Dealing with Killer Characters

[DShomshak]

6 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

1) I hadn't considered the villain group bringing in a reporter to present their side, and a doctor to verify Croc is dead.  That's an excellent idea, since the players are doubtful he is truly dead.  (This is a comic-book game after all.)

 

For me, this seems especially likely since the Aquans probably believe they're the "real heroes." After all, in the Aquans' eyes MI is UTTERLY EVIL. They fight it; therefore, they must be good, right? The Aquans probably send out a steady stream of accusations of MI's villainies, which of course are not widely believed (in part because of the Aquans' criminal actions). If they're smart, they'll want to establish their credibility -- because if they prove they told the truth about Croc dying, maybe some people will wonder if they're telling the truth about MI.

 

I agree, the problem is not really the HKA. That's a valid Power to represent feats such as a brick tearing apart steel plate and smashing through walls. The issue is entirely about whether a character would use that kind of force on another person.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

On the lethality front, sometimes my players have been unhappy that normals are by default hard to instant-kill in Hero System, which they consider "unrealistic" when they're subjected to high-damage attacks. (Whether "realism" belongs in all games is another debate. )  I instituted a house rule that if a character takes more than their starting BODY total past their Defenses from a single attack, the shock can kill them immediately. PCs and hero/superhero-level NPCs get a Characteristic Roll against CON to avoid that effect; normal shlubs don't.

[DShomshak]

5 hours ago, Christopher said:

Any ability that allows them to utterly and effortlessly sidestep the story you had planned is an issue.

UBO is noted for it's problem potential. UAA even more so. And with Movement Powers, UAA it is ridiculously high.

 

There is no shame in admitting it was a bad idea to allow that power. There is shame in not admitting it however.

 

If I may be so bold as to speak for Bolo... <bows apologetically>

 

Teleporting the hostages to safety was not a demonstration of Bolo made a mistake in allowing a UAA Teleport. The PC did not "utterly and effortlessly sidestep the story" because -- I strongly suspect from what Bolo's said -- rescuing the hostages was not the story. It was in fact handing the character a chance to be cool and show off their powers. A good Champions GM gives players a chance to show how powerful their characters are by, now and then, handing them situations in which they easily overcome challenges that other people would find horribly difficult or dangerous.

 

The issue was the mage suggesting that the situation was easily resolved by letting the hostages fall and healing them later. Treating the hostages as props with no intrinsic importance, rather than as people who should be protected.

 

Dean Shomshak

[BoloOfEarth]

2 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

If I may be so bold as to speak for Bolo... <bows apologetically>

 

Teleporting the hostages to safety was not a demonstration of Bolo made a mistake in allowing a UAA Teleport. The PC did not "utterly and effortlessly sidestep the story" because -- I strongly suspect from what Bolo's said -- rescuing the hostages was not the story. It was in fact handing the character a chance to be cool and show off their powers. A good Champions GM gives players a chance to show how powerful their characters are by, now and then, handing them situations in which they easily overcome challenges that other people would find horribly difficult or dangerous.

 

The issue was the mage suggesting that the situation was easily resolved by letting the hostages fall and healing them later. Treating the hostages as props with no intrinsic importance, rather than as people who should be protected.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Heh.  I was in the middle of a long-winded explanation of what you said much better and more succinctly.  Yeah, I don't have a problem with Teleport UAA.  (It would be different if he was using it to teleport people up in the air and letting them fall.  But he doesn't.)  I've not only learned to plan around it, I occasionally plan on it being used. 

 

Though Christopher has a point that Healing has become a problem since being allowed.  When this campaign ends, my next one won't allow Healing, on either side of the hero/villain aisle.

[Tech]

To both Bolo and DShomshak, well said.  For myself, I know my players and have no problem with UAA, UOO, XYZ, MLP, whatever.

 

::thinks::

 

Y'know, I can't think of any villains on my campaign side that have healing either. A one-time special appearance might, but that's an exception. Huh....   interesting.

[sentry0]

11 minutes ago, Tech said:

To both Bolo and DShomshak, well said.  For myself, I know my players and have no problem with UAA, UOO, XYZ, MLP, whatever.

 

::thinks::

 

Y'know, I can't think of any villains on my campaign side that have healing either. A one-time special appearance might, but that's an exception. Huh....   interesting.

