Supervillains and the death penalty

[Zed-F]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

Count me in as one of those people who prefer to play believeable characters in a believable world. It doesn't have to be the real world, but it should be internally consistent, and its inhabitants should not universally be morons. The occasional mistake is fine, everbody makes them... but not blatant stupidity, except from those PCs/NPCs who are supposed to be stupid.

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

The occasional mistake is fine' date=' everbody makes them... but not blatant stupidity, except from those PCs/NPCs who are supposed to be stupid.[/quote']

 

"OGRE WANT CHOCO DONUTS!"

 

... my players know to which event I am referring.

 

(While overhearing a phone conversation between Shrinker and Pulsar, my players overheard Ogre say that in the background. Armed with this knowledge, they immediately knew where to look for the Ogre/Pulsar duo... in the drive-thru of the Dunkin' Donuts nearest to their last known location.

 

Whoops.)

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

... melodramatic much?

 

No, seriously. Now I'm 'destroying the game' because I want my villains to have an average IQ higher than a brick's? What game? This thread? There ain't no game in this thread, it's a WWYCD... and one that was already done before, to boot. My own games? Who says they're "destroyed"?

 

I mention one opinion different from yours and the next thing you know, I'm the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse. Sheesh, talk about overwrought.

 

For the record, my Aegis game is on hiatus for reasons unrelated to player enjoyment (specifically, scheduling issues and consequent attendance problems). While it was going on, it was noted for its villain plans that /did/ read the Evil Overlord list, and also noted for a high degree of player enjoyment.

 

I dunno about you, but I run for an experienced group of players who are also, with few exceptions, longtime comics fans. They have long since gotten tired of the standard Idiot Plots (defined as "a plot that only works if characters arbitrarily act like idiots"). They want something logically consistent and well thought-out.

 

I never quite get the meme that "comic book plot" must always equal "stupid".

 

No you are missing the point.

 

Make mistakes. (they are not really mistakes but you'll see.)

 

It is your *job* as a player to move the story along cooperatively. It is your job to make certain that the game continues.

 

So for instance Chuck playing PC X figures out that the bad guy is actually the mayor. PC X does not kill, incarcerate or blow the plot just because Chuck figures out the fact that the Mayor is the big bad. The plot has to ripen.

 

It isn't about being stupid it is about being a part of the game and a member of a colaborative team.

 

Hawksmoor

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

No you are missing the point.

 

Make mistakes. (they are not really mistakes but you'll see.)

 

It is your *job* as a player to move the story along cooperatively. It is your job to make certain that the game continues.

 

So for instance Chuck playing PC X figures out that the bad guy is actually the mayor. PC X does not kill, incarcerate or blow the plot just because Chuck figures out the fact that the Mayor is the big bad. The plot has to ripen.

 

It isn't about being stupid it is about being a part of the game and a member of a colaborative team.

 

 

I'm sorry, the very /idea/ that I should deliberately muff my shot to make a DM's life easier is entirely blowing my mind. What's next, I should reroll my nat 20s to be misses so that his monster doesn't die too fast?

 

If I am a player, I enjoy RP'ing competent characters. If I am a DM, I enjoy RP'ing competent villains. Since competency, by itself, has never killed any reputable game that I know of, I don't see the problem in this.

 

I "play dumb" under only one circumstance -- if my character is /supposed/ to be stupid. (I do a wonderful half-ogre routine, if I do say so myself.) But if my character is supposed to be Night-Dude, the greatest detective in South Peoria -- or even just somebody of reasonable brainpower and perceptiveness -- then by God he's gonna spot the Mayor is actually the bad guy and react accordingly. That's his freakin' *job*.

 

Example: In an Aberrant game I am currently in, we are in the midst of a major battle that was supposed to be a step in the ongoing metaplot. The outcome of the battle was supposed to be that The Massed Legion Of Evil Bad Dudes(1) succeeds in breaking The Captured Evil Mega-Monster out of The Super-Prison, while the Gathering of Heroes (of which we were four moderately-powerful members) fought nobly and lost.

