Pulling Your Punches

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Varyon

there have been many times throughout history where sufficiently-serious insults can be legally avenged by killing the offender.

I don't like those laws because it's unlikely they got applied fairly. The low-class would be punished for mockery while the high-class could do it unpunished.

Originally Posted by Varyon

This often took the shape of a formal duel (albeit not necessarily to the death), but the precedent exists. I'm not saying such killings were morally justified, but in the cultures where they occurred (and were legal), there's the implication that most people would find such killings to be justified.

Or that a silent majority of disenfranchised people always hated it but didn't have the capacity to overthrow it.

Duels weren't fair to those weaker in combat and sometimes the weaker person is the correct party.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Plane

Duels weren't fair to those weaker in combat and sometimes the weaker person is the correct party.

There are records of duels being carefully balanced to take size and strength into account. In one duel where a man had insulted a woman (both commoners) both parties were given padded armor and wooden clubs but the man was required to fight from a waist-deep hole in the ground while the woman was free to dance around him and take advantage of holding the high ground.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Tinman

The average human has 10 HP. It sounds like the GM is used to running D&D or something. He needs to be made aware that these are extremally frail farmers.

Alternately, the GM has decided that HP5 is the point where the farmers will stop fighting - run away, play dead, surrender, etc.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Jhanis

My Paladin is actually a Paladin of Tymora (I know DnD goddess, but shush), so he's a Paladin of Luck.

Fun idea. A Holy Warrior who's nominally "lawful" and "good," but with a huge amount of chaos and inadvertent "neutrality."

That throws the whole concept of "innocents" out on its ear. The farmers intentionally made a series of bad bets (taunt an obviously heavily armed and armored stranger in a way guaranteed to annoy even the most tolerant dwarf, then join combat rather than run like the wind once the dwarf went kinetic). They're now in the "find out" phase as to why they've made some very bad end-of-life choices. While the paladin might not be callous enough to follow the credo, "never give a sucker an even break," he might not feel an ethical need to help suckers out once they've accepted a bad bet.

As long as it's a fair fight, the paladin's job might effectively be that of referee. Fight defensively, keep shouting warnings to the farmers that they're in over their heads, protect anyone who asks for protection or who is obviously out of the fight, and step in to punish anyone who's obviously cheating (e.g., using dirty tricks).

If possible, he should use his healing powers to keep the most badly wounded farmers alive once they're out of combat. Depending on his exact ethics, he might try to pull the dwarf off downed foes if he views beating on a helpless victim as cheating.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Witchking

However speaking from experience if you have Pacifism: Cannot Harm Innocents (Nevermind SOD: Humanity + Pacifism Cannot Kill) you and the Dwarf will not be able to effectively adventure together in 90+% of games of my experience or that I can imagine.

The only way that you can justify such a partnership is if you rationalize your PCs role as that of "control rod" to keep the murder hobo from doing too much damage.

[Jhanis]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Fun idea. A Holy Warrior who's nominally "lawful" and "good," but with a huge amount of chaos and inadvertent "neutrality."

That throws the whole concept of "innocents" out on its ear. The farmers intentionally made a series of bad bets (taunt an obviously heavily armed and armored stranger in a way guaranteed to annoy even the most tolerant dwarf, then join combat rather than run like the wind once the dwarf went kinetic). They're now in the "find out" phase as to why they've made some very bad end-of-life choices. While the paladin might not be callous enough to follow the credo, "never give a sucker an even break," he might not feel an ethical need to help suckers out once they've accepted a bad bet.

As long as it's a fair fight, the paladin's job might effectively be that of referee. Fight defensively, keep shouting warnings to the farmers that they're in over their heads, protect anyone who asks for protection or who is obviously out of the fight, and step in to punish anyone who's obviously cheating (e.g., using dirty tricks).

If possible, he should use his healing powers to keep the most badly wounded farmers alive once they're out of combat. Depending on his exact ethics, he might try to pull the dwarf off downed foes if he views beating on a helpless victim as cheating.

