Quote:
|
When we were told after the fact that we were retconning the whole death of Balthazar, that made me think... if he didnt die, hop the bindstone, walk back to get his grave, lost his gold in his pockets, etc... then would Muhk have killed the guards? Did he get an option to beat them to unconsciousness with the bluntside or handle of his axe? If we retcon one little quasi-factoid in the chain of events, then as skabot said, we must then retcon every event happening thereafter. If you retcon one thing, you need to retcon every other related thing down the line, cause and effect, action and reaction. If a butterly's wings flapping on the other side of the world causes a tornado, and there is no butterfly, then there is no tornado.
|
I agree. But here's the trick:
Balthazar's death is not retconned. Because of this:
Quote:
|
In practice, the Silverguard aims to subdue, not kill.
|
In other words, we know,
without the guards having to emote, that they will not kill unless given the order to do so (or if one feels like being the "bad apple," but since a GM hasn't denoted that as being the case, it isn't.). See Acacea's post above. OOC, mechanically, Bal died, but IC he did not. To retcon his death would mean that he did die IC and then it was decided afterwards to change that. Such is not the case here.
However, because we
don't know that Muhk would choose not to kill the guards,
he must emote that he chooses not to do so, or else we must assume they are dead.
Also, a note about the death penalty: simply because it exists does not mean that it is always enforced.
That is actually the main difference between Prantz and Hempstead. Both have stringent laws. One follows the law to the "T" while the other, Hempstead, is more interested in doing good, and using the laws to promote good, rather than following them to the letter. So, yes: Hempstead is a good-aligned city.