 

We weren't supposed to affect the tide of the battle... this was just a major superfight that I think was originally supposed to be off-stage, but we'd had an extended run of non-combat adventures before this and were getting itchy to just Quantum Bolt the hell out of something, so the DM invited us to MegaBrawl. For an idea of where we rank on the power ladder... /almost every single mega-villain and mega-hero NPC in the entire game world is at this fight/. (And they're mostly all canceling each other out! *g*)

 

Just one slight problem. My character, Prince Aral von Darien(2), is (and it's been his concept since day one), an experienced general. So when the Gathering of Heroes Commander went down at the hands of the Chief Villain Fighter, I took charge of the troops and lower-ranking fighters. (As I had legitimately paid for both the skills, perks, and rank to be able to do.)

 

Between absolutely crushing a tactics roll, /and/ coming up (as a player) with what the DM agreed was an exceedingly clever plan... well, we haven't finished yet, but barring a major unforeseen turn of events (or the DM absolutely exploding his dice roll), so far I'm on odds to actually win the battle and keep The Evil Mega-Monster in the jug. Which, according to the campaign timeline, wasn't supposed to be won.

 

But hey, all the mega-villains and major NPC heroes are busy stalemating... the Legion of Evil would have eventually won on attrition, but if I can organize and lead the minor heroes and agent support troops and tip the scales... now /this/ is drama.

 

Which will require the DM to alter his metaplot somewhat. (I don't know what he intends to do, but either the Mega-Monster will escape later, or else the geo-political consequences he was supposed to trigger later in the timeline from his escape will occur another way... quite possibly as collateral damage from the battle I might be winning!)

 

According to your theory, I shouldn't have tried to win -- I should've just fought to go along with the plot, which means to lose. Lord knows it would have been a lot less work for the DM if I had.

 

Except that he doesn't mind. Because in his view, the point of him running the game is for everybody to have a good time... and he knows that if his players in general (and me in particular) aren't actually allowed to change anything, if The Plot Is The Plot And Must Be Kept To Regardless Of Character's Efforts, then we won't be enjoying ourselves at all.

 

Basically, as near as I can see, you seem to be arguing for predestination as regards plotting... there is a Script, and it must not be deviated from.

 

Dear God, how boring would that be? If events are going to occur according to plan regardless of what I do or not, why should I bother to show up on game night? The DM can just move my character for me, and I've got books I could be reading.

 

 

 

 

(1) Not their actual names, of course, but to avoid having to spend ten paragraphs outlining the history of the game world and the cast -- as it's /not/ the Aberrant "default" universe, nowhere near -- I'm just going to generic-ize the descriptions a bit.

 

(2) Not a vampire, this time around. (Yes, if I have a good character concept that I don't get to use -- or that I'm simply still having fun with -- and a vaguely related game comes up, I will "reincarnate" it. 'Varag Troll-Chewer', my CG half-ogre fighter, must have at least five alt-timeline versions of himself in different d20 campaigns and one-shots.)

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

Not predestination just in general against torpedoing plot because that is what the character would do if he was played 'smart'. 'Smart' is ensuring everyone has fun, including yourself. It is not much fun if the whole plot of the game is abruptly tanked because the lynchpin was pulled too early. Players are not part of the game they are part of a story. The onus is to tell the best story possible.

 

The opposite and equal rule is that the GM does not kill Player Characters out of hand. Every reasonable alternative is taken to prevent that outcome. Yes, drama is the character's pushed to the limits, but just like in the source material the characters are not killed. They are put in Deathtraps. ;D

 

Just as an aside I am a very loose GM. I have vague ideas where I want to go with a game, not scenario flowcharts. Adlibbing is my speciality! That doesn't make any part of what I say untrue.

 

Hawksmoor

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

My thought is that if a plot is truly so fragile that it can be destroyed by one intelligent thought early in the game, it's a badly-written plot and should never have been taken out onto the gaming table in the first place.

 

BTW, that's another reason why I try to 'debug' WWYCDs online. If your plot has an exploitable flaw, or just a hole that would kill the suspension of disbelief, there are only two times at which you can hear about it: 1) before the game, and 2) during the game.

 

Door #1 being /far/ more preferable than door #2, for obvious reasons, it's far better for an aspiring DM to hear about what he missed /here/, rather than at his gaming table.

