Pulling Your Punches

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

First, don't make assumptions. If you're a classic AD&D style paladin/holy warrior, you probably have the ability to Detect Good/Evil or something like it. Get in the habit of using your power, and trying to verify the results, BEFORE you go into combat. It could turn out that the farmers AREN'T innocents, but have a sideline in banditry, etc. when they're not farming.

This is a good point if the GM is into rational world building. Ordinary farmers don't bring their farming tools with them to the tavern, let alone grand-dad's saber. And if somebody did have a farming tool on them for some reason and popped in for a drink, they'd normally leave it at or outside the door, not bring it with them to the table where it is just going to get in the way - low tech buildings don't have huge amounts of open space. If they're already drinking and armed with something more dangerous than eating knives, they're pretty suspicious already.

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by malloyd

If there isn't, then there isn't anything wrong with using deadly force against them either right? You're just defending yourself against potentially deadly assault.

You generally lose the privilege of self-defense if you initiate the violence or committing a crime at the time.

The humans made some cat-calls and the dwarf initiated the violence with arguably lethal force. The dwarf (and his allies) normally can't claim self-defense at this point.

Admittedly, I'd assume that the dwarf's player didn't think the chair was a deadly weapon, and that the humans were escalating to potentially lethal force, which makes the situation more complicated.

I'd definitely want to have a discussion with the GM about the entire situation - is anyone innocent here? Why are these peasants responding to the opening move of a bar brawl with deadly weapons? But then I'd also want to talk with my fellow players about appropriate character and party design, because "Classical AD&D Paladin" and "Beardy Grimdark, Sadistic Humorless Murderous Berserker" don't really belong in the same delving group.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by malloyd

If there isn't, then there isn't anything wrong with using deadly force against them either right? You're just defending yourself against potentially deadly assault.

Pretty sure in most legal jurisdictions you lose the right to defend yourself with deadly force against deadly force if you were the one who initiated deadly force.

Originally Posted by malloyd

But note that this is not what "innocent" means in constructions like this. It is not an opposite of wrong, or guilty, or even involved, it's an opposite of noxious - i.e. capable of or likely to cause harm.

Doesn't seem that useful since in theory anyone is "capable" of causing harm.

As far as "likely", who is to say? Maybe they took out their weapons to deter further attacks? Perhaps to parry future attacks?

Taking out a weapon when someone smashes in your friend's face doesn't mean "definitely gonna cause harm with that weapon".

Originally Posted by malloyd

People with drawn weapons might be innocent, but the evidence is leaning against it, particularly if they are deliberately threatening you with them or you know they are prone to violence in the first place.

All we know in this situation is 6 farmers stood and armed themselves when their friend was attacked, the Paladin flubbed his social roll and 4 more of them stood up. We go from there to "he rushes two".

Let's keep in mind here that this Paladin came dressed for war - he's in full platemail here carrying a shield. Meanwhile only one of these 11 men had a weapon - a rusty old army saber - an antique. The rest of them were unarmed and had to improvise weapons (stools/bottles/tools)

Originally Posted by malloyd

Of course your comrade who is starting a fight isn't innocent in [either] sense, so yeah, tackling and perhaps even killing him and damn party cohesion is probably the right move for a guardian of capital G Good, though GURPS holy warriors aren't bound to quite as an insane a standard as D&D ones "officially" are.

Honestly it's not even about being capital-G good, it's just a logical pragmatic move.

Inevitably if you're gonna fail to silver-tongue your way out of a situation you should be talking with your fists and judo-flipping the chair-throwing dwarf as the opening salvo of your negotiations for peace.

If all you do is merely talk about don't disable the violent attacker then it's basically being an accessory for oppression.

Originally Posted by malloyd

Ordinary farmers don't bring their farming tools with them to the tavern, let alone grand-dad's saber

Eh that seems ordinary enough to me. Maybe the saber was on the wall (belonged to the bardender's dad?). Maybe there's a toolsmith who comes to drink and sometimes knowing he'll be there people drop off tools for him to repair when they meet to have a friendly drink.

Originally Posted by malloyd

if somebody did have a farming tool on them for some reason and popped in for a drink, they'd normally leave it at or outside the door, not bring it with them to the table where it is just going to get in the way

Bringing it to the table seems like the best way to keep it secure.

After all, this is a bar where any random violent chair-throwing dwarf stranger can just saunter in un-checked, and where they let guys in full platemail walk in.

Originally Posted by malloyd

low tech buildings don't have huge amounts of open space. If they're already drinking and armed with something more dangerous than eating knives, they're pretty suspicious already.

Maybe this place is unusually spacious.
Maybe there's been a lot of tool-thieving lately which is why the farmers are on edge and have their possessions with them.

I don't really buy any kind of "he brought his shovel with him to the table, he must be plotting something, so it's okay for me to ram my shield into his nose" sort of logic.

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Why are these peasants responding to the opening move of a bar brawl with deadly weapons?

