From: scythe@stein.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: Bastard DM from Hell &a matter of Honour
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:08:24 GMT

In article <1gm3qoINN2f2@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au> phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.184131.1@economics.adelaide.edu.au>, ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>
>I suppose *as* the Bastard DM from Hell, I should make a few comments
>about what Rob has said.  I also should note that we have had several
>thousand lines of e-mail discussion on these very points...
>
>> What part does honour play in the world of ADND?  Is it a code which affects
>> only those who subscribe to it (certain knights of the church, honourable
>> warriors etc.)  or does it apply to the whole world?  Is it similar to the
>> honour system of medieval Europe? Feudal Japan? or what.
>
>In my opinion, honour is a function of society and not the other way
>around.  The entire *concept* of honour is artificial.  What is more
>honourable about being killed with a sword as compared to a poisoned
>dagger?  Surely dead is dead.  Some societies *choose* to make
Well... not with raise dead, it ain't =)

>arbitrary decisions like, "You may kill an opponent, but only using
>the following techniques...".  Rob suggested that everyone knows what
>honour is, and some groups choose to ignore it.  I disagree, no
>everyone has a concept of honour at all, so applying foreign concepts
>to them is unreasonable.  If you consider it, honour is not
>intelligent - you kill your opponents with the easiest technique that
>is least likely to get you killed.  Not wave big knives at each other
>until one falls down.
Honor can be intelligent and noble.  It can also be stupid and brutal.
It depends on the circumstance.

>

>> Is trial by combat a recognised form of settling disputes?  Or does this lead
>> to a "my stick is bigger than your stick, might is right" syndrome (as it 
>> usually did in medieval times) which is unjustifiable in ADnD?
>
>Trial by combat may well have existed in the medieval times, but in
>AD&D terms it could not be considered a good act.  It does lead
>directly to the "might is right" syndrome.  Consider, the young
>upstart noble decides to challenge the wise old sage on a point of
>history.  The noble will win (assuming the sage has no special powers)
>and hence the noble is correct?  I don't think so.  In a situation
>where a duel is offered and accepted then I feel that this is the only
>time that trial by combat is fair.
So?  The noble would have no sense of honor if he challenged an inferior.
And also, duels are not meant to settle that sort of thing.  Duels usually
settle other points of honor, such as who has offended who.

>
>> In a situation like this I felt that having exhausted every other avenue of
>> interrogation we should start threatening him with all manner of diabolical
>> things.  However my DM ruled that my paladinly training prevented me  from
>> applying the rack (even though our opponent was below honour) and I couldn't
>> challenge him to a duel to decide the issue.
>
>As I pointed out in e-mail, torture does not get the truth.  It gets
>what ever the victim believes the torturer wants to hear.  A perfect
>example is from the movie "The Name of the Rose".  The Inquisitor can
>not get a (wrongful) confession from a priest, so he threatens the
>priest with "hot irons".  The priest then confesses *anything* to
>avoid the torture - even though what he confesses to, he is in no way
>guilty of!
>
>As described above, trial by combat will also not get any sort of
>truth.
Perhaps.  If both participants are honorable, it will.  
Torture does not get the truth, either.  In fact, there is no way to get the
truth out of anyone.  There.  Happy?  If a person doesn't want to tell
you something, he won't.  Simple.  But---- most people/humanoids are not
that dedicated to their knowledge.  Especially chaotic theif-types, who
would probably be more than willing to save their lives at the expense of
others.

>
>> In a situation like this where
>> does a paladin go?  If they are to be effective they will need information yet
>> if an opponent refuses to give it they are effectively hamstrung.  So where do
>> they go?
>
>I have thought of this for some time, and I believe that the following
>is reasonable.  A paladin my not have many *things*, and may not keep
>much money, so I would have the paladin spend some aquired cash on
>clerical scrolls such as "detect lie", etc.  These one-shot magical
>items (as well as potions) I do not consider to count towards magical
>item limits for character classes.  The spell *will* tell you whether
>he is telling the truth, no other physical technique will.  Other
>useful spells for the same techniques are "hold person" and "charm
>person".
>
>> Secondly, who deserves to be treated with honour.
>[stuff deleted]
>> does he treat
>> a contemptible thief with disdain and refuse to apply the code to him (after
>> all if he backstabs rather than fights like a man how honourable can he be?)
>> and thus break him as a lowly curr deserves to be broken, or does he allow the
>> thief to simply say "I'm sorry" and let him go?
>
>Think lawful good.