 

You are correct in not arbitrarily executing PCs out of hand though (except in genres where such behavior is expected, like cyberpunk). But that's why God invented psych lims -- 'smart' doesn't necessarily mean 'rational', after all.

[Dominique]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

Plot line aside (and yes I would flesh this out a little more), if you knew the guy was innocent, would your character still allow him to be executed? If not, how far woould your character go to stop the execution?

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

The possibilities are so wide-open in that last question that the details of my characters' responses would depend on circumstance. So, two questions:

 

1) How do we know for certain that he is innocent?

 

2) Why did the evidence provided in answer to question #1 fail to convince the governor?

 

Note -- in the event of the contingency "Because the governor doesn't care that he's frying an innocent man and is committed to his course of action with fanatic intensity", note that this possibility and repsonses to such were already argued, heatedly and at length, in WWYCD #83.

[csyphrett]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

The innocent victim about to be executed was used in the Ostrander Spectre. The governor was going to go ahead anyway until he was told the state would be held responsible, and the defense reminded them that he had already blown up Count Vertigo's country.

CES

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

The Ostrander Spectre weren't exactly packing a full picnic basket.

[csyphrett]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

The Ostrander Spectre weren't exactly packing a full picnic basket.

 

Dude, killing everybody in a prison but one innocent guy. It lives up to the Spirit of Vengeance part. Ostrander played up the dual identity thing to the max, more than any other writer even Spec's creator.

 

It's nice that they brought back Eclipso from being locked down in that series.

CES

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

I know, I've /read/ the complete Ostrander Spectre. That's /why/ I say that him dealing from bottom of short deck.

[gewing]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

might have been an interesting story line.

 

 

I am trying NOT to jump on Hawksmoor's interpretation of how a game works.

It brings up a lot of bad memories. My gaming group was somewhat disfunctional, and our Ref. far too often seemed to have these complex scripts that A) required us to notice some little point that no one ever did...

 

or Required the NPCs to save the day.

 

 

I'm still not sure about the time we received a chance to "reboot" our characters, We had been "In stasis" for a decade or so, and when we came out we got to tinker with our appearances, etc.

 

6 months later we found out that "out of Game" our group had Died smashing the demonic invasion.

 

We had been "imaged" by some supertech/magic equipment and we were reconstituted so to speak.

 

 

I'm still not sure how I feel about that...

 

 

 

 

 

 

But back to the point I wanted to make.

 

Players are supposed to play their character. Their character is supposed to interact in the world. If the player has an insight that their character SHOULD have, and this throws a curve ball to the GM, the PLAYER should NOT have to pretend his character is a moron.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

Let's just for yuks and grins spell out a portion of the Evil Overlord text.

 

I will be secure in my superiority. Therefore, I will feel no need to prove it by leaving clues to my Master Plan in the form of riddles for my enemies to find.

 

I will see a competent psychiatrist and be cured of all unusual phobias or bizarre compulsive habits which could prove to be disadvantageous.

 

I will always dress in bright, cheery colors... Mostly soft pastels. Wearing nothing but black is too depressing, while wearing all white is too boring.

 

I will be neither chivalrous nor sporting. If I have an unstoppable super-weapon, I will use it as often as possible instead of holding it in reserve.

 

I will make it quite clear that I do know the meaning of the word "mercy"... I just choose not to show any.

 

I will only employ assassins and bounty hunters that work for "the money". Those who work for "the thrill of the hunt" tend to do stupid things, like even the odds to give their victim a sporting chance.

 

I will maintain plausible deniability at all times.

 

I will not indulge in the practice of maniacal laughter, despite the proven stress-relieving effects of such behavior. When so occupied, it is too easy to miss unexpected developments that a more alert and attentive individual would notice.

 

I will not grow a goatee. Yes, it is true that in the old days they made you look sinister. Unfortunately, these days they only make you look like a disaffected member of Generation X.

 

I will not fly into a rage and kill a messenger who brings me bad news just to demonstrate how evil I am. Loyal service should be rewarded... Which is how it becomes "loyal" service in the first place. And besides, honest messengers are hard to come by when you are in the Evil Overlord business.

