cowards. Just a guess, though... Tectorman, I think you're looking at it the wrong way- Honor is a societal judgement, as is bravery. Every society measures honorable behavior differently, and the line between bravery and stupidity or foolishness is defined largely by the people witnessing an event. So while a character's behavior may be considered prudent and wise in one culture, it would be considered cowardly and weak in another. So when an Angel acts 'honorably', that presumably is because it is behaving in a fashion that most societies would consider to be part of a common 'code of honor'. Maybe all angels help old ladies across the street, or never tell a lie, or always stand up for the little guy- whatever society says honor is. It doesn't matter if Angels always do it because they are good and their concept of good requires it, or because they are lawful and their personal ethical code demands it. The only thing that matters is whether society deems what they do as honorable. The reason Samurai (presumably) can be good or evil while remaining 'honorable' probably has something to do with the fact that honor in many cultures has little to do with ethics and more to with behaving strictly within social norms. A Samurai might be required to defend the village he lives in, and obey all orders from his Daimyo. Now when his lord orders him to pacify a village, the evil Samurai may roll in and string up anyone who opposes him by their entrails while they are still alive- that's particularly macabre, but not necessarily dishonorable within the rules of the society that the Samurai lives in. To a lesser degree these societally-relative judgements apply to bravery as well. So the original question can't really be answered out of context- who is supposed to be judging these characters? I can guess how medieval peasants and knights would judge their behavior (probably cowardly and dishonorable- leaving a man in the field and all), and it's pretty clear how the DnD forum crowd would judge them (That dragon was too high a CR!), but it's not clear to me that the in-game NPCs judging the PCs are composed of either of those two demographics.
ravenshrike 11-06-07, 12:45 PM	No, that just gets you dead. Fighting a battle that you cannot win, no matter what, isn't honorable, it's just stupid. Μολὼν λαβέ The spartans knew different. But then, they did so for a purpose, because in doing so others could have the time needed to gather their forces. Dying simply for honor is indeed one of the greatest forms of cowardice, but dying to allow others the chance to live is not.
ravenshrike 11-06-07, 12:56 PM	They didn't do this. They bailed, remember? The dictionary.com definition is asinine. Anyone who can do things like that without fear is either an utter fool, a sociopath, or an epic level character. Courage is overcoming your fear in order to do something. You can, in point of fact, have a courageous coward.
Jarsallen 11-06-07, 01:11 PM	Dying simply for honor is indeed one of the greatest forms of cowardice I disagree. It is simply putting a higher value on an abstract idea than on living. Value judgements are subjective, and on this matter subject to the opinions of society. If society thinks, as it often has in the various cultures throughout history, that it is more important to die well and achieve nothing than to live poorly and get something done, then that's that. I get that the modern mindset is very hell-bent on ends over means. But surely we can all see that there are differences of opinions on that, and that some cultures, particularly those that are likely to be created in Fantasy settings, are going to have a differnet viewpoint?
Cartigan 11-06-07, 02:20 PM	I'd call the squire 'smart' and the paladin 'Lawful Stupid'. There is no honor in suicide, and that's what that was. Exactly, he's a Paladin not a Samurai.
ravenshrike 11-07-07, 01:52 AM	I disagree. It is simply putting a higher value on an abstract idea than on living. Value judgements are subjective, and on this matter subject to the opinions of society. If society thinks, as it often has in the various cultures throughout history, that it is more important to die well and achieve nothing than to live poorly and get something done, then that's that. Cowardice and dishonor are two different things, and should not be construed as the same. It takes much more courage to live with dishonor than to die for the expediency of it. I should clarify, this applies only to those who hold with the notion of honor. Obviously one not bound by it wouldn't care.