 

Healing is relatively rare in comics AFAIK but exceedingly common in computer games these days and good old D&D.  I recently ran a game (in another system) where a player was mad that her heals had a prep time associated with them that made them useless in combat.  She wanted to spam heals like it was World of Warcraft but the system just wasn't built that way.

 

For the record, I compromised by saying that she could use her heals as a single action by making a regular activation roll at an increased difficulty.  I'm not a monster after all ?

[Duke Bushido]

As long as we're repeatedly mentioning T-port UAA, 

 

would anyone like to watch me open a can of worms?  

 

 

Honestly, I've never had a problem in-game with healing.  That being said, it must also be said that I've never had a hardcore video gamer at my table, either, so most players that have ever had healing use it as an "after combat, when we're licking our wounds" kind of thing, as opposed to the meta-game "Stand there and get shot, but keep using your most powerful attack; I'll repair you ever Phase" kind of thing that you folks seem to run into.

 

 

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

20 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

As to 6d6 falling damage, that's only 12 BODY if all 6's are rolled.  An average roll is 6 BODY.

 

What is often missed is that, if the surface being landed on is sufficiently uneven, jagged or rocky, all that normal damage is converted to killing damage, which truly impacts on those poor normals...

 

Doc

[dsatow]

Another solution to the problem is to simply give normal NPCs the physical complication "Affected by Normal Human physics" for 30 points (always, greatly).  What this means is, when taking damage, apply all the heroic level damage options which includes crits, impair/disable, bleeding, shock, and hit locations.

 

So lets look at an example of the hostage falling 5 stories or 20 meters in 2 segments.

 

A superheroic normal will take about 10d6 normal.  2 PD will mean they take about 8 Body from 10.  They hurt but they'll survive.

 

A normal human physics normal, rolls a hit location.  If its a head shot (3-5) or vitals (13), they take 2x body.  That 8 Body take is now 16 Body.  Since the body done exceeds the normal body of the character, that location is disabled.  A disabled head or vitals usually means death to an NPC (6e2p111) but lets just say they are just disabled.  Per 6e2p112, this can mean permanent/long term scarring or characteristic loss assuming a failed Con roll.  (a disabled vitals area has a 1 in 6 chance of lowering the Body stat beyond normal damage)  Next since they took 16 Body of blunt trauma, they are bleeding.  Luckily, normal blunt damage is one lower on the bleeding chart so they only take 3d6 damage.  If any of those dice of the 3d6 is a six, they take another Body worth of damage.  Next they are in negative body so they are dying and lose the standard 1 body per turn also.  So while the chance is small, its possible they will die by the second post twelve.  

 

If the villain is holding the hostage up higher than 20m, per 6e2p141, the damage could be killing and or penetrating.  

[BoloOfEarth]

dsatow:  regarding the hit locations, the chance of hitting either Head or Vitals is just under 14%.  By the same token, you could hit Hands, Arms, Feet, or Legs, which does 1/2x BODY.  That 8 BODY is now 4 BODY.  And you have over a 30% chance of doing that.

[bluesguy]

I run a very strict Silver Age type game and all players take Code vs. Killing. 

 

I ran a game where the players were playing out a slightly re-skinned "Die Hard" adventure. 

 

One of the villains had a NND KA (some kind of gas) and used it on a PC.  This of course caused Body to the PC and he retaliated with a KA that was designed for taking down bricks, which I think he used on her twice.  After the first hit it was clear she couldn't take that kind of damage.  The villain didn't die but she was taken out on an gurney, bleeding, unconscious and I think she died on the way to the hospital. 

 

As the hero team was sanctioned by the federal govt. there was an internal investigation.  The federal agency was not willing to back the character because....

 

Both the player and character were unconcerned (she tried to kill me first).  The district attorney then charged the character with murder but won on manslaughter and the character was sent to stronghold.

 

The rest of the team tried to explain to the character (and the player) why what he did was wrong but he didn't get it.  We didn't play Champions for a long time after that.  We went back to Fantasy Hero.  By the time we played again, the player and his mom were out of our gaming group.

[dmjalund]

 

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, bluesguy said:

I run a very strict Silver Age type game and all players take Code vs. Killing. 