 

I will never utter the sentence "Before I kill you, you should know..."

 

I will never turn into a giant snake, no matter how much I might want to, because it never helps.

 

The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept on the mountain of despair beyond the river of fire guarded by the dragons of eternity. It will be locked up in my safe-deposit box. The same can be said for the artifact that is my one vulnerability.

 

When my troops invade an unsuspecting country, I will direct the attack from the safety of my stronghold. If I absolutely must ride into battle myself, I will certainly not do so at the forefront of my army. Nor will I attempt to seek out my opposite number among his army for personal combat.

 

 

In my view the very thing the series rails against is Drama. If you never make 'mistakes' you will have a very bad game. Sorry but that is the truth.

[gewing]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

Okay, that wasn't how I interpreted your point. Yes, if the Villain is PERFECT then it is harder to have a game. But if he was able to follow ALL the evil overlord tips, he would either already rule the world, or not be a villain.

 

Megalomanis is an unusual psych lim, isn't it? I wonder how well Psychiatric treatment would do on it.

 

 

 

 

Let's just for yuks and grins spell out a portion of the Evil Overlord text.

 

I will be secure in my superiority. Therefore, I will feel no need to prove it by leaving clues to my Master Plan in the form of riddles for my enemies to find.

 

I will see a competent psychiatrist and be cured of all unusual phobias or bizarre compulsive habits which could prove to be disadvantageous.

 

I will always dress in bright, cheery colors... Mostly soft pastels. Wearing nothing but black is too depressing, while wearing all white is too boring.

 

I will be neither chivalrous nor sporting. If I have an unstoppable super-weapon, I will use it as often as possible instead of holding it in reserve.

 

I will make it quite clear that I do know the meaning of the word "mercy"... I just choose not to show any.

 

I will only employ assassins and bounty hunters that work for "the money". Those who work for "the thrill of the hunt" tend to do stupid things, like even the odds to give their victim a sporting chance.

 

I will maintain plausible deniability at all times.

 

I will not indulge in the practice of maniacal laughter, despite the proven stress-relieving effects of such behavior. When so occupied, it is too easy to miss unexpected developments that a more alert and attentive individual would notice.

 

I will not grow a goatee. Yes, it is true that in the old days they made you look sinister. Unfortunately, these days they only make you look like a disaffected member of Generation X.

 

I will not fly into a rage and kill a messenger who brings me bad news just to demonstrate how evil I am. Loyal service should be rewarded... Which is how it becomes "loyal" service in the first place. And besides, honest messengers are hard to come by when you are in the Evil Overlord business.

 

I will never utter the sentence "Before I kill you, you should know..."

 

I will never turn into a giant snake, no matter how much I might want to, because it never helps.

 

The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept on the mountain of despair beyond the river of fire guarded by the dragons of eternity. It will be locked up in my safe-deposit box. The same can be said for the artifact that is my one vulnerability.

 

When my troops invade an unsuspecting country, I will direct the attack from the safety of my stronghold. If I absolutely must ride into battle myself, I will certainly not do so at the forefront of my army. Nor will I attempt to seek out my opposite number among his army for personal combat.

 

 

In my view the very thing the series rails against is Drama. If you never make 'mistakes' you will have a very bad game. Sorry but that is the truth.

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

Hawkesmoor, Sauron and the entire plot of LotR falls outside your definition of 'Drama' then, as Sauron actually *DID* follow the freaking Evil Overlord List, as much as he possibly could.

 

Sauron lost on a couple hideous strokes of unluck bordering on acts of Divine Providence for the other side, and the willingness of the entire combined forces of the West to die, to the last man, simply to perpetuate a giant strategic diversion. That's *it*. He made /no/ mistakes save his one error in judgement in assuming that Aragorn was the Ring-Bearer... and seriously, under the circumstances, he had absolutely no reasonable way of knowing he was being played. Yes, the villain made a mistake -- but he made it not because he took a dramatic prat-fall, but because he was up against the world's most competent opposition, who were willing to sacrifice thousands of lives (including their own) just to perpetuate the illusion, just for a couple of days, that the Ring-Bearer was leading the vanguard of the West, not trying to sneak into Mordor.

