Death and Retirement

[Creamsteak]

No, in LEW, an evil character has to be more subtle. Going on adventures with good types suits him just fine...but while they're motivated by saving the princess or enhancing their reputation, he'll be motivated by sheer greed or political ambition. He won't backstab a party member, but an elaborate political betrayal that takes several adventures to arrange will be right up his alley. He won't pick pocket other PCs or steal from their packs, but he'll be all too happy to report that there was nothing of interest in the alcove of the ruined monestary while secretly slipping the remains of the gold candelabra into the folds of his cloak. Against that background, why shouldn't there be a way for good and evil PCs to associate?

That is a very good example of how an evil character could act. It makes sense that an evil adventurer would be willing to work to better himself, even when it's not necessarily the "evilest" thing to do. However, I can think of other examples too, obviously.

In short, LEW should be different because we want it to be fun. If it is determined that having to worry about evil PCs betraying you detracts from the overall fun of the game, then that behavior should not be allowed. (Not making any statements as to what is or is not detracting from the game, just the rationale)

The problem with that is, if we made a blanket statement, "no PvP", we could potentially cut out something that is fun for a particular set of people. A more general, and I feel acceptable, rule would to let common sense win the day. If another player wants to get their character away from that kind of scene, or a DM doesn't want to deal with that sort of content, they have EVERY right to. No one individual should have the right to detract from the fun of another person for greater enjoyment of their own.

"Understand that you are playing with other people, and not everyone enjoys the same things. If a DM or player doesn't feel comfortable with something, they have every right to avoid it. If someone asks that something be stopped, as a player or DM, everyone else involved should respect that request."

That right there would cover any of the examples outlined above, and it covers other circumstances, (like a DM that doesn't want to deal with drugs/sex/torture in their games, or a player that's uncomfortable with that kind of content).

 

[Creamsteak]

Lets use the mechanical aspect of Knight Otu's proposal (the levels lost from death/retirement/creating a new character, etc.).

But, for simplicities sake, for the costs of resurrection, lets just say the following:

Resurrection is available in Living EN World. It is considered common knowledge (DC 5 intelligence check) that there is a temple of Hyrag in the Godspires district of the City of Sanctus near the northernmost post of En World where even the most powerful resurrection magic can be performed by a sufficiently powerful priest. The costs to perform such a spell are expensive (the same as the cost listed in the Dungeon Masters Guide), and the material components can be purchased on site for their normal value. There may very well be other temples capable of performing this feat, but none of them speak publicly about these services. The temple of Hyrag is glad to perform this service for anyone of any alignment, but absolutely never discounts the cost, even for a priest of Hyrag.



Does that work for everyone?

 

[Dexerion]

that sounds perfect

 

[Zweischneid]

We already had an incident where a "paladin" and a "rogue" decided to go at each other's throats over something in the bar that didn't make any sense. The good character wasn't being any better than the evil one. They were both doing something that was seriously detracting from the fun of the game and everyone around them.

Meanwhile, if I'm playing a Blackguard and Gnomeworks is playing a Paladin, and we both have a common goal, I don't see why we can't work together. I also think that, if perhaps, one of them decides that they must challenge the other at some leg in the journey, in a mature and reasonable fashion, that's absolutely fine.

Hmm, your examples kinda prove the point don't they? As long as everything goes well along players and everyone is enjoying their good vs. evil gaming, than there is hardly a need for any rulings, etc..

Rules and/or guidelines are only ever made for the event things fall apart, for those badly out of line situations when the players (not the characters) are starting to get at each others throath and the whole game is suffering.

----------

The Resurrection thing works fine...

 

[Creamsteak]

Hmm, your examples kinda prove the point don't they? As long as everything goes well along players and everyone is enjoying their good vs. evil gaming, than there is hardly a need for any rulings, etc..

Rules and/or guidelines are only ever made for the event things fall apart, for those badly out of line situations when the players (not the characters) are starting to get at each others throath and the whole game is suffering.

Go back and look at the EN World (the website/forum) rules. They are intentionally vague, but so incredibly easy to understand and follow that I'm amazed that people step outside of their guidelines sometimes. I don't see why an arbitrary rule needs to exist if we can all just follow some more general standards of courtesy.

 

[azmodean]

Concerning the ressurection issue, I agree with Dexerion's point that it seems to take something away from the game when death isn't a big deal (at low level especially). That is not to say that I am against ressurection overall, keeping the cost of obtaining a ressurection spell at the level stated in the DMG seems perfectly acceptable to me, and officially recognising that
1. it is available
2. The (normal) church does not make deals on it (leaving it open to individual DMs to perhaps offer discounts when they feel it is warranted)
makes the whole situation very clear. (I especially like the suggested intelligence check)

 

[Knight Otu]

I'm not sure if I got voting rights for this, but I approve of Creamsteaks take on the resurrection issue.

 

[Dexerion]

yea

i agree that creamstreaks proposal is the most fair and reasonable. but i think that judges should make it a point to keep up with resurrection so that some latter dms don't get away with cutting deals and discounting cost. making it too easy takes a lot of the challenge out of the game. much like the suggestion on evil and good characters working together.

 

[Patlin]

Could we get a resolution on this issue? We've now got an actual character death, so it's a more urgent matter.

My personal preference is to get the character back in the game with a minimum of punishment. I don't believe characters should be punished for taking on dangerous challenges.

[Being Silly]

DM: As your character comes around the corner, you see a pair of absolutely normal butterflies. What do you do?
Player 1: My God! We could get hurt! I throw a fireball at them! That's 8d6 damage, reflex save for half.
DM: You have killed the butterflies!
Player 2: Wow! That was close, anyone need some healing?

[/Being Silly]

 

[Patlin]

Lets use the mechanical aspect of Knight Otu's proposal (the levels lost from death/retirement/creating a new character, etc.).

But, for simplicities sake, for the costs of resurrection, lets just say the following:

Resurrection is available in Living EN World. It is considered common knowledge (DC 5 intelligence check) that there is a temple of Hyrag in the Godspires district of the City of Sanctus near the northernmost post of En World where even the most powerful resurrection magic can be performed by a sufficiently powerful priest. The costs to perform such a spell are expensive (the same as the cost listed in the Dungeon Masters Guide), and the material components can be purchased on site for their normal value. There may very well be other temples capable of performing this feat, but none of them speak publicly about these services. The temple of Hyrag is glad to perform this service for anyone of any alignment, but absolutely never discounts the cost, even for a priest of Hyrag.

This seems to be the consensus. Does it require a vote?