That was my exact plan, the paladin was going to go to the bar and ask for "this much cider, this much rum, THIS much vodka, in the biggest glass you have, with a little paper umbrella in it please." Then use it to tempt the rabid dwarf off his latest victim and over to the bar.

But the DM wanted a combat tutorial. So I shield-checked a guy and accidentally murdered him. lmao

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

The only way that you can justify such a partnership is if you rationalize your PCs role as that of "control rod" to keep the murder hobo from doing too much damage.

Preeeety much, once the farmer shouted "HIGH HOOOO!" my paladin pinched the bridge of his nose, sighed and said "try not to kill anyone this time." Then 6 of them stood up with weapons so he tried diplomacy, critical fail, so 4 stood up. Then he drew his sword and shield and shouted "FIRST TO STEP UP, GETS LUCKED UP!" and the other 4 sat down again.

And yes, he uses puns a lot "By the odds!", "Odd bless you.", "Lucking hell!", "Luck it!" (I am open to more suggestions.)

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Plane

I don't like those laws because it's unlikely they got applied fairly. The low-class would be punished for mockery while the high-class could do it unpunished.

Oh, absolutely, throughout history the upper classes typically enjoy rights - even if not codified as such - that the lower classes lack. But I believe most duels in cultures with a codified dueling culture were between individuals who were more-or-less socioeconomic peers, and as others have noted there were often rules in place to make up for differences in strength and skill (like the man who had to fight in a shallow pit in a duel with a woman).

Of course, I'm not saying a dueling culture is a good thing, just that it may well be that the cultures of the setting may not see throwing a chair at someone for mockingly insulting you, your family, indeed your entire race, as an inappropriate response.

Originally Posted by Plane

Or that a silent majority of disenfranchised people always hated it but didn't have the capacity to overthrow it.

That's certainly a possibility, but in many ways it's human nature that insults should be avenged in some form. I believe it was Heinlein who stated "An armed society is a polite society - manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." I could see a lot of people preferring that; personally, I favor people being able to say whatever they want without fear of getting beat into a pulp (or shot, or whatever), and it sounds like you're in the same camp, but not everyone thinks that way.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Jhanis

Then the doors slammed shut on the investigating farmers and they were never heard from again. Then over the past few weeks, they have sent at least 4 adventuring parties inside, and every time the doors slammed shut and they disappeared.

Exactly who in this scenario is reporting these details? As reported no one has ever come back or been heard from again.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

The only way that you can justify such a partnership is if you rationalize your PCs role as that of "control rod" to keep the murder hobo from doing too much damage.

Well I actually had 3 such murder hobos. After the first combat where I was the only one to take a prisoner, after the fight ended they were bored. I spent 24 hrs awake to keep them from 'entertaining' themselves with the prisoner I was responsible for. By the end of the one and only session with them I was postmarked from the Friday Night Group to the Group the GM was running on Sundays...coincidentally (Sadist, etc) murder hobo free.

Early days learning steps. Now Question #1 or 2 for character creation is: 'What is everyone else running?'

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Jhanis

he tried diplomacy, critical fail, so 4 stood up. Then he drew his sword and shield and shouted "FIRST TO STEP UP, GETS LUCKED UP!" and the other 4 sat down again.

Very curious how the GM represented the crit-fail on your diplomacy manifesting, like wouldn't the GM tell you how you misphrased something that rubbed them the wrong way?

Anyway it seems like if they stand up, you could probably get a new kind of diplomacy roll if you began grappling the dwarf and pulling him out of the bar.

Standing your ground is basically like "my dwarf buddy attacked your friend yet he has the right of ground and you should retreat from your own bar"\\

Originally Posted by Varyon

I believe it was Heinlein who stated "An armed society is a polite society - manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." I could see a lot of people preferring that; personally, I favor people being able to say whatever they want without fear of getting beat into a pulp (or shot, or whatever), and it sounds like you're in the same camp, but not everyone thinks that way.

I grok the impulse to want to smash someone rude but recognize that sometimes this is indiscernable from an abuse in power. If we embrace the idea that we can smash someone for rudeness then the question remains who gets to decide on what is rude.