 

(Edit -- and the root cause of this error in judgement on Sauron's part was his inability to fully grasp the concept of noble self-sacrifice and/or trusting to the will of the Valar... two things that he is innately incapable of doing, precisely /because/ he's the villain, and Morgoth's old apprentice. Or in short, the moral of the story is "Evil lost not because it was evil, but because even the greatest and most cunning of evils are still evil, with all the limitations thereto.")

 

Plots do not have to rely on stupidity -- either the villain's or the hero's -- in order to function. It is entirely possible for both sides to be smart, all the way through, and one side to still lose. AAMOF, those stories are generally the better, the longer-remembered, the more /immortal/ stories -- precisely /because/ of the quality of thought involved.

 

This is the Lord of the [bleeping] Rings we're talking about here, awright? It's one of the most dramatic pieces of work in the entire field of genre fiction. It's genre tropes were used as a foundation for the entire FRPG industry.

 

*looks at LotR*

 

*looks at Hawkesmoor's theories of gaming*

 

Something's gotta give here.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

might have been an interesting story line.

 

 

I am trying NOT to jump on Hawksmoor's interpretation of how a game works.

It brings up a lot of bad memories. My gaming group was somewhat disfunctional, and our Ref. far too often seemed to have these complex scripts that A) required us to notice some little point that no one ever did...

 

or Required the NPCs to save the day.

 

I am sorry your GM failed you. A) and are my personal banes as well. Which is why I hate mysteries/puzzles (some like them I do not) and keep my NPCs mostly out of important situations.

 

I'm still not sure about the time we received a chance to "reboot" our characters, We had been "In stasis" for a decade or so, and when we came out we got to tinker with our appearances, etc.

 

6 months later we found out that "out of Game" our group had Died smashing the demonic invasion.

 

We had been "imaged" by some supertech/magic equipment and we were reconstituted so to speak.

 

 

I'm still not sure how I feel about that...

 

That could be done right. Chances are it won't be. But in the end your character is only as real as you imagine him to be. Replicant HERO can be just as heroic as the original though.

 

 

 

 

But back to the point I wanted to make.

 

Players are supposed to play their character. Their character is supposed to interact in the world. If the player has an insight that their character SHOULD have, and this throws a curve ball to the GM, the PLAYER should NOT have to pretend his character is a moron.

 

Point is what the character should know compared to the player, and how the character should act compared to how the player should control that character. In any event take Lex Luthor and Superman. Superman knows Lex is dirty...very dirty, he just can't prove it. Regardless Superman does not lock up Lex on an asteroid prison using tech taken from the Watchtower. It is not in character nor does it advance the story.

 

Keep your eye on the story and do what you can to advance it. Derailing it is poor gaming.

 

Hawksmoor

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

Hawkesmoor, Sauron and the entire plot of LotR entirely fails your definition of 'Drama' then, as Sauron actually *DID* follow the freaking Evil Overlord List, as much as he possibly could.

 

Sauron lost on several hideous strokes of unluck bordering on acts of Divine Providence for the other side, and the willingness of the entire combined forces of the West to die, to the last man, simply to perpetuate a giant strategic diversion. That's *it*. He made /no/ mistakes save his one error in assuming that Aragorn was the Ring-Bearer... and seriously, under the circumstances, he had absolutely no reasonable way of knowing he was being played.

 

This is the Lord of the [bleeping] Rings we're talking about here, awright? It's one of the most dramatic pieces of work in the entire field of genre fiction. It's genre tropes were used as a foundation for the entire FRPG industry.

 

*looks at LotR*

 

*looks at Hawkesmoor's theories of gaming*

 

Something's gotta give here.

 

I fail to see your point. Sauron did not guard Mount Doom with a Balrog did he? Encircle it with forces nigh unassailable? Sauron did not send thousands of troops to crush the shire upon hearing the name "BAggins" did he? No, he expected the ring would be used against him because of the folly of men.

 

Mistakes were made so drama could be created. Player characters have the same obligations.

