Results 271 to 282 of 282
Thread: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
-
2009-04-29, 02:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
-
2009-04-29, 02:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Remember there's at least a 5% chance of death each time, because rolling a 1 on a massive damage save is fatal.
But yeah, a high level fighter is assumed to know how to keep their wits about them when falling, and use the descent time to aim for the fluffy snow/haystack/springy branches/pond/marshy ground that's going to do the best job of ensuring survivability.
-
2009-04-29, 02:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Gender
-
2009-04-29, 05:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
There are also Luck feats, and the Clerical Pride domain. There are ways to buy exceptions to most of the D&D rules; this is no different. Still, most players aren't going to risk killing off their high-level fighters by jumping off cliffs repeatedly. Death is expensive. Not only is there the high cost of True Resurrection, but when your character dies on impact all their possessions become unattended and are likely to get destroyed -- dead characters don't get saving throws.
-
2009-04-29, 07:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Land of long white cloud
- Gender
-
2009-04-29, 09:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Gender
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Most of the time, the only real gauge of good or evil is going to come down to motive. Did he save the world to defend humanity, or to conquer it himself? Killing orcs to save a peasant will usually be good, but if he killed the orcs because he just doesn't like orcs, then it is closer to evil.
Generally speaking, if an act is done for selfless reasons it is good, if it is done for selfish reasons it is evil. if it can be classified as both, it is probably neutral. Very few acts are by definition truly good or evil: most people would outright classify rape as evil, but in a more animalistic society, that just might be the way things are. Ultimately, 90% of the time, the "why" matters more than the "what". Sadly, adding in crazy or delusional just makes things more complicated.
In the case of the aforementioned Evil Overlord's bodyguards. It depends on if they follow out of loyalty (probably Lawful), because they share his viewpoints (probably Evil), or because they actually believe he is benevolent and doing what is right (possibly Good). If they're outright fanatics, any alignment is possible, though most will wind up having the same alignment as whoever they're serving.
-
2009-04-29, 12:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
One thing that kinda ticked me off was how, near the end of 3.5's run, they started recycling pictures from books and changing the captions.
Wonder Woman (DC Girls in Sweaters Style) Avatar by Astrella.
NO FUN. NOT EVER.
Faulty, now available in other flavours:
last.fm
Metal Archives
-
2009-04-29, 05:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Gender
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
-
2009-04-29, 09:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Land of long white cloud
- Gender
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
And as you note even what seems a nobrainer, such as selflessness, is only a general rule. Through the "for your own good" meme it can easily become evil.
I suspect there is really no such thing as an evil act, Evil/Neutral/Good is on;y toggle states based on the infomation you currently have. Thus it is possible to give a brief description of an act and get an alignment opinion of the act, but as you add infomation you can toggle the alignment opinion. Essentailly the alignment of the act isn't based on what actually happened, but on what you thought was happening.
Rescuing the peasant from the orcs is good, but if you knew that the peasant had raped and tortured several orc children it would be evil, but further infomation could again toggle the alignment switch, if you know about it or can resonably be expected to know about it. Note the 2nd part. If you charge into a situation without naking a reasonable attempt to find out what the situation is then you can be held responsible alignment wise for the knowledge that you could have had but didn't. This includes knowledge ignore through arrogance or prejudice.
Stephen E
-
2009-04-29, 09:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
You're all putting way too much thought into the alignment system. Remember, the Talisman Of Pure Good and Talisman Of Ultimate Evil do exactly the same thing, just to different people.
-
2009-04-29, 10:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Brazil
- Gender
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Member of the Hinjo fan club. Go Hinjo!
"In Soviet Russia, the Darkness attacks you."
"Rogues not only have a lot more skill points, but sneak attack is so good it hurts..."
-
2009-04-29, 10:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- The Land of Cleves
- Gender
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
To change the topic off of alignment:
I'm a human, with a below-average Str, and I've never made any sort of effort to train myself to jump better. I can consistently jump about 5 or 6 feet, but no more than that.
Now, according to the rules, I have a total Jump modifier of about -2. This means that if I run and try to jump as far as I possibly can, about 10% of the time, I can't jump at all, and over a third of the time, I should land flat on my face. On the other hand, though, if I'm a bit lucky, I should also occasionally manage to clear as much as 18 feet.Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
—As You Like It, III:ii:328
Chronos's Unalliterative Skillmonkey Guide
Current Homebrew: 5th edition psionics