March 17th, 2005

wicked handclasp
  • istril

Conflicting elemental enchantments?

Does anyone have a definitive (as in a reference or quote to supporting rules) answer to the question of wether or not frost and flaming or acid and shock enchantments can be simultaneously on the same weapon? Intuitively the answer is no. I can't find this anywhere in the rules, though...

EDIT: From pg 16 of the FAQ:

"There's nothing illogical about a flaming, frost, shock weapon (at least not within any framework that allows weapons to generate energy in the first place), and there's no rule against such weapons (think of the weapons having fiery, frosty, shocking flames)."

Sorry! Guess I should have looked more carefully. Ah well. I guess this just makes this post FYI for a rule I suspect many pp overrule.

Unfair Situation?

I just started playing in a new campaign. In the party there is a lawful good character, two neutral goods, and one chaotic good. The chaotic good character has all of these "brilliant" ideas in which all of the melee users (a.k.a. not her- she's a sorceress) go off to kill powerful creatures and once one or more of them are dead, she loots the room and nicely enough, the bodies of the other characters. Every chance she gets, she loots the rooms and lies about what she finds. She rarely shares but however, does some nice things to NPCs but otherwise is selfish as the day is long. I, along with another player, have called her on this and she says she's playing her alignment perfectly. Is this true?

Also, the DM is condoning this and even lets her keep special items everyone else doesn't even get to know about. Myself and the other players have minimal supplies (an average of oh, 50 gold?) and there has been an allusion that she's taken about 200 gold without our knowledge. I'm just wondering, is this fair? The DM doesn't seem to agree that her alignment conflicts with these behaviors. If this situation is unfair and the DM agrees, how should I handle it? This is maybe the 6th time I've ever played D&D. I don't want to seem confrontational or disagreeable but from the write-ups of chaotic and good... being this greedy and selfish doesn't seem right...

I'd appreciate the help.
  • Current Music
    Infomercial in the background
Victor "Anole" Borkowski

(no subject)

Mkay, I am panicing... I have to DM a group made up MOSTLY of my friends tomorrow, and I have played very little 3rd edition and have never DM'd it before... I spent so much time coming up with the greater story of my campaign and world that I didn't develop a proper hook for each character (some of the bastards are being Neutral Evil) or a good begining adventure... I'm thinking of having them, under the command of the church (St. Cuthbert. One of the as of now 6 characters is a LN priest, then there are two goods, a neut, and two NE...) exterminate a group of goblins...

As a hook for the two evils, I was thinking something along the lines of either the church having them owe it, or the priest looking for local hero assistance in his mission and them agreeing, though I can't think of why they would want to help them eliminate goblins unless there was plenty reward in it.... which makes me think the church/city will have something against the evil people, and they will gain trust via this mission... I am panicing.
tiger hand
  • id_42

Second question

We've already pretty well covered the question of whether or (especially) not the character who's been ripping schwarzstern, myself, and a few others off is, indeed, chaotic good. Here's the follow-up question: assuming the aforementioned player is playing a chaotic neutral character trying to pass herself off as chaotic good (and, of course, being neutral, thus being immune to the effects of detect evil), or assuming that he really thinks he's accurately portraying a chaotic good alignment and further that the DM will not do anything about his misplaying of his character (for example, if he agrees), what would you suggest we do about it?

Remember that our characters are neutral good, and as of this moment we haven't actually seen evidence of his treachery.