 

They go on missions assigned by mysterious travellers, they give up dangerous alien technology to government top men, and they let the bad guy walk out of the room with the knowledge that they will meet again.

 

Drama.

 

Hawksmoor

Hawksmoor

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

> I fail to see your point. Sauron did not guard Mount Doom with a Balrog did

> he?

 

He didn't have one. The sole remaining Balrog in the world was not taking orders from him.

 

> Encircle it with forces nigh unassailable?

 

The entire point of the third book is Sauron's decision to send the main thrust of his forces against Minas Tirith rather than use them to put up a perfect static defense against the Ring-Bearer.(1) The reason Sauron did that was already discussed at length, by me, in my prior post. This *is* his 'one mistake', and it was made for entirely understandable reasons that didn't involve the slightest amount of stupidity whatsoever.

 

> Sauron did not send thousands of troops to crush the shire upon hearing

> the name "BAggins" did he?

 

Thousands of troops /from where/? He sent the Nine because they were the only troops he had capable of crossing the enormous distance beween Mordor and the Shire quickly enough to be of any use... even so, it took them weeks to ride there. Check the timeline in the appendix of ROTK -- Sauron acted the /instant/ he found out that the Ring was in the Shire, but by then, it was already too far into the endgame to send anything other than his fastest-moving, and most-capable, special operations assets.

 

Not to mention that at that time, there's only two places Sauron can deploy forces /from/ -- Mirkwood, and Mordor. To reach the Shire from Mirkwood requires going past Rivendell... i.e., "no way, Jose." To reach the Shire from Mordor requires first reducing Minas Tirith and Rohan to a state where no effective opposition to your route march is possible... which would require winning the war first.

 

(We will eliminate the option of calling Saruman and having him send troops from Isengard -- doing that simply results in Saruman the Ring-Bearer, which is a headache Sauron doesn't need. Note that in the Two Towers, the Uruk-Hai contingent that captures Merry & Pippin does exactly this... take who they believe to be the Ring-Bearers back to Isengard, against the express desires of Sauron's emissary that they be transported across the Great River and to Mordor instead.)

 

Alternatively, you can send a small enough force that it can /sneak/ past the obstacles... but that obviously means you can't crush the Shire by main force, and a small raiding party of orcs (or even uruk-hai) simply won't get the job done.

 

So what's Sauron's best option to do, given the limitations of time, space, and logistics? Exactly what he did do -- send the Nazgul.

 

(It's even specifically mentioned in Two Towers that the reason they rode there, rather than fly there on the Fell Beasts, is because the FB hadn't finished being bred yet.)

 

> No, he expected the ring would be used against him because of the

> folly of men.

 

Which ties into what I said re: Sauron's worldview... if he was capable of conceiving of the noble, self-sacrificing mindset it takes to have the Ring and /not/ want to use it, /he wouldn't have been the bleedin' villain/.

 

> Mistakes were made so drama could be created.

 

Said mistakes were rooted in things far more interesting and viable than convenient attacks of Plot-Induced Stupidity, remember.

 

I say again -- the sole mistake Sauron makes in the entirety of the Lord of the Rings is a mistake he makes not only because of the extreme competence and vast sacrifices made by the heroes set against him, but a mistake that ties directly into the essence, the ethical heart of the matter, as to what it means to be a villain, and not a hero.

 

This is a far cry from saying that DM's and player's should deliberately choke their shots in order to service a plot that apparently can't withstand the slightest amount of common sense.

 

 

 

(1) It might also be pointed out that Sam & Frodo /did/ have to sneak past tens of thousands of orcs on the plains of Gorgoroth /anyway/ -- and that was after the miracle of them getting through the garrison of Cirith Ungol alive. So it's not like Mount Doom was unguarded, or Mordor was all emptied out.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

> Encircle it with forces nigh unassailable?

 

The entire point of the third book is Sauron's decision to send the main thrust of his forces against Minas Tirith rather than use them to put up a perfect static defense against the Ring-Bearer.(1) The reason Sauron did that was already discussed at length, by me, in my prior post. This *is* his 'one mistake', and it was made for entirely understandable reasons that didn't involve the slightest amount of stupidity whatsoever.