Maybe because they have a realistic appreciation for violence? Fists, much less thrown chairs, can be deadly weapons.

Even without being deadly directly, something which can merely be 'crippling' like MA137's "Broken Nose" can still be seen as life-threatening, since being disabled by a major wound could precede someone finishing you off.

[Inky]

This seems like a conflict between normal logic, i.e. "the farmers would be stupid to pick a fight with an armed man, however short, and if they did the paladin would be within his rights to just yank the berserker out of the room", and D&D logic, i.e. "the DM makes a level-appropriate combat out of the materials available and the PCs fight their way through it until all the opponents are lying down". The farmers' HP also seems to be following D&D logic, i.e. low-level human characters have less HP than high-level ones.

Originally Posted by Jhanis

The dwarf who has Bad Temper, Berserk, Blood Lust

Just pointing out that these three in combination sometimes seem to be referred to as the "nightmare combination" in GURPS due to the way their mechanics interact (turning the character into a semi-uncontrollable killing machine whenever Bad Temper is triggered) and are often reserved for monsters. And Sadism's text calls out that many GMs don't allow it for PCs unless it's a grimdark or "all evil party" game.
If your GM wasn't aware of these things, it might be wise to take another look at that and consider whether the dwarf's player can change his sheet retrospectively since it was an honest mistake on both sides.

It sounds like both you and the GM are a bit new to the GURPS combat rules. As johndallman pointed out, you did, in fact, manage to knock the farmer out, without either you or your GM realising it. "Between 0 HP and -1xHP and failed an HT roll to stay conscious" roughly is how "knocked out" is represented in GURPS - see Basic Set page 419. Death saves don't even come up until the character is at -1x their maximum HP, which for this farmer is -5 HP. It might get a lot easier once you've had some practice.

And yes, knocking the dwarf down and sitting on him might be a reasonable move here :-D If the dwarf is Berserk, he has to fight stupidly (must make All-Out Attacks or Move and Attacks whenever possible, etc.), so that might make some of Pursuivant's tactics easier to pull off than they would when the dwarf is in a more usual state of mind.

Originally Posted by JulianLW

Sure. But as written, at HP 5, these guys have exactly 1 more HP than a standard domesticated housecat. If they're strong enough to pick up sabers and chairs, at 5 HP, those farmers have lost a lot of blood already - or something equally dire. I wonder why they're picking fights in bars instead of at home in bed.

EDIT: Basic puts a housecat at ST 4 and HP 4. Pizard's Animalia puts a housecat at ST 5, HP 5. So these farmers are about as strong (in terms of HP, at least) as 6 housecats.

Ah, so it is D&D! :-D

[RGTraynor]

Huh. Did I wander into a D&D board by mistake?

Right off the top, the whole "oh, one of them has a saber and they're all opposing the PCs, so none of them can be innocents and it's okay to kill them all" is utter murderhobo bulls**t, of the same ilk as the D&Ders who claim that it's "lawfulgood" to kill all the mook guards, because they dare to stand between the PCs and their objective, so of course they must all be "evil."

For my money, a bunch of farmers are RIGHT to not just blithely assume that a group of heavily armed and armored outsiders, who just caved one of their friends' face in with a chair, can be trusted to keep this an affair of friendly weapons-free fisticuffs.

But the big takeaway is that the GM has a lot to learn about GURPS. I join with others in agreeing that short of a village inhabited by kobolds or eight-year olds, farmers with HP 5 is absurd, that doing 6 HP of damage to one will not kill him, and that Bad Temper+Berserk+Bloodlust+No Sense of Humour+Sadism is just a psycho killer wandering around loose, so what the freaking hell was the GM thinking not to have said (well in advance) "Nice try, pal, but hell no?"

[Jhanis]

Hi fellow gurps enthusiasts, thanks for all the replies, it's cleared some things up for me. I didn't know I could choose less ST, it makes sense though, I've played the game for about 3 years but never played a pacifist type. It's always been "Bad guy. Kill." haha

As for the scenario, we have just added a new player who has never played any TTRPG before, so the DM wanted an easy encounter for her to learn the basic combat stuff. That's why they were all HP 5 and had swords.

Also, the plot hook was that at least one would die, so the mayor could give us an ultimatum: "Explore the Abby where every adventurer sent has disappeared, or be executed for murder."

When it comes to "Roll Initiative" I know it's supposed to go based on the speed of the characters. But we homebrewed a rule of speed plus die roll, to decide the turn order. So it's not always the same and allows some variety. The speedy builds have a higher chance at going first, but sometimes they might just have a brain fart and another player jumps in first.

My Paladin is actually a Paladin of Tymora (I know DnD goddess, but shush), so he's a Paladin of Luck. Which I thought would be a fun one to play. The basic gist is:

"Sir Conrad Westgate (Two Vegas Casinos, thought it fitting heh) was a rather wealthy knight. However he developed a slight gambling problem, resulting in the loss of his land, serfs, castle, wife, and his favourite butler.

