|
Post by WxMAN on Jul 18, 2016 20:01:40 GMT -6
I forgot to mention a special thank you to Rigil - the record keeping on the monthly kingdom turns made it possible for me to recreate that part of the timeline - you took way better notes than I did. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jul 19, 2016 9:03:37 GMT -6
Blame ... er ... credit goes to each and everyone of my history teachers who made sure I learned how to take proper notes. Plus, I'm very much trying to make sure I learn the Kingdom rules for my Saturday game so copious notes are good, especially since more than half that group don't really care about that sort of bookwork...
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jul 23, 2016 0:35:34 GMT -6
Very low XP night due to stopping mid encounter - should be quite the sizable XP night next week depending how the session goes (and assuming you survive;-)) Session notes are up, though I'm a bit tired so they may be more scatterbrained. Should be an interesting game next week with some very confusing "revelations" or "lies" that were told to the group as well as a "should we stay or should we go" decision regarding the abandoned keep and the Old Beldame.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jul 23, 2016 20:42:13 GMT -6
All (37!) of the NPCs on Obsidian Portal should be updated. More information is filled in as y'all learn more about them - so if you never ask the NPCs anything about themselves, you won't know.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jul 23, 2016 21:45:51 GMT -6
I think it would be best to talk about our next move during this week so that we have a better game plan at the start of next week. Plus it would give the GM more time to prepare if we come to a consensus. So I'll just give Tess' perspective as to what she is thinking. Based on her sense motive, she fully believes that Nimbleshanks (I can't log on to OP right now to see if he actually has a name, so I made one up) has gone to Beldame's place with his queen to go and teach her a lesson. The party is now faced with a decision to leave and try to stop them, or to stay and search for mad lootz. Based on her sense motive check, Tess would like to depart as soon as possible to try to make it to Beldame's so that they can render aid. This is advantageous for several reasons:
1. Saving Beldame's life may make her not want to plot her revenge/hold a grudge on us for killing Bonnik 2. Nimbleshanks is injured. Don't know if he can heal or not by the time he gets there, but if he doesn't then we have an advantage 3. I would assume that Beldame would aid in this fight if only to save her own life, so we may have additional help 4. So far the only people that we know that has interesting information about Andrei is Beldame and the Fae. If the Fae kill Beldame, then we may never know what is going on. 5. If we dispatch the Fae we can always return to the keep and loot it later.
The cons to this would be the potential that Nimbleshanks may be lying (but again, Tess think he is telling the truth), and isn't gone, or that we may miss something that is important at the keep. There could be additional Fae at the keep as well. There is also the chance that Beldame is not going to be happy to see us regardless, or that all three of them are allies and are setting a trap for us. I would find the last scenario far fetched but it could be a possibility. Tess will make her case to go but she will agree with what the majority decides. She will also be more inclined to follow what Andrei would wish to do simply because this information concerns primarily him. If he isn't interested in learning what Nimbleshanks meant, then she will defer to his judgement.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jul 25, 2016 8:33:20 GMT -6
Just for the record: Walays, once again, really doesn't care who wins between the Fae (unknown, but hostile) and Beldame (probably evil), and in this case, either could be an advantage, so he'd rather let them have at it, and take advantage of the distraction to scour the keep for whatever might be there (which might include something useful against the Quickling).
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jul 25, 2016 9:24:26 GMT -6
Andrei is likely torn with regards to this - I get where the GM was coming from with Beldame's "heat of the moment" thing, but to him, demanding multiple "loved ones" in recompense for the death of a clear madman who attacked us with the intent of murdering us is, without question, an evil act. Period. He does not see any leeway there (which, admittedly, is due to his own biases. There is probably some lingering guilt over the dead bandit way back in session 1 or 2 (which he is still consciously trying to atone for).) So with that in mind, he's nominally okay with letting her get her ass kicked by "Nimbleshanks" and the queen.
At the same time, though, he also perceives Beldame as a citizen of his realm, even if right now, he trusts her about as far as ... no. He doesn't trust her in the slightest. But still, as a citizen of his realm, she has certain rights and he suspects that, if "Nimbleshanks" takes out Beldame and tortures her to death (as I seem to recall him declaring as an intent, which is also definitely an evil act), then word is going to get out somehow and that will negatively impact the reputation of the Shieldlands since we're claiming to be standing as "defenders" and all that. Plus, the optics are bad, what with "hey, she pissed him off so he let her die ... what happens if I piss him off too?" This leads him toward wanting to intervene in some fashion.
Finally, there is nature of whatever "Nimbleshanks" knows regarding "the Swordlord" (which the player is presuming means Andrei's dad.) I will admit to being a little braindead on Friday evening during the fight - I was so focused on the tactical situation and trying to think my way around it, that all of the references made by the quickling went right over my head until much later and LabRat mentioned it, thus sparking some neurons. So yeah, he's definitely interested in finding out WTF and it does sound like Beldame has some sort of intel he'd like to get. Plus, I think he also made the Sense Motive check and also believes the quickling was not lying ...
I am leaning toward us doing a quick, initial sweep of the lower levels of the keep (but not advancing up the levels just yet), then racing toward Beldame's in the hopes of catching the quickling ... and his queen? Flat-footed. Failing that, just using them as a verbal shield with regards to Beldame - "There's a quickling coming! And he said he was bringing his queen!" - might, at the very least, get us some additional intelligence on how to stop/kill that critter.
YMMV
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jul 25, 2016 10:44:06 GMT -6
I'd point out, in her defense, she just found out that people she was warming up to as friends had literally betrayed her and killed her lover, despite telling them not to (and while she does not know this, the GM knows that no-one, outside of Tess, ever even bothered to go non-lethal). So yeah, she was angry, hurt, and felt completely betrayed - her "demanding" a loved one from each of her lover's murderers, may be an evil request, but she did not commit an evil act against anyone. Frankly, compared to what Andrei and Walays have done in the campaign, she's a saint. So if "well, he's trying to atone for it" still gives Andrei a pass and he can still claim to be NG, how is she automatically evil for doing much less? Also, what atonement has Andrei done outside of talking to Jhod once, back in session 3 or 4?
It may seem like I am overly defending her, but I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything else - kill her, let her die, love her, hate her, I don't care - in the end it is y'alls story, I'm not attached to any NPC and no one is off limits.
Nimbleshanks (which is his official family name now, because it is awesome) did say he had tortured her and he felt it was worthwhile to finally just kill her. Y'all did roll and believe he's being honest in everything he says.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jul 25, 2016 11:02:50 GMT -6
I'd point out, in her defense, she just found out that people she was warming up to as friends had literally betrayed her and killed her lover, despite telling them not to (and while she does not know this, the GM knows that no-one, outside of Tess, ever even bothered to go non-lethal). So yeah, she was angry, hurt, and felt completely betrayed - her "demanding" a loved one from each of her lover's murderers, may be an evil request, but she did not commit an evil act against anyone. Frankly, compared to what Andrei and Walays have done in the campaign, she's a saint. So if "well, he's trying to atone for it" still gives Andrei a pass and he can still claim to be NG, how is she automatically evil for doing much less? - Walays hasn't actually done anything wrong up to this point. Or if he has, I've completely forgotten it
- Andrei wasn't NG at the time he did what he did, IIRC
- The Beldame matter really comes down to what the GM was trying to get across. Her response came across as Evil™. Her request implied that the "loved ones" would be tortured or killed, and as far as we know, was meant to imply that. No Good™ person would even suggest it, aside from a throwaway "How would you like it if…" kinda thing, even if they were in great emotional pain. If she is not Evil™, or the GM didn't want to suggest that, then the encounter should not have played out quite as it did. (To be fair, the "eating of children" thing is an influence here.) The GM could walk it back a bit if it came out wrong (or just roll with it), and that would be fine, but it sounds like we have a bit of a miscommunication here.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jul 25, 2016 11:09:27 GMT -6
Addendum to the above: I do not contend with Beldame's leap-to-conclusion about the guy being dead (she didn't actually ask), or her lack of interest in any explanation—that's all pretty normal behavior—even for someone so highly intelligent.
And in D&D, demanding he be raised from the dead at our expense would be perfectly reasonable
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jul 25, 2016 11:17:45 GMT -6
Walays has lied to a woman who had his baby then sent her away and also ignored requests from the Kellid werewolf to help him, then lied about what he had said when asked by Tess.
Andrei has always been good aligned as far as I know.
Again, yes, she did request it - it was not a good thing, it was a very bad thing - good people can get caught up in the moment and say bad things. It was not even remotely as evil as murdering a helpless man that was cooperating and been promised freedom - unless you feel saying "I'll kill this person" is as evil as actually killing someone. It won't be 'walked back' it is within her character, I don't think there is a miscommunication as much as a double standard - once rule for PCs, one for NPCs.
As far as the raise dead thing... I'm kind of wondering if that spell line should be almost non-existent in this world, just because it makes death carry almost no weight at higher levels. I think it'd actually require quite a bit of convincing from a deity to grant a divine caster that spell. You guys didn't have that information before now, but it really hasn't come up until right now and I am thinking of having that be the cannon explanation about raising people from the dead (aside from necromancers who do it in such a way as they are an abomination)
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jul 25, 2016 11:45:28 GMT -6
Walays has lied to a woman who had his baby then sent her away and also ignored requests from the Kellid werewolf to help him, then lied about what he had said when asked by Tess. #1 was totally justified. They're "barbarians," and "helping" him by ending his suffering seemed perfectly logical in that respect (esp. since he wasn't aware of a curse that might be lifted). You clearly expected that he should try to save his life, not expecting otherwise—not sure why it didn't occur, but whatever. #2 wasn't very nice, but certainly not evil—he probably figured he was doing her a favor anyway. I don't think there is a miscommunication as much as a double standard - once rule for PCs, one for NPCs. Certainly not true. I think there is a miscommunication here, just not necessarily the Beldame thing in itself—and not exactly unusual, or necessarily surprising. We're interpreting things in very different ways. There's definitely not a double-standard though (not in my mind anyway), nor would/should there ever be. As far as the raise dead thing... This is something we'll need to square away sooner rather than later, as it will have quite a large effect on how things play out.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jul 25, 2016 11:45:30 GMT -6
I think this is not so much a double standard but one of perception of one's own character. We do this all the time in real life and it trickles into gameplay. For instance we know we are good people, so one or two infractions that would question our alignment is diluted because we are essentially with ourselves the entire time. We can name 999 good acts for every single bad act. However, if we have limited interaction with a NPC and they do something that is seen as evil (regardless of whether or not it was justified), well, then one is more inclined to think that they are evil, than rather just having a really bad day.
If the GM thinks a PC is not playing to their alignment due to constant infractions, that one thing, But if the PC's have a perception of an NPC (whether right or wrong) then it needs to be resolved in game. Tess comes from the school of hard knocks, so she knows that people make mistakes. She values actions above words, so she is willing to reserve judgement of Beldame for now. She has done nothing to harm us even when she was furious with us. Plus let's think of this from her perspective. She probably thinks we are a bunch of assholes as well.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jul 25, 2016 12:06:19 GMT -6
#1 was totally justified. They're "barbarians," and "helping" him by ending his suffering seemed perfectly logical in that respect (esp. since he wasn't aware of a curse that might be lifted). You clearly expected that he should try to save his life, not expecting otherwise—not sure why it didn't occur, but whatever. #2 wasn't very nice, but certainly not evil—he probably figured he was doing her a favor anyway. I'm not sure if #2 is the child-carrying mother or the lie to Tess. If it is the lie to Tess, there was no reason to lie since if "helping" the "barbarian" in your culture is killing them - so there is nothing to be ashamed of - you did the right thing, so why not tell her? If it is the baby-mama.... you've sentenced a child to live without its father and for a single mother to survive on her own, neither of which are overly good in ye olde D&D times.... I think it was within how your character would act, it made perfect sense for Walays, but it was hardly a "good" thing. There's definitely not a double-standard though (not in my mind anyway), nor would/should there ever be. If there is no double standard, why is Andrei not declared evil for his actions? I'd say what he did was evil and Walays is fine killing Beldame or letting her die for much less, so....... Also, I don't mean to be beating up on Andrei, but it is a very good example of an evil action that was met with a shrug by and large, whereas Beldame has been condemned as evil for allowing her emotions to get ahead of her in a very emotional moment but not actually doing anything against anyone. This is something we'll need to square away sooner rather than later, as it will have quite a large effect on how things play out. I agree, I think I'll just state that for the moment I prefer the idea that any type of bringing dead back to life in a non-abomination state is exceedingly rare and requires communion with a deity that must be convinced this person is worth raising? This gives me wiggle room for a PC to be returned to life under extraordinary circumstances but still keep the weight of death
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jul 25, 2016 12:21:17 GMT -6
I think what happened with Andrei came down to what exactly were we going to do about it? I think everybody felt it was a bit off (it was vaguely justifiable—it was a bandit), but we weren't going to kick him out for it just yet, and as players at least, we were pretty sure it wasn't going to be a recurring problem. Beldame has had a history with us of doing less-than-honorable things, and we had no reason to believe that if we were to hand over a cherished baby at that point that she wouldn't spike it like a football. (It would be nice if we had established, "officially," her ethical status—would have cleared some of this up—but we've already allied ourselves with otherwise Evil folk, which is, in itself, I think, a bigger issue than these.)
But having said all that: How to deal with the current situation in the future, and situations like it?
As awkward as it is, the GM should probably just come right out and say plainly that he considers this-or-that action as Evil or otherwise out-of-character, so there is no ambiguity, and we can decide at that point whether or not to agree-to-disagree or take it back. And the players should do the same (as occurred with Beldame), and the GM should be ready to adjust as required. We can follow Rule 0 in case of disagreement, but if the GM (as an extreme example) says the old witch eats this kitten, but it's not Evil, we can play along accordingly (and vice versa).
For the record, I do not consider anything that Walays has done to be Dark Side, just Renegade. If the universe (GM) thinks otherwise, he would not have done it—simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jul 25, 2016 13:15:01 GMT -6
As far as what to do about it in the future - I'm not sure. I don't like having to say "Walays wouldn't do this" or "Tess will go from CG to CN if she does this", mainly because I have always believed to never mess with player agency and control as it is the one thing in the world that you "own" as a player. As a GM, I control everything, but the character is yours and not for me to touch - if you want to do it and it is physically possible, it is happening. I want you guys to constantly feel as though you are in control of your character and that if you want to do something, I will try my best to make it happen, or at least give you the chance to make it happen.
I also really don't like the alignment system in general, because I'm not great at remembering that in D&D/PFD worlds there is such a thing as true evil/good - but that is a conversation for another time - and is my own failing on setting.
As far as Beldame, what she requested was most assuredly evil, I am not disputing that. I am however explaining why she came to that moment and also pointing out that she has not taken any action that could be considered evil, she has only said some things which may be considered evil. As a counter example, looking at Nimbleshanks, he has said he'd done evil things and was even given the opportunity to stand down by Walays (nice job on that btw, I thought it was a good move, even if it didn't work in this case) and still attacked. I think that makes it clear he is evil - he was given plenty of chances to not do something evil and continues to do so.
I wonder how much of it is complexity of character, Nimbleshanks is very "simple" in terms of motivation and experience, whereas Beldame is quite complex... which may throw people off as she is more easy to have difference of opinion as to the nature of her character (as is Jubilost, etc).
Also, kicking/eating puppies is a Good act, any harm that comes to kittens or cats is an Evil act. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jul 25, 2016 13:51:05 GMT -6
I am leaning toward us doing a quick, initial sweep of the lower levels of the keep (but not advancing up the levels just yet), then racing toward Beldame's in the hopes of catching the quickling ... and his queen? Flat-footed. Failing that, just using them as a verbal shield with regards to Beldame - "There's a quickling coming! And he said he was bringing his queen!" - might, at the very least, get us some additional intelligence on how to stop/kill that critter. This remains Andrei's preferred course of action. While he's less trusting of Beldame, he does trust Tess and it is pretty clear that she would like to try and resolve the Beldame thing in this fashion so he's more than willing to take that route to see where it leads.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jul 25, 2016 13:54:15 GMT -6
I also really don't like the alignment system in general, because I'm not great at remembering that in D&D/PFD worlds there is such a thing as true evil/good - but that is a conversation for another time - and is my own failing on setting. I alternately like it and hate it for pretty much these reasons and how subjective an "evil" act can be from time to time. One of the only things I liked about 4E was their introduction of "Unaligned" ... though honestly, that's mostly just True Neutral, I guess. Well ... sounds like I'm Evil in real life then given my general dislike of cats...
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jul 25, 2016 14:30:00 GMT -6
I think everyone understood why Beldame said what she said, and at least empathized. What made it more was that we weren't sure she wouldn't follow through, based on our previous interactions and general ignorance of her ethics. And on further reflection, I think there may have been something in how it was said that made it worse—which may or may not have been in error.
Whether or not alignment is a thing is based on whether or not the GM enforces it. If the GM says he doesn't care for it, I'm cool with ignoring it (to the extent that we can, given that it's integral to the system in some places). And if we have the occasional disagreement about what's what, I'm fine with chalking it up to fog-of-war or glitchy programming (as has been observed in Mass Effect, et al, with the occasional "WTF? That was Renegade?").
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jul 25, 2016 15:14:33 GMT -6
In general I ignore the alignment except for a broad generality as to how to play an NPC or for divine spellcasting, etc. or in the case of a celestials and devils/demons, things beyond the material plane that are actually good or evil incarnate, and even then - it just isn't something I like, but it is a trope of the fantasy setting so I have to deal
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jul 25, 2016 15:50:56 GMT -6
I think the issue with alignment came when they created the divine spellcasters. Naturally they should have bonuses to smite evil, however in order for that to work everyone has to be pulled into the alignment system. Now clear right/wrong actions are what makes you decidedly evil or not. I'm only saying this because I hardly gave a damn about alignment for most of my characters outside of role playing entertainment. That is, until I played a cleric. Now alignment is always in the forefront of my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jul 25, 2016 16:30:52 GMT -6
Completely (sort of) unrelated: I thought I'd mentioned this already but evidently not. I wanted to say "Great job!" to the GM with regards to how the Council reported the status of the realm. That was a really neat way of handling what would normally be a boring data dump. So major kudos for that.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jul 25, 2016 17:11:29 GMT -6
Completely (sort of) unrelated: I thought I'd mentioned this already but evidently not. I wanted to say "Great job!" to the GM with regards to how the Council reported the status of the realm. That was a really neat way of handling what would normally be a boring data dump. So major kudos for that. Dammit. I meant to say that and got distracted
|
|
|
Post by Magman on Jul 25, 2016 19:19:13 GMT -6
Walker's distrust of Beldame will not stop him from going along with Tess. He will agree to go along. As normal though he will stay outside the gate if Beldame allows them entrance Hoping all along that he can say told you so Almost forgot I printed out a copy of my character sheet on your work printer and forgot it. The only spell I had cast up until we quit was Call lightning.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jul 27, 2016 12:26:12 GMT -6
As far as the raise dead thing... I'm kind of wondering if that spell line should be almost non-existent in this world, just because it makes death carry almost no weight at higher levels. I think it'd actually require quite a bit of convincing from a deity to grant a divine caster that spell. You guys didn't have that information before now, but it really hasn't come up until right now and I am thinking of having that be the cannon explanation about raising people from the dead (aside from necromancers who do it in such a way as they are an abomination) The interesting thing with Raise Dead/Resurrection is that it means the GM can always bring back a favored Bad Guy since, if the PCs have access to those spells, so do the Bad Guys. If it is completely removed, that could also negatively impact some equally high-level wizard spells (e.g., Wish which I think will allow you to replicate Raise Dead.) Another option is to grant high-ranking Clerics the use of "Miracles" that are required for such a spell. I'm not sure of the exact mechanic that would be used - I seem to recall Deadlands having a cool thing with the Blessed where they would have their usual abilities (like lay on hands or smite) but they could obtain truly powerful ... abilities (don't recall what they were called) which were oneshot abilities that were really hard to obtain. They weren't in the Player's Guide, but were in the Marshal's Handbook, I think, and Raise Dead was one of those kinds of super abilities that a character had to really work on obtaining. What might be interesting is if the Raise Dead/Resurrection spells were available, but used with the recognition that "if you raise PC X, the GM also gets to Raise an equivalent-level NPC to show back up later..." Just some random thoughts...
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jul 28, 2016 13:09:21 GMT -6
I agree resurrection-esque spells are equal opportunity, I just don't much care for trivializing death the way those spells do once PCs hit a given level. It also makes 'defeating' a bad guy almost pointless as he can just be raised again tomorrow.... I think this is my own personal dislike for those style of spells and the problem with high level d&d/pfd fantasy. Again, just my own personal bugbears with the settings and tropes.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jul 28, 2016 13:11:54 GMT -6
"A king has his reign, and then he dies," doesn't work too well with Resurrection and/or Reincarnation spells available. Imagine…
|
|
|
Post by Magman on Jul 28, 2016 17:32:06 GMT -6
The old group I gamed with the GM gave it a percentage chance that was dependent on how faithful you were. The best anyone received that I recall was 10%, he usually started at a 1% chance needless to say there were very few Resurrections when you died
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jul 30, 2016 15:26:50 GMT -6
FYI, @ the GM, I meant to formalize where Andrei's headspace is in the wake of the revelations & discoveries, but I've had a monstrous bad headache all day ... and my Saturday game is going to start shortly. I will put thoughts to (digital) paper soon (tomorrow probably) so as to hopefully provide you additional story hooks.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Jul 30, 2016 16:42:55 GMT -6
XP, Timeline, and Obsidian Portal up to date. I have awarded extra XP for each player doing a particularly good job - Giger for trying to grovel his way out of the fight and the fantastic swoop and grab and drop, Rigil for taking the laughing gas, sword breaking, and his father's face nailed to the wall with his own sword in stride, and Labrat for "Gorum says hello" and for going into "Cleric mode" to justify burning an entire tower down - to cleanse it with holy fire. The last session was a massive fight for the entire night that had it all: action, adventure, sword-buckling, romance, betrayal, laughter, a druid in eagle form dropping an enemy from a great height while calling down lightning on them, a dance number, a failed death curse, and a witty one-liner Anyway, there are some other things I want to point out / clarify just to make sure the PC's have all of the correct information they should have as they make decisions as to what to do. - The faces in Nimbleshanks' tower had many items stuffed in their "lower jaw" region: from gems and coins to poison mixes and whetstones. Tess does not believe this had any religious connotations, but that the faces were used for macabre storage and decoration.
- Nimbleshanks' has said (and the PC's believe he was telling the truth) that he has killed someone who looked like Andrei (the PC's now assume he was talking about Andrei's father, Piotr)
- Nimbleshanks, during this conversation also stated he had tortured "that fucking witch" and now felt it was time to just kill her.
- Nimbleshanks also made several remarks to getting his queen to help kill "the fucking witch" and also said that he and his queen will get revenge on the PC's as he quit the battlefield
- Three Aldori dueling swords, hanging three faces were recovered from the tower - Andrei recognized the face as his fathers and the sword bore his mark, the other two faces and marks on the swords were those of people who were members of the party that explored the Stolen Land.
If you have any questions or need me to clarify something let me know as I want to make sure I haven't misled you unintentionally or we have a breakdown of communication that will lead your character to take an action they wouldn't have taken if I was more clear.
|
|