 

I ran a game where the players were playing out a slightly re-skinned "Die Hard" adventure. 

 

One of the villains had a NND KA (some kind of gas) and used it on a PC.  This of course caused Body to the PC and he retaliated with a KA that was designed for taking down bricks, which I think he used on her twice.  After the first hit it was clear she couldn't take that kind of damage.  The villain didn't die but she was taken out on an gurney, bleeding, unconscious and I think she died on the way to the hospital. 

 

As the hero team was sanctioned by the federal govt. there was an internal investigation.  The federal agency was not willing to back the character because....

 

Both the player and character were unconcerned (she tried to kill me first).  The district attorney then charged the character with murder but won on manslaughter and the character was sent to stronghold.

 

The rest of the team tried to explain to the character (and the player) why what he did was wrong but he didn't get it.  We didn't play Champions for a long time after that.  We went back to Fantasy Hero.  By the time we played again, the player and his mom were out of our gaming group.

 

I see the issue for CvK Supers.  However, when we pull out an NND KA, I question whether this is still a "strict silver age game" as far as killing goes.  Would the DA have similarly charged a police officer who discharged his firearm at a person possessing, and using, lethal poisonous gas?  Would he have been locked up in maximum security?  It feels like the ground rules of a Silver Age Boy Scout Supers game were violated, and I can see players reacting with a refusal to follow the campaign ground rules if the campaign itself fails to honour them. 

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd want to discuss "campaign reality" before making normals more fragile, but once that campaign reality is established, then making falling damage more lethal does not seem unreasonable.  As well, even an Impairing (non-disabling) hit could reasonably leave lasting injury that simple Healing does not cure, such as broken bones.

 

How much Healing does he have?  Is the cap applied?  4d6 Healing rolls 14 on average, so 7 BOD.  He has to beat that roll to heal more within the re-use time (an especially likely issue if he has charges). 

 

I'd call falling "no hit location" general damage, but a hit location to determine the impact of an impairing or disabling hit seems reasonable..  Also, normals have 8 BOD - heroic normals have 10. 

 

Dropped from a building?  As Doc raises, what does he land on?  Concrete?  Impaled on a spiked wall?  Dropped into traffic?  A glass sun room belonging to the restaurant on the ground floor?  A baby's stroller?

 

I agree with the many comments above that treating the NPCs as scenery instead of people reflects poor role playing.

[archer]

7 hours ago, dmjalund said:

 

 

At the time, I thought Storm really stepped in it because she didn't consider that Wolverine might have been running a very effective bluff which would have outed Mystique when Nightcrawler was too preoccupied to think of that solution on his own.

[Christopher]

On 11/30/2018 at 9:02 PM, DShomshak said:

I agree, the problem is not really the HKA. That's a valid Power to represent feats such as a brick tearing apart steel plate and smashing through walls. The issue is entirely about whether a character would use that kind of force on another person.

  

Dean Shomshak

Unless we are talking about Dark Champions, a KA for me is there to kill Foci and break barriers. Maybe the odd "not sentient" enemy defined with "Takes no STUN". Or designated save enemies like Demons.
 

On 11/30/2018 at 10:38 PM, sentry0 said:

 

Healing is relatively rare in comics AFAIK but exceedingly common in computer games these days and good old D&D.  I recently ran a game (in another system) where a player was mad that her heals had a prep time associated with them that made them useless in combat.  She wanted to spam heals like it was World of Warcraft but the system just wasn't built that way. 

 

For the record, I compromised by saying that she could use her heals as a single action by making a regular activation roll at an increased difficulty.  I'm not a monster after all ?

The issue is that computer games - like D&D - use a single bar to track damage. Hero does not have this flaw.

 

Normal Damage exists to have some way to track damage (STUN damage) without having to track hard to heal body damage. I only know of Hero, Shadowrun and Open Legend to have a dedicated STUN mechanic.

Westend Games D6 Star Wars might count too, in a maner of speaking.

 

Most other games have some way to track stun damage against the main HP bar for the odd fistfight, but no actually STUN like damage.

 

On 12/1/2018 at 3:13 PM, bluesguy said:

I ran a game where the players were playing out a slightly re-skinned "Die Hard" adventure.  

 

One of the villains had a NND KA (some kind of gas) and used it on a PC.  This of course caused Body to the PC and he retaliated with a KA that was designed for taking down bricks, which I think he used on her twice.  After the first hit it was clear she couldn't take that kind of damage.  The villain didn't die but she was taken out on an gurney, bleeding, unconscious and I think she died on the way to the hospital.  

  

As the hero team was sanctioned by the federal govt. there was an internal investigation.  The federal agency was not willing to back the character because....

 

Both the player and character were unconcerned (she tried to kill me first).  The district attorney then charged the character with murder but won on manslaughter and the character was sent to stronghold.

 

The rest of the team tried to explain to the character (and the player) why what he did was wrong but he didn't get it.  We didn't play Champions for a long time after that.  We went back to Fantasy Hero.  By the time we played again, the player and his mom were out of our gaming group.

My brother once played a Paladin. And he simply did not get the Good part of Lawfull Good.

 

There was this classical scene: Helpless children have to steal to make a living. He caught them. He was supposed to take pity. Adventure hook right there.

He instead delivered them onto justice, wich - in line with the setting - cut off their hand. Despite the GM warning him of this.

So as a result, the GM took away the Paladin powers. And nope, it was not that my brother wanted to make a redemption storyline.

He continued to violate any law of good behavior or human decency in his interactions with NPC's. He simply did not get playing a good person.

[Doc Democracy]

22 minutes ago, Christopher said:

There was this classical scene: Helpless children have to steal to make a living. He caught them. He was supposed to take pity. Adventure hook right there.

He instead delivered them onto justice, which - in line with the setting - cut off their hand. Despite the GM warning him of this.

So as a result, the GM took away the Paladin powers.

 

I think this is a problem with the Paladin class to begin with.  Most GMs, historically, have been caught up with the Lasful part of the Paladin alignment, forgetting the good aspect.  It does make things pretty difficult because in a situation like that the Paladin is either Lawful or he is Good, unless he has an encyclopedic knowledge of the law to enable him to find a way round things legally.  Obviously, he could make things part right with cash but that ignores the law element.

 

It could be argued that the Paladin is only concerned with himself breaking the law (ditto Code vs Killing) but to me that breaks the spirit of these things.  I think if the GM is going to strip a paladin-hood he would not only have to warn the paladin that the penalty for such theft is having the hand cut off but also what options the paladin might have that did not lead to either stripping the paladinhood for facilitating a crime (not turning them in) or the injustice of children being mutilated because they steal to avoid starving to death.

 

From the scene as relayed - I think the GM was a bit harsh but I feel from the context that it was the end of a long series of such issues.  ?

 

Doc

[Duke Bushido]

Holy smoke.

 

I've always interpreted "lawful good" and "lawful evil" not as having anything to do with the law, but as being unable to violate the nature of "good" or "evil."  Rather like an inability to something "bad", or an inability to do anything that isn't completely self-serving.

 

Wow.  Been missing that one for a generation or two.

 

Finding out it's about adherence to the actual law doesn't make it better.

 

 

[Christopher]

31 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Holy smoke.

 

I've always interpreted "lawful good" and "lawful evil" not as having anything to do with the law, but as being unable to violate the nature of "good" or "evil."  Rather like an inability to something "bad", or an inability to do anything that isn't completely self-serving. 

 

Wow.  Been missing that one for a generation or two.

 

Finding out it's about adherence to the actual law doesn't make it better.

Actually lawfull is not about following the law. That my brother ever inpreted it such, was simply him not getting the good part.

You are not supposed to go out of your way to destabilze the government/status quo. But sometimes toppling the evil government is the only way.

My lawfull dwarfs and monks broke their fair share of laws. There is propably a law (or equal level rule) against outsiders comming into the Ork Warcamp, but you still go there anyway to stop their raiding.

 

54 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

It could be argued that the Paladin is only concerned with himself breaking the law (ditto Code vs Killing) but to me that breaks the spirit of these things.  I think if the GM is going to strip a paladin-hood he would not only have to warn the paladin that the penalty for such theft is having the hand cut off but also what options the paladin might have that did not lead to either stripping the paladinhood for facilitating a crime (not turning them in) or the injustice of children being mutilated because they steal to avoid starving to death. 

The only crime was comitted against the Paladin and his group. And the rest of the group was willing to "forgive and forget". Where no accuser, there no judge. And thus no executioner.

The punishment for stealing was not injustice, but it was not good either. The good thing would have been to help them.

 

Personally I think the law/order thing is mostly a modifier about how you got about the other axis.

Good/Evil is the major axis. Chaotic Good and Lawfull Good would both help the children. Delivering them was neutral at best. A "evil he could get away with" at worst.

[Doc Democracy]

21 minutes ago, Christopher said:

Good/Evil is the major axis. Chaotic Good and Lawfull Good would both help the children. Delivering them was neutral at best. A "evil he could get away with" at worst.

 

Not going to be drawn into a D&D alignment argument!!!  ?

 

Doc

[Christopher]

14 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

Not going to be drawn into a D&D alignment argument!!!  ?

 

Doc

My point was that my brother was simply a power gamer. Someone that wanted the powers of a Paladin, but none of the responsbility.

This case was not he only instance where he showed this. He showed that tendency over years, but it took way longer then I want to admit it to realize it.

 

There are simply players that are unable to follow even simple rules, because it is not their thing. CvK. Paladin Code. For them are both more or less the same.

[Doc Democracy]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Holy smoke.

 

I've always interpreted "lawful good" and "lawful evil" not as having anything to do with the law, but as being unable to violate the nature of "good" or "evil."  Rather like an inability to something "bad", or an inability to do anything that isn't completely self-serving.

 

Wow.  Been missing that one for a generation or two.

 

Finding out it's about adherence to the actual law doesn't make it better.

 

 

 

There a lot of different opinions about this and the application of alignment varies wildly from group to group.  I do not think there is any particular right or wrong as far as rules go.

 

I think the whole thing highlights the need for players and GMs to be on the same page when it comes to judgement calls on particular things - waiting until you need to do it in game is only going to entrench opinions, whether that is an interpretation of what lawful means or what it means to have a Code vs Killing.  If you wait until it means a player is sanctioned in some way, then any gaps in understanding will only lead to hurt feelings.

 

I like to go through a few scenarios with players when they suggest psychological complications to make sure we are on the same page before I think about what the complication might be worth in points.  When you point out what it would mean in character behaviour to get all 30 points, the player often backs down and takes a lesser complication along the same lines or, when it comes up in play, we both understand what is going to happen - indeed the player will often volunteer the bad thing as it is a feature of the character in the player's head.

 

In D&D I do the same kind of thing - talking through a few situations to see what the character would be inclined to do before settling on an agreed alignment...

 

Doc

 

[bluesguy]

On 12/1/2018 at 11:45 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I see the issue for CvK Supers.  However, when we pull out an NND KA, I question whether this is still a "strict silver age game" as far as killing goes.  Would the DA have similarly charged a police officer who discharged his firearm at a person possessing, and using, lethal poisonous gas?  Would he have been locked up in maximum security?  It feels like the ground rules of a Silver Age Boy Scout Supers game were violated, and I can see players reacting with a refusal to follow the campaign ground rules if the campaign itself fails to honour them. 

 

In my campaign all players take Code vs. Killing, at least Strong and most are Total.  That doesn't mean the villains take Casual Killer either.  He had many other options for taking this opponent down but he choose his most lethal option (i.e. Same DC as his KA but normal damage and would have probably knocked her out).

 

Silver Age villains did kill.  That is part of what made them villains.  Silver Age heroes don't kill (there are exceptions).

[Hugh Neilson]

On 12/3/2018 at 2:42 AM, Christopher said:

Unless we are talking about Dark Champions, a KA for me is there to kill Foci and break barriers. Maybe the odd "not sentient" enemy defined with "Takes no STUN". Or designated save enemies like Demons.
 

The issue is that computer games - like D&D - use a single bar to track damage. Hero does not have this flaw.

 

Normal Damage exists to have some way to track damage (STUN damage) without having to track hard to heal body damage. I only know of Hero, Shadowrun and Open Legend to have a dedicated STUN mechanic.

Westend Games D6 Star Wars might count too, in a maner of speaking.

 

Most other games have some way to track stun damage against the main HP bar for the odd fistfight, but no actually STUN like damage.

 

My brother once played a Paladin. And he simply did not get the Good part of Lawfull Good.

 

There was this classical scene: Helpless children have to steal to make a living. He caught them. He was supposed to take pity. Adventure hook right there.

He instead delivered them onto justice, wich - in line with the setting - cut off their hand. Despite the GM warning him of this.

So as a result, the GM took away the Paladin powers. And nope, it was not that my brother wanted to make a redemption storyline.

He continued to violate any law of good behavior or human decency in his interactions with NPC's. He simply did not get playing a good person.

 

On 12/3/2018 at 3:15 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

I think this is a problem with the Paladin class to begin with.  Most GMs, historically, have been caught up with the Lasful part of the Paladin alignment, forgetting the good aspect.  It does make things pretty difficult because in a situation like that the Paladin is either Lawful or he is Good, unless he has an encyclopedic knowledge of the law to enable him to find a way round things legally.  Obviously, he could make things part right with cash but that ignores the law element.

 

It could be argued that the Paladin is only concerned with himself breaking the law (ditto Code vs Killing) but to me that breaks the spirit of these things.  I think if the GM is going to strip a paladin-hood he would not only have to warn the paladin that the penalty for such theft is having the hand cut off but also what options the paladin might have that did not lead to either stripping the paladinhood for facilitating a crime (not turning them in) or the injustice of children being mutilated because they steal to avoid starving to death.?

 

 

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

 

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

 

A person for whom Good is the sole guide would not be Lawful Good. but Neutral Good.  A Lawful Good character will compromise Good for Law in some instances.

 

One simple rule would solve a lot of Paladin Dilemma issues.  If there is no right answer (i.e. whatever the Paladin does will violate a tenet of Good or Law), then there can be no wrong answer (the Paladin can choose which beliefs must be compromised in this tragic situation).  I do, however, like the approach which Pathfinder is taking for its second edition (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkrq?Paladin-Class-Preview).  Briefly:

 

The tenets are listed in order of importance, starting with the most important. If a situation places two tenets in conflict, you aren't in a no-win situation; instead, follow the most important tenet. For instance, if an evil king asked you if innocent lawbreakers were hiding in your church so he could execute them, you could lie to him, since the tenet forbidding you to lie is less important than the tenet prohibiting the harm of an innocent.

 

On 12/3/2018 at 6:58 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

There a lot of different opinions about this and the application of alignment varies wildly from group to group.  I do not think there is any particular right or wrong as far as rules go.

 

I think the whole thing highlights the need for players and GMs to be on the same page when it comes to judgement calls on particular things - waiting until you need to do it in game is only going to entrench opinions, whether that is an interpretation of what lawful means or what it means to have a Code vs Killing.  If you wait until it means a player is sanctioned in some way, then any gaps in understanding will only lead to hurt feelings.

 

I like to go through a few scenarios with players when they suggest psychological complications to make sure we are on the same page before I think about what the complication might be worth in points.  When you point out what it would mean in character behaviour to get all 30 points, the player often backs down and takes a lesser complication along the same lines or, when it comes up in play, we both understand what is going to happen - indeed the player will often volunteer the bad thing as it is a feature of the character in the player's head.

 

In D&D I do the same kind of thing - talking through a few situations to see what the character would be inclined to do before settling on an agreed alignment...

 

 

THIS - exactly

 

It's amazing how often Hero players will scoff at alignment because we can't agree on what a given alignment means, then engage in a protracted debate over what Overconfidence, a C vs K, etc. mean in the Hero system.  There is a lot of room for variations on the theme, whether within a D&D alignment or a Hero Psych.  One True Wayism damages both systems.

[Christopher]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

A person for whom Good is the sole guide would not be Lawful Good. but Neutral Good.  A Lawful Good character will compromise Good for Law in some instances. 

There is a difference between sole and primary.

 

Also don't you mean "compromise Law for Good"? The way you wrote it, sounds like Lawfull Neutral Territory.

"I am sorry I can not free those slaves, it would be against local law to do so" does not sound remotely Paladin like.

 

The stuff you linked makes it clear that as the intention. Nr. 3 is "act with Honor" And Nr. 4 "Follow the local authorities, unless soemthing else overrules it".

 

Really, he was just trying to be a power gamer. There is no need to defend my brother. There was no room for his misinterpretation anywhere at the table.