At his lowest point he rolled dice for his life against a disciple of Bashaba, goddess of bad luck, and won. This amused her sister the goddess Tymora who offered him a job as her Paladin."

She granted him spells, with a gambling twist. For example:

Faith Healing
Costs FP to recover HP, up to a max of 3. (basically Minor Healing)
Roll a die. Evens, heal double the HP, Odds lose double the FP.

He must also, always accept a fair bet. If he suspects they're cheating, it's more of a grey area, but he will endeavour to prove they are cheating and punish them for doing so.

He has the Daredevil skill, and the headcanon for it, is that the goddess Tymora blesses him with extra luck when he takes a risk. Hence the +1 to a skill and reroll.

So he's not exactly a "good" character, he's more a Lawful Neutral. Follows the rules set out by the goddess, but see's all other laws as....negotiable.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

...and that Bad Temper+Berserk+Bloodlust+No Sense of Humour+Sadism is just a psycho killer wandering around loose, so what the freaking hell was the GM thinking not to have said (well in advance) "Nice try, pal, but hell no?"

LoL...ah memories.

Tho to be fair no one had No Sense of Humor (indeed since 1E hadn't quite published yet I do not think it even 'existed'). Also the text on Sadism has moved a lot over the editions.

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.

Again assuming newer GURPS players some adjustments should be made in character construction.

Otherwise maybe move one player from the Friday Run to the Sunday Run.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Plane

Pretty sure in most legal jurisdictions you lose the right to defend yourself with deadly force against deadly force if you were the one who initiated deadly force.

I believe it's simply if you were the one to initiate the conflict, not necessarily if you were the first to escalate to deadly force, at least here in the US. There was somewhat-recently a rather high-profile trial where the prosecution's entire case relied on this, arguing the defendant's actions were what initiated the conflict, and thus when he used lethal force against those who were attempting the same against him, he wasn't protected by self-defense laws.

But that's legal, and Cannot Harm Innocents doesn't concern itself with legal self-defense. CHI is somewhat-misnamed, but it notes there are no restrictions against you starting a fight, but that you can only resort to lethal means if your opponent does the same. The farmers all drew lethal weapons and engaged in combat with the paladin and his ally; they are no longer protected by Cannot Harm Innocents, even though the dwarf arguably started it. He'd need a different Disadvantage - an appropriate Vow, or perhaps Honesty (if the law is on the side of the farmers).

That said, I suspect at least one of the characters is in the wrong campaign - and if the GM thinks "Lethal bar-fight with a bunch of farmers" is a good way to teach a new player the combat system, it may well be the Paladin.

[Jhanis]

Originally Posted by Witchking

LoL...ah memories.

Tho to be fair no one had No Sense of Humor (indeed since 1E hadn't quite published yet I do not think it even 'existed'). Also the text on Sadism has moved a lot over the editions.

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.

Again assuming newer GURPS players some adjustments should be made in character construction.

Otherwise maybe move one player from the Friday Run to the Sunday Run.

Haha, yeah we have kinda tweaked the "Cannot hard innocents" into "Cannot kill innocents". So if I knock them out, I cannot kill them. If they're unarmed, I refuse to fight them, or hand them a weapon. Let the bad guy stand up and ready himself. That kind of thing.

My Paladin is not exactly Lawful Good, he's more Lawful Neutral. Following the laws as laid down by his goddess, but it's not entirely by his moral choice. He used to be a knight, so has had to fight in war, and knows that sometimes there is no choice.

His relationship with the dwarf is more "please try not to kill anyone, I'd rather not have to deal with the mess again. We were chased out of the last town and you still have the arrow wound in your left buttcheek as a souvenir"

So he see's himself as, sort of the dwarfs moral conscience. Trying to keep him out of prison and on the straight and narrow.....have you ever read the webcomic Order Of The Stick, with the murder hobo barbarian halfling, the kleptomaniac rogue, and their ever-stressed-out "lawful good" fighter? Heh

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Plane

Doesn't seem that useful since in theory anyone is "capable" of causing harm.

Yeah it's entirely possible to interpret it pathologically. Try that at my table and you get the same response you would to interpreting the other meaning of "innocent" as "no human is innocent since they are all guilty of original sin, and therefore my vow doesn't restrain me at all".

After all, this is a bar where any random violent chair-throwing dwarf stranger can just saunter in un-checked, and where they let guys in full platemail walk in.

Fair point. They let an adventuring party through the gate fully kitted out, so this clearly isn't a town that has much in the way of sane weapons laws.

Maybe because they have a realistic appreciation for violence? Fists, much less thrown chairs, can be deadly weapons.

So they figure they'll respond with improvised weapons to attack the guys in full armor and carrying real weapons? I'm not seeing much realistic appreciation for violence here. People with a realistic appreciation for violence should know better than to try to start fights with members of an unknown heavily armed group - and no they don't get to claim mocking heavily armed strangers doesn't constitute trying to start a fight, it is a clearly forseeable risk, especially for anybody who regularly patronizes a seedy tavern that lets people sit around armed.