 

Why leave Mount Doom intact at all? The Ring is key to Sauron's victory. The Ring can be destroyed only in the fires of Mount Doom. Why not collapse all entry points to the mountain so NO ONE can get in there. Good insurance.

 

Seems pretty stupid to leave the one mechanism capable for foiling your plans once and for all intact, regardless of whether you believe anyone would actually destroy it.

 

Now, Sauron misses it, legitimately, because he thinks like a villain, not like a gamer. Any gamer would say "get rid of this risk".

 

Just as a gamer will say "Talk to the hand, buddy - if you're innocent, you should have proven it by now, or at least come to me way earlier" where the hero says "I cannot allow anyone to die for a crime he did not commit."

 

Just as Sauron makes mistakes because he is the villain, heroes make mistakes because they are the heroes.

 

I recall a Paladin in a game I ran many years ago walking into a room after stating "Yes, I the Player/Gamer know that this is probably a setup, and I'm going to get smacked. But the Paladin, the Character, sees a helpless person in danger, not a predesigned dungeon encounter, and his first and only instinct is to help him."

 

He did get smacked (not killed). He also got extra xp for playing in character despite player knowledge.

 

Which ties into what I said re: Sauron's worldview... if he was capable of conceiving of the noble' date=' self-sacrificing mindset it takes to have the Ring and /not/ want to use it, /he wouldn't have been the bleedin' villain.[/quote']

 

The problem with many gamist players is that they are not capable of conceiving of the noble, self-sacrificing mindset it takes to actually be a "hero". Instead, they assume the worst, and take every precaution to protect themselves, rather than take the risks a real hero would, for the noblest of causes.

 

(1) It might also be pointed out that Sam & Frodo /did/ have to sneak past tens of thousands of orcs on the plains of Gorgoroth /anyway/ -- and that was after the miracle of them getting through the garrison of Cirith Ungol alive. So it's not like Mount Doom was unguarded' date=' or Mordor was all emptied out.[/quote']

 

Did Sauron not **know** the ring could be used to render its wearer invisible?

 

- Have the Orcs sprinke the various entryways with flour and watch for footprints with no feet

 

- Have some beasts with a good sense of smell guard the entryways - if they act strangely, loose them to find the invisible infiltrator

 

Two ideas no gamer would likely miss, but Sauron did.

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

> Why leave Mount Doom intact at all? The Ring is key to Sauron's victory.

> The Ring can be destroyed only in the fires of Mount Doom. Why not

> collapse all entry points to the mountain so NO ONE can get in there. Good

> insurance.

 

Mount Doom is a forge for Sauron's use in making items of power. /He/ needs access. Ergo, he has to leave himself a road and a door... which they used.

 

There's also the fact that the 'one error' to which we refer is Sauron's villainous inability to grasp the concept of truly unselfish sacrifice.

 

To quote Gandalf the White:

 

'He supposes that we are all going to Minas Tirith; for that is what he would himself have done in our place. And according to his wisdom it would have been a heavy stroke against his power. Indeed he is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have /no one/ in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind.'

 

-- _The Two Towers_, chapter 5, page 127

 

This is it. This is the crux of the matter. This is the one, sole error of judgement Sauron makes in the entire War of the Ring, from which all other events flow:

 

... Sauron didn't think that they were going to destroy the Ring, he thought they were going to use it.

 

And the reason he thought this is not because of stupidity, whether plot-induced or any other kind -- the reason he thought this is because he was evil, and could not truly grasp the POV of unselfish good.

 

That was it.

 

[snip]

> Now, Sauron misses it, legitimately, because he thinks like a villain, not like

> a gamer. Any gamer would say "get rid of this risk".

 

True, but...

 

> Just as a gamer will say "Talk to the hand, buddy - if you're innocent, you

> should have proven it by now, or at least come to me way earlier" where

> the hero says "I cannot allow anyone to die for a crime he did not commit."

 

And where did I say that I wasn't going to help the guy? Dude, check out WWYCD #83, I already answered the damn question, and the answer was "yes".

 

For that matter, my original 'WTF didn't this jerk do it earlier?' post on this thread was an *OOC* comment... you'll notice that when I make IC comments, I preface them with the name of the character who is speaking, yes?

