From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:27:45 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug23.170622.15979@technix.mn.org> bret@technix.mn.org (Bret Indrelee) writes:

>>Killing a thief without even giving him the right to defend himself
>>is not good.  Why not wait until his back is turned and then stab
>>him?  Or slit his throat in his sleep?  Because that's not how a Paladin
>>is supposed to act.  1)  It's not very honorable.  2)  It's not 'good'
>>(IMHO) to kill someone that can't fight back.  That's murder.

Note, I said "giving him the right to defend himself."  I didn't say a
fair fight.  As anyone who's ever been in a fight can tell you, there's
no such thing as a fair fight.

>Jorge, could you please enlighten me as to how a fight between a Paladin
>and a thief is a fair fight?

See above.  But, I'll take a shot anyway.

5th leve paladin, 6th level theif
equal weapons

thief THAC0 = 18, studded leather + DEX 18 = AC3.
thief chance to hit = 15 = 30%
thief hit points = 6 + 3.5 * 5 = 24 + 6 (Con 15) = 30

paladin THAC0 = 16, no strength bonus, banded mail + sheild = AC3
paladin chance to his = 13 = 40%
paladin hit points = 10 + 5.5 * 4 = 32

>Even with all this, the Paladin as +2 to hit over the thief and 2 more
>hit points to take damage.  Given a Paladin and a Thief of roughly
>equal experience, the thief WILL LOOSE!  In order for the thief to
>have a chance of winning, it CAN'T be a straight fight.  That isn't
>what the thief spent his life doing.  If it was, he would be a ranger
>or a fighter.

Agreed, but at least he has a chance.  Any theif of 6th level should have
a magic item that he can use (ring of invisibility maybe?).

>To repeat your own words back at you:
>>Killing a thief without even giving him the right to defend himself
>>is not good.

Again, I didn't say fair fight, I said giving him the right to defend
himself.

>What you are really doing when you give the thief a weapon and ask him
>to fight the paladin in mortal combat is giving the thief one last shot
>at escape.  Since the rest of the party is probably formed a circle
>around the combatants, it really isn't that great a chance of escape.

Well, considering that the ranger had to "hold the paladin back" in
the original post, I could see the thief making a break for it and
the others letting him escape.  It's pretty obvious that at least one
person thought the thief didn't deserve to die, and it's quite possible
that only the paladin thought death was warrented.

>The other interpretation is torture.  The thief is dead, you are just
>prolonging the execution of your death sentence.

Hardly.

>The thief would have a better chance of surviving if you gave him 
>10 minutes head start, and then had the ranger track him.  Somehow, 
>I think you would consider that evil (hunting a human) but it would 
>at least be closer to fair combat.

But the ranger wouldn't track him.  He was on the thief's side.

>It is only a fair fight if both people in the fight have a roughly
>equal chance of 'winning'.

Again, who said anything about a fair fight?  I'm talking about this
"Cut him in half before he has a chance to draw his dagger" that the
paladin was going to do.


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd