|
OOC I
Aug 13, 2018 21:56:05 GMT 1
Post by Balon Blackbriar on Aug 13, 2018 21:56:05 GMT 1
I used a DP OOC with the specific intent to cause drama IC. Walton's death was an accident. Was Balon aggressive? Yes. So was Donnel (as in used Aggressive tactic) in his match. Using aggressive =/= malicious intent. Choosing death as the consequence is an OOC decision.
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 0:20:26 GMT 1
Post by Addam Velaryon on Aug 14, 2018 0:20:26 GMT 1
It think we need an official ruling from father (yes or no) on whether certain techniques carry negative qualities with them, such as murderer or coward. Without it, this debate will just keep going in circles.
If they do then Ashara in the right, but with that comes the fact that Donnel, Daeron, Ser Humphrey Harding, Aladale, Ser Simon Tarley, Lord Karl Willum, Bittersteal (Alright he a murderer), and myself all intended to kill they're opponent. (Everyone on that list used aggressive or brutal) So 4 more PCs are seen in the same light as Ser Otho (minus the cheating).
If they aren't then Balon in the right and the general understanding should lie around "Yeah if Balon didn't go so hard than maybe Ser Walton would be alive, but Balon simply jousted and accidents happen".
I'm not saying its unreasonable to the untrained eye or biased opinons to believe Balon intentional tried to kill Ser Walton, but they are in the end they're beliefs. As for what Balon said about wanting to kill Ser Walton, it is possible that his character didn't mean it. Granted a yes ruling will change that.
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 0:29:20 GMT 1
Post by Alliser on Aug 14, 2018 0:29:20 GMT 1
I think that the noble stance is the mitigating factor. It is one thing to be aggressive yet sportsmenlike. It is another to be aggressive, yet straight joust (like young hotheaded men some of us are), it is yet another to be brutal (to increase damage) and another still to be brutal and aggressive. The last option is simply cheating or illegal targeting.
to transfer it to a number scale like disposition.
Aggressive/Defensive: -1 (maybe +1 for some of the more viscous members of the crowd) Braced: -1 (no body wants you to focus on staying in the saddle at the expense of getting good hits. Like in a derby people come for the crashes, not the smooth driving.) Brutal: -2 (Nobody wants to see people killed, this is how you get people killed.) Eyes Fixed: +1 (bravery is appreciated by the crowd, and risking injury for better hits is well appreciated.) High in the Saddle: +1 (people enjoy a show, if you are risking the ability to stay in the saddle for a better hit is thusly rewarded. Noble: +2 (people love to see knights go tumbling from horses, but don't want to see people actually die) Show-off: +3 Successfully pulling such a trick off tends to make you a crowd favorite. If you succeed and your opponent stays in his saddle, (people love a show off (most of the time) so playing to the crowd makes the crowd happy)
his AR is reduced by half (and you gain +1 chivalry if you then proceed with the noble style), +5
you can also choose to ignore his AR entirely, if so you suffer -2 Chivalry and your lance temporarily gains the vicious quality. -4
Special Options: Heightened stakes: The stay in saddle TN's increases by +3, both jousters may choose this for a total of +6. This applies to both riders. +1 (the crowd loves a good show) Aim for the shield: You forego all attempts at unseating your foe, instead you face a TN of 3 per rank of Animal Handling of your opponent, upon a success you gain a 0 DoS result. -1 (people can tell when you are not trying)
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 0:50:05 GMT 1
Post by Addam Velaryon on Aug 14, 2018 0:50:05 GMT 1
I think that the noble stance is the mitigating factor. It is one thing to be aggressive yet sportsmenlike. It is another to be aggressive, yet straight joust (like young hotheaded men some of us are), it is yet another to be brutal (to increase damage) and another still to be brutal and aggressive. The last option is simply cheating or illegal targeting. So like having certain qualities associated with them. Not saying I'm against that, but I think players have a right to know what those qualities are.
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 0:56:05 GMT 1
Post by Alliser on Aug 14, 2018 0:56:05 GMT 1
I think that the noble stance is the mitigating factor. It is one thing to be aggressive yet sportsmenlike. It is another to be aggressive, yet straight joust (like young hotheaded men some of us are), it is yet another to be brutal (to increase damage) and another still to be brutal and aggressive. The last option is simply cheating or illegal targeting. So like having certain qualities associated with them. Not saying I'm against that, but I think players have a right to know what those qualities are. Just updated my post with my theoretical disposition changes to the crowd. But yes, that is how I see it in my head, and I agree that it probably should be clarified, but this is the first time jousting so I think a bit a wiggle room should be given to PC's.
NPC's? not so much.