Lawful Good.  Not Lawful Gullible.  Or Stupid Good.  Paladins are NOT STUPID.
Don't make him play his paladin like a sucker.

>
>> yet when the thief refused to give me information and said
>> "I truly repent of my evil ways" I had to accept his word.
>
>I will repeat this for the good of the world.  The captive NEVER SAID
>THIS.  In the encounter that this is based on, one of the clerics cast
>"Charm Person" on him and then asked him questions.
>
>> And what about creatures such as orcs etc?  Do I treat them as humans or equal
>> or as animals who are generally evil and below contempt?  This has no
>> historical counterpart so I am unsure.  Personally I would slay them as
>> representations of evil and darkness, but you may disagree.
>
>As we discussed in e-mail, I made the following point.  Because the
>Montrous Compendium (or Monster Manual or any other book) says that
>Orcs are Chaotic Evil, does *not* mean that all Orcs are CE.  It means
>that in general their society is CE.  There will be LG Orcs, but they
>are likely to be confined or killed for their heretical behaviour.  If
>an Orc surrenders, it does not mean that because it's aligment is
>evil, that it automatically is lying.  The aligments as specified in
>the tomes are exact only for unique monsters, and are a societal
>alignment for all others.

No, it doesn't.  But since CE is the NORM, you can usually assume
it's because he lying.  You don't assume that that red dragon *might*
be lawful good, and try and negotiate.  You go ahead and kill him.

>
>> Finally, with our captured thief it has been ruled that I must accept it if he
>> says he repents.
>
>Not quite.  You must be sure that he has repented, but it is up to you
>to find out if he has.  Again, magic is probably the only certain way
>to do this.
>
>> However I cannot demand that he give me any information about
>> his supposed former masters as that would make him even more contemtible as a
>> turncoat!!
>
>Repent does not mean: completely change alignment and now fall in with
>you and your cause.  It means: being sorry for the crimes you have
>committed and truely not intending to do them again.

That sounds like an alignment change to me.

>
>Also, as I pointed out to you and the rest of the party after the
>adventure, the reasons that the thief would not give up the information
>that you wanted were:
>
>(a)  He didn't have it.
>(b)  If he had had it, and had given it to you, then not only would he
>     have been killed, but so would have his entire family.  Either
>     way his death was certain, but he could at least spare his
>     relatives.
Maybe the thief should have pointed that out.

>
>> It seems to me that the Bastard DM from Hell is going all out to
>> make it impossible for us to get information quickly - and as everyone knows
>> speed is of the essence when small groups are involved.
>
>I am making you role-play a Paladin, rather that just a good fighter.
>You specifically wanted the challenge and you have it.
No.  You're making him role-play a cruel restrictive, STUPID paladin.

>
>> His argument is that
>> there must be some significant drawback to playing a paladin, my counter
>> argument is that allocating my best stat to Charisma and the huge exp
>> requirements are penalty enough.
>
>No it isn't.  As Rob and I have discussed, stats are not that
>important, especially in my games.  So you go up levels slower, but
>not much slower than mages.
>
>> If a paladin cannot force information from captured opponents
>> then how are they to function as a class?
>
>It is not their function to extract information from people.  That
>would be the job of the Inquisitors.  Anyone who thinks that they were
>paladins can stop reading now.
>
>> If they go on a quest for the
>> church, or for their steed etc. and they meet ONE lousy opponent who says "I'm
>> not telling you jack sh*t" then they are stuffed!  There must be some way for
>> them to get the info they need but what is it?
>
>I said it before, but it is worth repeating - magic.
>
>
>I have talked to many people, and not one has said that a Paladin can
>use torture under *any* circumstance.  Sorry dude.
Maybe.  It depends who the paladin's god is.
I might be willing to torture, if absolutely neccessary.  But
if it's absolutely necessary, there's probably another way 
(ESP, detect lie, etc)

>
>
>
>Phil.
>
>--
>   _-_|\    Phil Kernick                        "Sleep all day,
>  /     \   University of Adelaide               Party all night,
>  \_.-*_/   E-Mail: phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au    It's fun to be a
>       v    Phone:  +61 8 228 5914               Vampire!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When he goes swimming does he get wet, | The Grim Reaper
Or does the water get him instead?     | scythe@u.washington.edu
-They Might Be Giants, "Particle Man"  |
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Villager: She turned me into a newt!   |Lister, If two people came to you 
Bedevere: A newt?                      |for a job, and one of them was dead,
Villager: I got better.....            |who would you choose? -Rimmer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------