Jarsallen 11-07-07, 11:52 AM	It takes much more courage to live with dishonor than to die for the expediency of it. That's certainly one view, though I would merely contend that it is a rare one, and one which few if any societies in history have ever maintained. So while I can plausibly imagine a culture that thinks of those who run away from fights as 'the brave ones' , I think that that culture will bear little or no resemblance to the societies that are more likely to appear in typical D&D games. On the other hand you may be trying to make some distinction between internal and external honor and bravery: A society can consider someone a coward while the individual considers himself brave. A society can judge a man dishonorable, while he thinks of his actions as following a personal code of honor. I have tried to point out over the pages that I think honor is necessarily a perception game- Malorey's Lancelot slept with the queen, but because no one called him on it (and lived), he was considered one of the most honorable knights. Victorian gentlemen would have mistresses and opium habits, but because such things weren't talked about, they maintained their honor. Honor is fundamentally a societal judgement. "I'm honorable because I say so" is a meaningless statement. A case I suppose could be made for bravery being a question of truth, rather than perception. One who overcomes fear in order to act is brave, even if others, not privy to the internal struggle of the individual, perceive that action to be cowardice. That's little solace to an individual in real life, however, if he is interested in his reputation- he'll still be considered a coward by his peers, despite knowing differently. In this case, NPCs will still call such a person a coward. They'll just be wrong- NPCs aren't all knowing, after all, and will judge based on what they see, not what the DM or player knows. As a side note (and this doesn't apply to everyone- I've just witnessed it in the past), I think it's all too easy to meta-game away cowardice. While as a player I can watch my buddy take 150 HP of damage in a round, then state perfectly calmly "Well, tactically it's more sound to retreat because I can't do anything to keep from being hit and I can't take 150 HP of damage, and it looks like that critter is capable of doing that much every round", it's important to realize that my character probably just saw his buddy get shredded to pieces. While meta-gamingly I'm just doing math and moving my character-object around dispassionately for the maximum effect, in character it is most likely true that my character just wet himself and is fleeing for his life in a panic. But of course players sometimes don't want to imagine their brave character acting like that, so it is probably not uncommon that they come up with elaborate justifications for why their characters are doing what they are doing. Some people enjoy playing Mary Sue, and more power to them. Cowardice and dishonor are two different things, and should not be construed as the same. Historically the line has been very much blurred, so I wouldn't write that off as you have. Traditional honor is sex based and rooted in very few traits- Women are virtuous and virginal, and men are brave and courageous. Honor in the western world has gone through a few transformations. The medieval knight's honor of might-making-right as seen in Le Morte d'Arthur and Lancelot eventually gave way to the Victorian gentleman's honor which was closely tied to religion and virtue. The Victorian model lasted up to WWI, where people noticed that the brave charge for king and country didn't work so well against machine gun nests and mustard gas. Honor became anti-honor: Being brave is stupid and unproductive. An 'honorable' man wasn't someone who sacrificed his life for his country, but instead was the 'peaceful protestor', or the ethical objector. I see a lot of that in people's responses, which I'm not surprised at- it's a modern conception of honor and it's easy to imagine that things haven't changed much. But they really have in this area of society. As a poster on the early pages pointed out, there was a time when French knights would charge numerically superior foes and get eradicated to a man for no other reason than the hope that they would be considered brave by the widows and children they left at home. If we heard of a battalion of troops doing that today, we'd call them morons. But that's not always how it was or needs to be.
Etarnon 11-10-07, 08:17 PM	No, that just gets you dead. Fighting a battle that you cannot win, no matter what, isn't honorable, it's just stupid. If every person in uniform thought this way, it'd be a hell of a country to live in. You have no future in the US Military. Normandy Beach Iwo Jima Tarawa The individual might have to die, but his nation lives on.
Grumman 11-10-07, 09:01 PM	Normandy Beach Iwo Jima Tarawa And what do these three battles have in common? The Allies fought battles they could, and did win. So how in the nine hells did you think they refuted Salla's argument?
Etarnon 11-11-07, 08:43 AM	Except that we are talking about individuals in those battles who died knowing they likely would, but pressed on anyway. Not whole nations or the generals and admirals picking and choosing where to deploy, and fight. Unless I missed something. I agree that they fought the enemies in the cavern, and that was notable as far as it went. When it got to be too much they left. What bothers me is that stat-based analysis of levels and HP and such, but whatever. As a DM, I wouldn't rule them cowards, just mercenaries with an unfinished mission. When it is all about money, it's a value judgement of G.P. vs ongoing PC life.
Dawnshadow 11-11-07, 11:06 AM	And there's Dieppe. Or Passiondale (sp.. not looking that one up) Fight to the death in a battle you don't know you can win is perfectly valid.. if the persons calling the shots are of sufficient training, intelligence and competence. But.. it can also be nothing but a massive waste of lives. It's neither good nor bad. It really depends a lot on the persons at the top of the pile. In this situation? Very, very reasonable retreat.
Grumman 11-11-07, 12:23 PM	Except that we are talking about individuals in those battles who died knowing they likely would, but pressed on anyway. Not whole nations or the generals and admirals picking and choosing where to deploy, and fight. Even on the individual level, they were still fighting because they believed that by fighting, they could increase the possibility of a positive income. Whether they fought because they thought they could slightly increase the chance of the US beating Japan or because they thought they could increase the chance that their mates would make it back alive, they did it because of the potential to help achieve something they felt was worthwhile. In the OP's example, the PCs didn't feel that continuing to fight had a significant chance of aiding a positive outcome, so they didn't.
Sezarious 11-14-07, 07:56 AM	I still think it's fair enough. If they have the oportunity, go away and heal up. You aren't giving up. Killing that dragon would be just like mowing the lawn. you start the job and if you get thirsty, you go inside and have a drink. The OP wasn't really cowardly anyway. He's not afraid for his own life, but just thinking "ooh, we'd better move out before our characters die and heal them up". If it was real life, then it may be cowardly, but i don't think that it really matters. I think he needs to just accept what he did and be happy with it.
Sezarious 11-14-07, 08:04 AM	Also i should mention that sometimes when a person is tempted to get into a fight in real life, it takes mental effort to prevent themselves, where it would be so much easier to throw a punch. Honour is an ideal that a lot of people try to live up to. It is societies expectation and its being forced onto you. To be truly honourable, you really have to ignore the primal emotians of anger and frustration and decide about waht is more important. Your life, or an idea brought on by your society. And in this chance, he's NOT quiting and running away to cry, but just pulling back (and in a lot of battles, pulling back has saved a great many lives and helped people to win battles (as do honourable deaths but as mentioned before, ther can be honour in having the ability to turn away)).
JimProfit 11-14-07, 03:15 PM	I want to say what you did was reasonable but I cannot. You were lucky the black dragon did not decide to chase you. If he did, fleeing would not have helped now would it? Black dragons are evil alignment, they're not going to let you run away out of mercy. They either find you useless to thier time, have an altirior motive, or are simply THAT lazy. I would not have relied on running.. not when the major factor of being killed is the dragon's personality.
Sezarious 11-14-07, 08:47 PM	I want to say what you did was reasonable but I cannot. You were lucky the black dragon did not decide to chase you. If he did, fleeing would not have helped now would it? Black dragons are evil alignment, they're not going to let you run away out of mercy. They either find you useless to thier time, have an altirior motive, or are simply THAT lazy. I would not have relied on running.. not when the major factor of being killed is the dragon's personality. You know, you're right. If the DM was working properly, those players shouldn't have been able to escape.
1red13 11-14-07, 11:16 PM	I get the feeling that the dm had intended one last great adventure where they overcame the near impossible. As the encounter unfolded the pcs weren't willing to wait out the dms benevolence so that there was a nice tidy ending and they fled. The dm had to rationalize his choices and the pcs found his logic less than compelling and he just said "Why did you run. You just about defeated them" I'm guessing it was less about honour and more about saving face for a bit of poor planning on the dms part.
JimProfit 11-15-07, 12:20 AM	I would've just made it the illussion of a black dragon and give it a huge will save requirement. Epic lulz.
Grumman 11-15-07, 03:11 AM	I would've just made it the illussion of a black dragon and give it a huge will save requirement. Epic lulz. An absolutely stupid idea. There's a reason that "It was all a dream" is usually considered to be a mistake in writing. Speaking from experience, finishing up a campaign with that sort of junk goes a long way to ruining the entire campaign in the players' memory. Even if you used it, you'd need some kind of spellcaster who created the illusion, and you'd need a reason why.
Lunar_Shadow 11-16-07, 08:40 AM	I personally beleive that the OP's retreat was resonable and not at all cowardly. They (probally) just retreated to regroup, rest, and go back in. Now if they don't go back to finish the job(or at least try), then it's cowardly.
kelvinaw273 11-16-07, 11:34 AM	There is a fine definition between 'Pride' and 'Honour'. Killing your sister because she married somebody you didn't approve of is 'Pride'. Not retreating because people might say bad things about you is 'Pride'. Going in to rescue the maiden from the dragon because you promised her father on his deathbed you'd do all you could to see her safe is 'Honour'. Not fighting the guy you can squish like a bug when he insults you, because you don't want to shed the fool's blood is 'Honour' even if the whole village laughs at you for it. The characters were brave to even attempt fighting those power levels, given the odds stacked against them at the start. What was there to gain by fighting to the death? Without knowing the circumstances, their choice to retreat seems on the balance of things not dishonourable - after all, the Knights Templar were permitted to (and did) retreat when outnumbered more than three to one. It hurt their Pride, but was not considered Dishonourable. Given that their only gain was not to fulfill a promise or rescue a person, but merely treasure, their retreat is reasonable. They lost nothing of their sworn goals, especially if they could rest up and take on that dragon another day. So no, it wasn't cowardice. Fear did not rule them, the survivors stayed together and made a good escape. Splitting and running by ones and twos would have been cowardice.