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 1:10:30 GMT 1
Post by Ashara Starkwood on Aug 14, 2018 1:10:30 GMT 1
I used a DP OOC with the specific intent to cause drama IC. Walton's death was an accident. Was Balon aggressive? Yes. So was Donnel (as in used Aggressive tactic) in his match. Using aggressive =/= malicious intent. Choosing death as the consequence is an OOC decision. Agreed on both that using the Aggressive maneuver does not qualify as malicious intent (per se), and that DP usage is an OOC choice. The question is why did Balon use the Brutal and Aggressive maneuvers? As I read your posts, it seems to me that Balon did not just want to defeat Walton, he wanted to hurt him and badly, even fatally. A few quotes from your posts are below. Granted a couple are spoken and could be lies (though they are not are explicitly marked as such), but most are OOC narration. From Snake Eater" Mercy is for the weak. And the weak deserve no mercy." "Balon had tried to hurt Walton...." From Bitch in Sheep's Clothing" Only the carrion-eaters will have anything to do with him when it is done." " The buck will be felled. That I guarantee." "He simultaneously enjoyed what she was doing and what he was going to do to her after he mangled Ser Walton." "Jeyne's words put him at ease. As much as one could be when discussing murder." EDIT: this discussion need not be resolved before we continue with our scene. It may affect future discussions but not that one, we're way past the joust being the main issue.
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 1:11:15 GMT 1
Post by Addam Velaryon on Aug 14, 2018 1:11:15 GMT 1
Yeah your reasoning sound and I don't disagree with it because it adds a little extra flavor. The problems stems from as the rules are currently written what the line is for sportsmanlike and unsportsmanlike is maneuvers vs dishonorable tactics and using noble if you knock someone helmet off.
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 1:12:59 GMT 1
Post by Alliser on Aug 14, 2018 1:12:59 GMT 1
Maybe a fun thing to do with DP (IDK how crazy father wants to get with it) is you can spend it to cancel one half of a single moves effect.
Such with with noble you can spend a DP to cancel the half reduction in damage for 1 turn
Or with brutal you can cancel the -2 to aiming and just get the straight +2 damage.
It would be pretty powerful though, I would likely limit it to having to spend the DP with the roll.
But then again... it might make too much of a headache to bother with.
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 1:15:34 GMT 1
Post by Ashara Starkwood on Aug 14, 2018 1:15:34 GMT 1
Maybe a fun thing to do with DP (IDK how crazy father wants to get with it) is you can spend it to cancel one half of a single moves effect. Such with with noble you can spend a DP to cancel the half reduction in damage for 1 turn Or with brutal you can cancel the -2 to aiming and just get the straight +2 damage. It would be pretty powerful though, I would likely limit it to having to spend the DP with the roll. But then again... it might make too much of a headache to bother with. It actually seems pretty weak for a DP... and perhaps a headache.
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 1:24:59 GMT 1
Post by Alliser on Aug 14, 2018 1:24:59 GMT 1
spending a DP to get a +2 bonus (which is basically what you would be getting here for most maneuvers) Is actually pretty good when you consider that most abilities require you to devote a DP to them in order to gain their effects, like with tournament knight you get a +2 to attack, albeit with every attack, but then you do not have the DP to burn in case you really need it.
And the + to damage is very difficult to get, and talented only adds +1 to the static increase to hit.
Would it be the most powerful or useful expenditure of DP? probably not. But if you really want to win it can be the difference between a DOS that increased the TN to stay in the saddle.
but yeah, probably too much of a headache to try and implement now.
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 3:55:29 GMT 1
Post by Ser Donnel Blackbriar on Aug 14, 2018 3:55:29 GMT 1
Well... I think that most PCs who chose different techniques did so with the wrong impression.
I actually thought that aggressive would be more chivalrous way to joust. You lower your defence, showing that you are unafraid of the opposition!
Ser Donnel will chose completely different techniques round 2, and I think it might be better to either just ignore round one techniques or do the matches over🤔 Otherwise many characters acted ooc on round 1!
|
|
|
Post by Laena Pyre on Aug 14, 2018 4:28:49 GMT 1
I feel like a lot of focus is being put on the jousting technique, like that's *the* most important thing. The way I see things is that it's one small thing: if Ser Walton hadn't died, no-one would seriously think Ser Balon was trying to kill him (except for me, as he'd strongly implied that was his intent to me IC before). Similarly, if Ser Balon had been jousting noble style, and still killed him, *people would still be suspicious*, because of all the *other* things that had been rumoured, said, done, etc., *but* the less aggressive stance he used could be used by those defending him.
Basically, it's only once someone actually *dies* that the question of 'were they too aggressive?' would ever be asked, as I see things.
Edit: to clarify, in my view, the act (Ser Walton's death) and the motive (the slander, the Dornish-hatred, the connection to Fireball, etc.) are the big things. The jousting stance is just that neat little bow everything else is tied up with, removing any uncertainty.
