Sorry work has been rough this week. Summer finally set in and that metal warehouse is basically an oven i get to get into for eight hours. And it keeps that heat in like you would not believe. Feels like high noon at midnight.
|
The idea, GM, is to get a complete idea of what they want before we engage in diplomacy. Recovering the body to deliver to the lizardfolk is also a good gesture of goodwill.
@Party: I advise going by the GM's suggestion, which is taking the road to the spiders' den and camping until the appointed time.
That will be on 22nd (which is, surprisingly, on Oathday, when it is advantageous to sign contracts).
@Cryto-dwarf: Speak With Dead is only cryptic and riddle-y if the target would not normally speak with the speaker.
RE: Speak With Dead - It can be cryptic and riddle-y even if the target would normally be inclined to openness (I believe the wording is "brief, cryptic, or repetitive, especially if the target would have opposed you"), but in this case I felt thorough answers were the most appropriate, since the reason he died was trying to get to you guys to speak with you. This is his closure, if you will.
RE: Oathday - If I was smart, I'd claim it was on purpose in order to look extra-awesome as a GM. Apparently I'm not so smart. ;)
Makes sense. Also, if the target wasn't disposed to improvised riddles in life, I doubt they'll bloom into a poet in death. Unlike fey, dwarves are known to be gruff and straightforward. If Mr. Stonehands was not inclined to talk to us, I imagine we'd just get the bare minimum information our questions would afford. And swearing. Lots of swearing.
Recovering the body to deliver to the lizardfolk is also a good gesture of goodwill.
Only if it's still edible. Bringing them rotten meat could be taken as an insult. :P
@Party: I advise going by the GM's suggestion, which is taking the road to the spiders' den and camping until the appointed time.
That will be on 22nd (which is, surprisingly, on Oathday, when it is advantageous to sign contracts).
That's fine with me.
Actually the eating of their kinsmen comes from a need to survive and not waste anything that could help with it. We could probably be better received giving them boar.
Over all the Lizardfolk are a neutral race who got one of the shorter sticks. Humans, who outnumber everyone, tend to chase off the creatures that they do not like or that frighten them. Anyone that doesn't conform to their version of normal.
Amund totally thinks Perry is a racist. Which should be fun!
GM Rennai was this part of the module or something you added? Either way I like it. So much potential for DRAMA!
You people and your culture. Bah! Who needs it! :D
Besides it makes the game more entertaining. One of the things i like about this one is how at odd most of the group is. Instead of just agreeing on everything despite what the character would normally do. That happens way more than I like in the S&S game I play in and it just isn't as much fun. I love player conflict though. It is my favorite thing in the games.
Also your comment made me and my roommates laugh and one of them called you a doushe bag :) sorry about that they are almost as rude as I am sometimes. The viewpoint fits Perry very well it is just far from Amund views. And I like it :)
|
|
Hey, don't get me wrong; protein is protein. Steak, soy meat, and grandma all serve the task.
This topic does bring up questions humanity struggled with for a while, such as cultural relativism and morality, as well as how to handle 'the Other'. It tests the limits of what we accept as OK (even if you take everything by the modern free-will/consent-based rationale).
Cannibalism was in human history for various reasons, overwhelmingly as a pragmatic response to famine, but it was a cultural and moral minority.
But tease Perry as much as you want; I don't think you'd be exactly pining to chow down on the neighbor's cat, let alone the neighbors.
GM Rennai was this part of the module or something you added? Either way I like it. So much potential for DRAMA!
Now, now, I can't go giving away all my secrets. ;) I've added a thing or two to this episode, but the issue of the Turessk tribe is in the original module, which means many of these issues would have arisen even without my additions.
And Perry's right - for pretty much all of human history, casual racism has been a thing, even to this day is still a thing. And the issues of cultural and moral relativism, how we interact with cultures engaging in what we consider strange practices, etc. is a big part of any exploration/colonization story. (Even though sadly for much of human history it was part of the story by virtue of its being utterly trampled.)
Eating the neighbor's cat is a whole other matter entirely - I still don't quite get why Western culture as a whole tends to be so opposed to consuming anything that's not cow, pig, or bird, but that's tangential. ;)
|
|
You forgot sheep, deer, and fish.
It's not strictly Western though; many European dietary traditions overlap with those from the Middle East.
I'd also attribute it to settled civilization, as centuries of animal husbandry (or human-gene-selection) favored certain animals that were easy to tame, and traits that were useful. On a minor note, consuming horse-flesh was acceptable in most cases, though cannibalism is a big no-no.
Though there seem to be certain traits involved; bison entered human diets (even of colonists) quite quickly once they were introduced, while dogs or cats never caught on, which hints at an underlying structure.
For example, Islamic dietary law forbids eating animals that eat meat, under which cats, dogs, and other predatory animals fall into, which might be a backdrop. Generally, it seems that domesticated animals (cats, dogs) and their branches (lions, tigers, wolves) were generally exempt from our flesh-eating crusades.
But the point stands, GM: we don't eat cats.
And they're adorable fluzzy-wizzies.
Even sheep and deer are less common (at least in 'Murica), though as you say certainly not under the same taboo.
And don't worry; I have no intention of eating my widdle fwuffer-cuddles. She's master of the house anyway. ;) (As evidenced by the fact that she sleeps on my pillows and I'm usually the one who moves.)
EDIT: Right, divination. I'd intended to include it with questioning the Skelt envoy when I started writing it up, y'know, more than a week ago. But then with the gap between I got the speak with dead done and not the divination. Give me a bit and I'll get the divination up.
Perry got to the answer before I did. Blissful sleep claimed me. I agree with the answer and will add on about the deer and sheep. They are food but not common food. Sheep have more purpose alive for their wool. I have never tried sheep so I cannot speak for if they are yummy. But Deer is very one of my favorite red meats. And deer are not often farm raised. Deer are for hunting. Either for meat or 'trophy'. I am not a fan of this idea but it happens. I do know deer are skittish so that may have had a factor in the past. The current mindset is that Deer are wild animals and we like them there in the forests, or city streets occasionally in my state.
It is the same with birds. Chicken is the main feathery critter we Muricans love to eat. Followed by the mutant Turkey. And we like the dry breast meat best, not sure why. I have had naturally raised chicken and turkey without the crazy chemicals and horrid living conditions and it was way better. Darker meat was the dominate with the white meat at a minimum and I loved it. Sorry fr the tangent but I have opinions. Goose, quail, and the yummy duck are not a prevalent in mass farms like the chicken.
These choices were most likely made for convince in the past and this has had the effect one modern viewpoints. Certain creatures are farm raised and we buy them in a store in little packets. Others are wild animals that you must hunt for or know someone who hunts and will give you presents. Then their are the pets.
For the cat and dog thing people are disturbed at the idea of eating what they consider a pet or a part of the family. Since they are considered a family pet it almost feels cannibalistic to eat them. Cats and dogs are cuter than a cow so they are pets and that makes them safe. Along with the animal husbandry Perry mentioned. Though the idea of training my cats is funny. Dogs are so much easier.
As to the Cannibalism and casual racism things I agree with both of your statements. I simply find both subjects fascinating is all. It is some thing I have used in my campaign.
Also I excepted Balthus's tag and he ignored me. Old man needs a hearing aid.
For the cat and dog thing people are disturbed at the idea of eating what they consider a pet or a part of the family. Since they are considered a family pet it almost feels cannibalistic to eat them.
That is a very good way of phrasing it. People like to consider themselves—and anything closely associated with them—to be exceptional, and nothing is quite as antithetical to that frame of mind as being reduced to a source of nutrition for another being. That, I suppose, is the source of both taboos. We attach qualities we associate with people to some animals, but not others, making them extensions of ourselves. What separates our beloved cat or dog, or ourselves, from what is sitting on our plate? What if humans are just meat, as well? Quite honestly, the pragmatic cannibalism of the lizardfolk seems far more morally justifiable to me than, say, modern factory farming.
It's all very fascinating, but in the interest of maintaining friendships, I best get not too far into it. :P
|
|
For the cat and dog thing people are disturbed at the idea of eating what they consider a pet or a part of the family. Since they are considered a family pet it almost feels cannibalistic to eat them.
Branches of cats (lions, tigers) and dogs (wolves, foxes) are not eaten despite them not being pets. Generally, humans don't eat dedicated carnivores (or omnivores that lean to meat over plants).
People like to consider themselves—and anything closely associated with them—to be exceptional
What other specie can reach the moon in a world-spanning pissing contest while single-handily ensuring that the planet will become a lifeless rock in a fraction of the earth's very long age?
I'd say we're pretty exceptional. :DQuite honestly, the pragmatic cannibalism of the lizardfolk seems far more morally justifiable to me than, say, modern factory farming.
So deep-fried grandma it is. >:)
Thank you Jetta. And I agree with you ragmatic cannibalism. Though I do eat meat, it is delicious to me and I can not help it. I would also be lost without eggs. Though I hate the factory farming and pay extra money to support the free range animals.
Perry if you didn't deep fry it maybe. I am moving further away from deep fried food. So much grease :( it is icky.
And we are exceptional. Exceptionally evil! :D
Though I do eat meat, it is delicious to me and I can not help it.
Of course it's delicious. I didn't become a vegetarian because I didn't like the taste. It's simply a matter of weighing one's personal comfort with their moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary suffering.
But no, seriously, I'll stop now. Ugh. I try my best to not go around preaching to people, but it's just hard to not get fired up about something you care about. :/
People like to consider themselves—and anything closely associated with them—to be exceptionalWhat other specie can reach the moon in a world-spanning pissing contest while single-handily ensuring that the planet will become a lifeless rock in a fraction of the earth's very long age?
I'd say we're pretty exceptional. :D
Scientific accomplishment does set us apart from nature in a way, though perhaps not as much as we would like to believe. Humankind might be "the paragon of animals," to quote Shakespeare, but we are still animals.
|
|
@Food: I'd put it on a framework between convenience+taste and economic/environmental sustainability+responsibility, myself.
Questions about what constitute suffering, how much is unnecessary versus how much is a fact of life, and the sanctity of life were topics for debates in of themselves ever since humans opened their eyes on the world. Discussing those require agreeing to philosophical premises that are not by any means universal, such as questions of consciousness, the value of life.
Scientific accomplishment does set us apart from nature in a way, though perhaps not as much as we would like to believe. Humankind might be "the paragon of animals," to quote Shakespeare, but we are still animals.
Not so fast. I meant it only on the superficial level (since you said you want to keep this small).
Premise 1. People consider themselves to be exceptional;
Premise 2. Humans' technological (shorthand for tool use/production/physical means to reach goals), cultural (shorthand for sociopolitical organization and internal structures), and intellectual (shorthand for reason, philosophy and information processing) levels are exceptional* in both kind and degree, and a singularity on every level.
Conclusion: Humans are exceptional when compared to any specie on the planet**
*By exceptional meaning: forming an exception or rare instance; unusual; extraordinary, uncommon; singular; strange; unnatural; aberrant; anomalous
**Even if only in degree, not in kind, although I'd argue kind as well.
You can argue that human exceptionalism in tech/culture/intellect is not a justification for unnecessary cruelty or ill treatment, and I would agree. There is a difference, however, between philosophical preludes that are necessary to form a position or an argument, and those which are superfluous.
On a side note, I find it strange that you'd make this argument.
Wasn't exceptionalism the case where we butted heads over the "gods' stats" question in 3.5/PF (with me standing on the opposite position)?
;D
@Food: I'd put it on a framework between convenience+taste and economic/environmental sustainability+responsibility, myself.
Questions about what constitute suffering, how much is unnecessary versus how much is a fact of life, and the sanctity of life were topics for debates in of themselves ever since humans opened their eyes on the world. Discussing those require agreeing to philosophical premises that are not by any means universal, such as questions of consciousness, the value of life.
The environmental aspect is certainly an important one, though that is not my primary motivation. As for the nature of suffering, in my experience most philosophising in this context amounts to little more than covering for an individual's own conscience. There is nuance to the issue, of course, but everyone knows at a very basic level that causing suffering is wrong. Empathy is universal, even though it might get trampled by cultural convention.
Okay, seriously. I'll shut up now. Ugh.
You can argue that human exceptionalism in tech/culture/intellect is not a justification for unnecessary cruelty or ill treatment, and I would agree. There is a difference, however, between philosophical preludes that are necessary to form a position or an argument, and those which are superfluous.
I think we are arguing semantics. To cut the off-topic chatter: Yes, I fully acknowledge that humanity as a whole is set apart by its accomplishments. Human sentience certainly a rare occurance. As far as we know, it is a completely unique phenomenon! What I am criticising is, indeed, the human tendency to take that inordinariness to mean superiority. In my humble opinion, being different does not inherently make us better.
On a side note, I find it strange that you'd make this argument.
Wasn't exceptionalism the case where we butted heads over the "gods' stats" question in 3.5/PF (with me standing on the opposite position)?
;D
Well, thankfully most real-life people are not player characters. Those folks are exceptional, in both senses of the word. That's how we end up with murderhobos.
I've got no problem with verbosity. You folks are my kind of people. :P
Of course it's delicious. I didn't become a vegetarian because I didn't like the taste. It's simply a matter of weighing one's personal comfort with their moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary suffering.
But no, seriously, I'll stop now. Ugh. I try my best to not go around preaching to people, but it's just hard to not get fired up about something you care about. :/
I completely respect your decision in the matter and you for becoming a vegetarian. Giving up a whole food group is a difficult thing, and beyond me as I am currently.
It is really tempting to take up the other side and keep the conversation going. I love debates :D Also you have a commendable amount of self control about the getting preachy.
|
|
As for the nature of suffering, in my experience most philosophising in this context amounts to little more than covering for an individual's own conscience.
Come now, friend. That's unfair to well-established schools of thought. It's like saying everyone who does not acknowledge objective morality is dishonest and tricking themselves to rationalize or justify injustices they will commit.
Many philosophies seek to 'liberate themselves from assumed assertions' and take methodological approachs to each topic, quantifying and qualifying what constitutes just and unjust, right and wrong, and acceptable and unacceptable. Portraying them as self-serving or dishonest is not representative of how they are like.I have gained this by philosophy: differences in opinion stem from two sources:
1. One party knows different facts than the other (or contradictory facts), and have therefore reached a different conclusion (such as importance of animal products versus presence of alternatives);
2. One party prioritizes critical points differently, and thus when a balance was struck, one thing was sacrificed for another (such as social order/entrenched values over liberty/expanded values; needs of the tighter tribe (culture, country, ethnicity etc.) over the needs of the wider tribe (humanity); needs of the many (99%) over needs of the few (or the 1%); legacy over current state, etc.)
Keeping that in mind grants me an uplifting spirit. Handling other people becomes easier--or harder once you take that to heart. Once you notice, for example, that the disagreement is due to a fundamental priority, it's usually difficult to compromise.
Couple that with the belief that people never change, and you soon grow a spider-sense that can detect kindred spirits and personal archenemies.
What I am criticising is, indeed, the human tendency to take that inordinariness to mean superiority. In my humble opinion, being different does not inherently make us better.
Better is a word with many faces.
Are humans better in employing their environment for the continued survival and prosperity of their species? Yes.Are humans better in destroying the earth a hundred times over with nuclear missiles? Yes.
Are humans better in maintaining (or creating) sustainable lifestyles for the planet? Maybe even yes.
I understand where you're getting at: Humanity should not take its gifts (or their supposed state of exceptionalism) as granted, and must treat other lives as their own (or at least strive to reach a sustainable state in nature). Humanity must do this not only for ideological considerations (moral responsibility as part of the world, as gained through philosophy), but also for secular considerations (sustainability, health concerns, etc.).
That being said, I'm curious to hear what you think of Kant on this subject. I'd peg you on a utilitarian ATM (minimize pain and suffering, maximize pleasure and happiness, relatively objective morality; very common nowadays).
According to Immanuel Kant (and his theory of indirect morality), rational beings have a moral duty to other rational beings to not harm them unnecessarily (or without just cause). Since animals are not rational (or at least, cannot be measured to be so), they are exempt.
However, they must not be harmed unnecessarily, because (indirect morality) harming them is degrading to human dignity and morality. In harming animals, we degrade ourselves and render ourselves more easily to harming other humans through hardening our hearts.
We really need to come up with another another project to gush about, if only to spare GM Rennai's discussion thread from all this verbosity. :P
You didn't reply back on the Id subsystem yet.
And I have a reason for posting a lot recently. One of my games became inactive.
Hence, I feel lonely.
@ Jetta. I do not think that GM Rennai minds.
I've got no problem with verbosity. You folks are my kind of people. :P
But there are a lot of little inane topics to choose from. Just pick a subject and start. That was how this one started.
@ Perry I feel your pain! I have a game that vanished due to the GM life and job and another that is looking like it will do the same.
|
|
GM, is it reasonable to have Perry cast Comprehend languages from his open slot before he finishes the speak with dead spell? I would prefer a one-on-one exchange.
Sorry for the lack of foresight. I have the spell on my spell list normally, occupying 3 slots normally for the exchanges on specific issues with the lizardfolk.
I completely respect your decision in the matter and you for becoming a vegetarian. Giving up a whole food group is a difficult thing, and beyond me as I am currently.
Hey, we all do what we can. Buying free range is already a big help. :)
Also you have a commendable amount of self control about the getting preachy.
Well, obviously not quite enough. :P
In my experience, preaching to people does little to advance the cause. I honestly don't think anyone has ever been converted to vegetarianism through passive-agressive guilting. I find that speaking to people when they show genuine interest works far better, as does showcasing the wonders of vegetarian cooking. The latter has worked pretty well on my roommates, at least.
Come now, friend. That's unfair to well-established schools of thought. It's like saying everyone who does not acknowledge objective morality is dishonest and tricking themselves to rationalize or justify injustices they will commit.
Many philosophies seek to 'liberate themselves from assumed assertions' and take methodological approachs to each topic, quantifying and qualifying what constitutes just and unjust, right and wrong, and acceptable and unacceptable. Portraying them as self-serving or dishonest is not representative of how they are like.
Well, I can't really go into it too much without breaking my recent vow of silence, but suffice to say that I absolutely don't think ill of philosophy or philosophers. Without the elevated perspective gained through abstract thought, we would not be sitting here discussing morality. What I object to is using lofty intellectualism as a refuge from concrete matters. To me, this is a very practical issue that demands immediate action.
What I mean to say is that when discussing this particular subject, people tend to get very defensive, and concoct all sorts of justifications to make themselves feel better about what they're doing. These are very often the same excuses, many of which I know to be untruthful. Once these are exhausted, only then do people digress to philosophy. Perhaps I'm being presumptive, but I take this a sign of cognitive dissonance on their part.
This is one of the reasons why I try to avoid going into such discussions with too much righteous fervor... :P
Keeping that in mind grants me an uplifting spirit. Handling other people becomes easier--or harder once you take that to heart. Once you notice, for example, that the disagreement is due to a fundamental priority, it's usually difficult to compromise.
Couple that with the belief that people never change, and you soon grow a spider-sense that can detect kindred spirits and personal archenemies.
Well, I haven't quite reached that level of cynicism yet. That, or I'm just bad at reading people. I know I have changed my mind on a great many issues during my life, so I have to believe that this is true for others as well. Of course, some people are more receptive to some ideas than others, but I try not to judge too early...
Better is a word with many faces.
Yay for semantics! \o/
I understand where you're getting at: Humanity should not take its gifts (or their supposed state of exceptionalism) as granted, and must treat other lives as their own (or at least strive to reach a sustainable state in nature). Humanity must do this not only for ideological considerations (moral responsibility as part of the world, as gained through philosophy), but also for secular considerations (sustainability, health concerns, etc.).
That pretty much sums it up.
That being said, I'm curious to hear what you think of Kant on this subject. I'd peg you on a utilitarian ATM (minimize pain and suffering, maximize pleasure and happiness, relatively objective morality; very common nowadays).
According to Immanuel Kant (and his theory of indirect morality), rational beings have a moral duty to other rational beings to not harm them unnecessarily (or without just cause). Since animals are not rational (or at least, cannot be measured to be so), they are exempt.
However, they must not be harmed unnecessarily, because (indirect morality) harming them is degrading to human dignity and morality. In harming animals, we degrade ourselves and render ourselves more easily to harming other humans through hardening our hearts.
I don't really like such labels in relation to people (as they rarely fall into such neat categories), though there is certainly a lot in utilitarianism that I identify with when it comes to this particular issue. From what I know of Kant, I certainly do not agree with all his theories.
While I agree that direct mistreatment of animals certainly speaks ill of the perpetrator's character, I believe there is more to the matter. Kicking a puppy is obviously malicious, but more often a result of some existing fault in the person's sense of morality than something that erodes it. On the other hand, I find that a more passive involvement harming other living things is more likely to be damaging. Rather insidiously, people become apathetic to suffering without even realising it. Animals might not be sentient in the same manner as humans, but if you assume that their suffering has any value whatsover compared to human suffering (which is something very few people outright deny), even a fraction, then I feel we have a moral responsibility to avoid it if at all possible. Western society, at least, is in the position to comfortably assume a lifestyle that allows them to cease that suffering (or presumed quasi-suffering) entirely, so I see very few valid reasons to not do so. Or any, really.
You know what else is insidious? You, for keeping me on this topic. :D
You didn't reply back on the Id subsystem yet.
Well, sh*t. I never did, did I? Ugh, I'm a terrible pen pal! Do you still want me to look it over?
There was a few reasons I did it the way I did:
- I had looked for comprehend languages prepared and hadn't seen it, so I assumed you wouldn't cast it - I swear I looked for an empty slot, but I must have missed it.
- You wouldn't necessarily have known you needed it until after the speak with dead was done, and at that point you wouldn't have time to take fifteen minutes to prepare that slot and still talked with him.
- Comprehend languages lets you understand him, but it doesn't let him understand you - you'd have needed a translator anyway, at least in one direction. (Or tongues, but again - brain fart on the whole empty slot thing.)
- Using a translator does have the fringe benefit of allowing others to interact as well, should they wish; since the speak with dead was my post for the day, giving others a chance to be part of it seemed beneficial.
We can retcon a more direct interview if you still like, or we can leave it as is, your call. I know you're usually on around this time, so I'll wait a bit to do tonight's post.
|
|
@Jetta:
You're putting the cart (argument/conclusion) before the horse (origin/carrier of argument).
Philosophy is not the last line of defense, but the origin of it, even if the person in question doesn't realize/articulate it. Philosophy/ideology are the bedrock on which all morality branch off from, and are logical places to end up in when disagreements occur and when the argument comes closer to its core.
This is always the case, and is simply rational.
People who have organized their minds will always keep the horse before the cart (Because we believe X, we did Y), not (We do Y. We do it. No, we just do it. Stop asking. We do it because we believe X.).
Ya dig?
Well, I haven't quite reached that level of cynicism yet.
Nothing cynic about it. People change not in nature (creative, leader-like, caring, distinct personality traits), but in degree and application (lack of motivation suppressing creativity, lack of confidence/proper environment suppressing leadership, extending caring to some parties above others, or circumstances that suppress traits).
That said, aspects of self may not be apparent except under stress, but after all, no one knows how they'll act until they see themselves.That, or I'm just bad at reading people.
Not even you know what you're really like except when you're hit with circumstances that make them appear, such as moments of stress, shame, self-reflection, anger, intoxication, passion, or happiness.
That's why the aforementioned elements are big in psychology and religious/philosophical movements; people didn't expect that they'd do X or Y until after they did it, and must take up responsibility for what they did/overcome their weaknesses/self-actualize/refine themselves to achieve salvation, ascendance, rebirth, or become the Übermensch.You know what else is insidious? You, for keeping me on this topic. :D
Hey, we're discussing the horse here. At any case, we can take this to PM if you want.
Well, sh*t. I never did, did I? Ugh, I'm a terrible pen pal! Do you still want me to look it over?
Sure. Let's take it (and the above, if you're still interested) to private chat.
@GM:
There's an empty slot under Utility Abilities - Spells
1 - (4+2+1) Divine Favor, Liberating Command (+12), Bless, Sanctuary, Shield of Faith, empty (or Hide from Undead), Domain (Sanctuary)
But you make good points. I withdraw the request. It's just that I don't know if Kasta knows what she's doing.
I'll fill the 4th level empty slot with Tongues.@Lizardman/Dwarves:
The question is this ATM: what is the policy we should adopt with the two parties?
Although we decided to take the diplomatic route, we cannot ensure that the parties are as cooperative/open as Oakbrow, and this is the overall 'foreign policy' markers I present:
We must present our goal (having a military/economic foothold loyal to the Throne in the Vale to protect the Karvosan-Nirmathan road) in a reasonable operating framework to win over local support at best, or at worst, tolerance and acceptance that our presence is a fact they must deal with.
Parties that have a vested interest of removing us (or those who would oppose critical goals) must be pacified by weapons we have, such as steel, gold, gifts, or anything that seem appropriate. Parties that have potential to oppose us must also be dealt with the same way, but in proportion that fits their capabilities in relation to our own.
[**] To achieve efficiency in defense, information is required, and that means employing a mobile and fit scouting force (which is an ongoing process that is showing good signs). Divinations are also a good means of gaining information.
[**] To achieve efficiency in economy, we must encourage cottage industries to explore and send rotating missions by adventurous craftsmen. This might require exploration of mines and lumber-rich regions to ensure safety.
[**] To guard the lifeline, we must employ relay stations along the road to Karvosa (red marks on the map). Ideally, these stations would be built of a two-room building (resting + stable) that are moderately fortified and have a tower that can contact us by fire signals. I've added them on the map so a traveler can hustle on horseback continuously from one station to another, saving upwards to 3-5 hours, depending on their ability.
Each station would run the cost of 1540 gp for a building with 1 bedroom (300), 1 lavoratory (120), 1 sitting room (480), 1 storage (120), 1 animal pen (250), 1 office (120), and 2 light horses (75 each), for 1540 each.
[**] To guard chokepoints and aid mining/gathering efforts, there is a defensive position to the south of the Fort and another on the new bridge on a critical chokepoint (same as station, but with 1 defensive wall (260), 1 common room (for fighters, 300), and gauntlet (160), for x2 minor forts for 2110 gp each.