 

Sheesh, are you telling me this entire argument happened because people jumped to an effing conclusion about what I was thinking that they had no reason to? Story of my g-d life.

 

Granted, a couple of my characters (Dr. Pain and the Baron, to be precise) would, at the same time they up and rolled out to do the hero thing, also do a cynical aside on what a dumbass the idiot was for waiting until the last second... but they'd still be going.

 

Not to mention my other remarks on plot debugging, and the best time and place for it (here and now, as opposed to your gaming table and then).

 

As far as me allegedly not getting noble, self-sacrificing heroism -- dude, I'm the guy who RP's /Starguard/. 'Nuff said.

 

[snip]

> Did Sauron not **know** the ring could be used to render its wearer

> invisible?

 

Sam & Frodo didn't use the Ring's invisibility to get across the plains of Gorgoroth.

[Mutant for Hire]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

It was more or less unthinkable to Sauron that the other side would destroy the Ring. And Sauron probably knew better than anyone else that the Three would lose their power if he did. He couldn't conceive of the opposition tossing away power like that, including the power of the One. That's why he didn't guard Mount Doom.

 

In short, Sauron was probably in love with his own creation as much as if not more than anyone else, and to him its destruction was unthinkable. If destroying the Ring wasn't an option, it was more a question of which of the powers of the West would take up the Ring against him, rather than who.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

 

I'm sorry, the very /idea/ that I should deliberately muff my shot to make a DM's life easier is entirely blowing my mind. What's next, I should reroll my nat 20s to be misses so that his monster doesn't die too fast?

 

Let me ask one question.

 

If you figured out who the big bad was, based on what you know about how the GM thinks, or maybe the book he has lying on the coffee table, or perhaps just the way he delivered a particular line of descriptive text...

 

Would you then have your character know that?

 

Teh metagaming is teh suxxors, y'know. Unless you're metagaming to make things flow better. (Heck, what if the GM said "he's the big bad, okay? And I really want to explore the crushing blow the realization that you accidently empowered an evil mega villain would have on your characters. So play along?").

[Chuckg]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

> Let me ask one question.

 

> If you figured out who the big bad was, based on what you know about how the GM thinks, or maybe

> the book he has lying on the coffee table, or perhaps just the way he delivered a particular line of

> descriptive text...

 

> Would you then have your character know that?

 

Of course not. That's using out-of-game knowledge, and when I'm DM'ing, I /destroy/ people for that... and the DMs I play with would do likewise.

 

However, since that has absolutely /nothing/ to do with the idea that a player should cripple his character with Plot-Induced Stupidity to make life easier on the DM, why the hell did you bother asking me this in the first place? I said 'deliberately blow the shot', not 'courteously refrain from cheating.'

 

> (Heck, what if the GM said "he's the big bad, okay? And I really want to explore the crushing blow the

> realization that you accidently empowered an evil mega villain would have on your characters. So play

> along?")

 

That's different. If the DM /wants/ me to know something, then it's perfectly OK for me to know it. But again, this is so obvious, why are we talking about it?

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Supervillains and the death penalty

 

> Let me ask one question.

 

> If you figured out who the big bad was, based on what you know about how the GM thinks, or maybe

> the book he has lying on the coffee table, or perhaps just the way he delivered a particular line of

> descriptive text...

 

> Would you then have your character know that?

 

Of course not. That's using out-of-game knowledge, and when I'm DM'ing, I /destroy/ people for that... and the DMs I play with would do likewise.

 

However, since that has absolutely /nothing/ to do with the idea that a player should cripple his character with Plot-Induced Stupidity to make life easier on the DM, why the hell did you bother asking me this in the first place? I said 'deliberately blow the shot', not 'courteously refrain from cheating.'

 

> (Heck, what if the GM said "he's the big bad, okay? And I really want to explore the crushing blow the

> realization that you accidently empowered an evil mega villain would have on your characters. So play

> along?")

 

That's different. If the DM /wants/ me to know something, then it's perfectly OK for me to know it. But again, this is so obvious, why are we talking about it?

 

Because it's possible you're arguing over a point of agreement.