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 5:11:18 GMT 1
Post by Parmen Redwyne on Aug 14, 2018 5:11:18 GMT 1
I feel like a lot of focus is being put on the jousting technique, like that's *the* most important thing. The way I see things is that it's one small thing: if Ser Walton hadn't died, no-one would seriously think Ser Balon was trying to kill him (except for me, as he'd strongly implied that was his intent to me IC before). Similarly, if Ser Balon had been jousting noble style, and still killed him, *people would still be suspicious*, because of all the *other* things that had been rumoured, said, done, etc., *but* the less aggressive stance he used could be used by those defending him. Basically, it's only once someone actually *dies* that the question of 'were they too aggressive?' would ever be asked, as I see things. This sounds about right to me. We can each interpret the choice of different techniques how we want (and I think that it sets up an interesting role playing dynamic that we do so) but the fact that many others have used Aggressive techniques without raising eyebrows makes me think that something else is needed to determine guilt (motive, previous statements, etc). Jousting is fundamentally a contact sport and charging someone on a 1000lbs horse while pointing an 11 foot stick at their center of gravity is never going to be doctor recommended. In the real world, sports tend to use the principle of informed consent. They say I am an adult and I choose to compete with other consenting adults under X set of rules. So long as they stick to the rules they are generally held, if not blameless, then at least not liable for injuries caused. This is why someone like a GSP can knock someone down in MMA, sit on top of them, drop elbows and still be considered a gentleman and not a psychopath. The same reason that we admire aggressive, swarming boxers like a Joe Frazier. Now if they hit after the bell that would be a different story. Then aggressiveness is not the issue it is the use of dirty tactics and rule breaking. In jousting that might be the equivalent of aiming for the horse or the groin. Or using a "special lance" that is not built to break. But the point is, its not the technique that is used that is the problem it is that the attacker is not acting under the agreed rules in order to gain an unfair, disproportionately dangerous advantage. Does this make any sense?
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 5:32:55 GMT 1
Post by Balon Blackbriar on Aug 14, 2018 5:32:55 GMT 1
I'll try to answer succinctly and in order to prevent further confusion. The question is why did Balon use the Brutal and Aggressive maneuvers? As I read your posts, it seems to me that Balon did not just want to defeat Walton, he wanted to hurt him and badly, even fatally. A few quotes from your posts are below. Granted a couple are spoken and could be lies (though they are not are explicitly marked as such), but most are OOC narration. 1) My style choices were chosen to reflect the mental state of Balon as the joust progressed. In round one he wanted to cause damage to the point Walton was injured and/or had to quit. Hence Brutal only. In Round 2, seeing he did no damage, he stopped being brutal and went for a more aggressive strike but countered it with being braced to comp for his more reckless style of attack. He also did eyes fixed to be more precise in his LEGAL strike. Again he dealt little damage and became frustrated. When round 3 started Balon threw caution to the wind and went aggressive 3 and eyes fixed. All legal maneuvers, all aimed to damage him and defeat him. No cheating or aiming to kill like Ser Otho. Here is the key. I chose to use DP to force Walton to fall and take more damage (i.e. a wound) which he could not soak. Becoming defeated the victor gets to choose the outcome. OOC me chose death because I believe it to be good for the plot & game. IC Balon didn't choose to kill him. He died from injuries sustained in a joust where all competitors acknowledge the inherent risk. I knew the optics from an IC perspective would be bad. I knew IC people wouldn't believe in coincidence. I knew IC Balon would have to prove his innocence and deal with the consequences of unintentionally completing his objective. I find that enjoyable. From Snake Eater "Mercy is for the weak. And the weak deserve no mercy." - I wanted to quote Karate Kid."Balon had tried to hurt Walton...." - hurt, not kill.From Bitch in Sheep's Clothing "Only the carrion-eaters will have anything to do with him when it is done." "The buck will be felled. That I guarantee." "He simultaneously enjoyed what she was doing and what he was going to do to her after he mangled Ser Walton." "Jeyne's words put him at ease. As much as one could be when discussing murder." If you've ever been laying naked next to a hot chick/dude you tend to say whatever they want to hear to have more the sex.
|
|
|
OOC I
Aug 14, 2018 5:36:35 GMT 1
Post by Balon Blackbriar on Aug 14, 2018 5:36:35 GMT 1
I should also add that I think the terms for the joust are being taken too literally.
Aggressive, to me, means nothing more than putting yourself at risk in an attempt to unhorse your foe. Defensive, to me, means nothing more than trying to not get knocked off. It doesn't imply cowardice. Brutal, to me, means nothing more than trying to injure them to force them to concede. Not kill. etc.
Could I have added Noble? Yes. But that isn't IC for a knight who hates Dornishman. It's not like Balon is going to choose death for every foe he defeats. That's stupid. I choose OOC to kill Walton because it's a McGuffin.
|
|