[**] That's a total 9810 gp. Add manpower (20 gp each for a 10-man team, 1 per station, 3 per fort), and you have 10,100 gp spent to secure the region against weak threats, and hold off serious threats until the elite forces (I.E. Us) arrive to minimize damages taken.
By the way, the fact that there is a fort near Oakbrow and another near the region where the Lizardfolk and Dwarves are fighting over is purely a coincidence.
I was not able to post this recently due to RL issues, but what would Tolgrith's assessment of this be?
I'll let you know Tolgrith's reaction a bit later, probably work it in IC when you guys return from the conclave. That gives everyone else a chance to weigh in on it as well.
I'd been wondering if you'd been having RL issues - your posts were much briefer than customary. Work through what you gotta work through; RL comes first.
|
|
Yeah. I even forgot to ask about a goodwill gift for the lizardfolk, though I don't think it's OK to retroactively get one.
All right. Thanks.
I'm getting the feeling Balthus instigates roleplaying opportunities to see Amund butt heads with other people, and then watches with some popcorn. XD
Edit: Ama is with our party, correct, or is it only a token?
I'm getting the feeling Balthus instigates roleplaying opportunities to see Amund butt heads with other people, and then watches with some popcorn. XD
Edit: Ama is with our party, correct?
No popcorn, just smoking my pipe now that Oakgrove gave me some good leaf. :)
No seriously, I do NOT and I don't know how Jetta and Amund got to arguing and posturing but it is fun to watch. :)
Game on!
I think it had only been a token, although it can be Ama if you guys prefer. I'm not sure it got firmly decided - the conversation was starting to slow and I was afraid of losing pace, so I pushed forward.
Sure. Let's take it (and the above, if you're still interested) to private chat.
Deal. I'll get to it sometime during the weekend, as Midsummer celebrations allow. Kind of a big deal up here in the North. Gotta soak in all that precious sunlight for the long, dark winter!
@Lizardman/Dwarves:
The question is this ATM: what is the policy we should adopt with the two parties?
Definitely something we should discuss in character. Perry is to be our main negotiator, so it would make sense for him to outline his basic strategy going in, so that no one unintentionally sabotages his master plan.
No seriously, I do NOT and I don't know how Jetta and Amund got to arguing and posturing but it is fun to watch. :)
Hey, Jetta is just trying to be helpful and offer some much needed perspective! Now that she has had a chance to chat with Perry about her feelings, she is feeling a bit less violently unstable. She isn't trying to start fights.
I think it had only been a token, although it can be Ama if you guys prefer. I'm not sure it got firmly decided - the conversation was starting to slow and I was afraid of losing pace, so I pushed forward.
A token seems a bit easier to handle. We have enough canines! Thank the gods no one in the party is allergic to dogs... :P
The Hellknight questioned my loyalty that is how this happened.
Well, Jetta was being completely genuine about not doubting Amund. From their earlier conversation I'd think it would be obvious that she trusts him.
That wasn't how it seemed but it is all good. He is more agitated about the issues with the Lizardfolk getting the short end of the stick. So much feels!
I just realized - we have an entirely human party here. I don't know why it didn't cross my mind before...
I'm actually half-elf! Anthuria was dropped on a doorstep as an infant, probably because of her mixed race (ah, Korvosa). I guess I haven't done a very good job portraying that :P.
I'd forgotten! Well, then, it's not so blindly for you, with your fancy low-light vision. :P
How long would it take for Jetta to grab her halberd and shield?
I'll allow another move action for Jetta to grab her halberd and shield and get them situated, so it'll be a full round action for her to get ready to go. Remember to account for the fact that she's probably not sleeping in her Hellknight armor...unless she is. Who am I to judge? ;)
As much as I would enjoy being perpetually fatigued, I think I'll pass. :P
Ever seen the cartomancer? ;)
It's a neat little archetype - it's actually what I'm probably going to use for the next in-person game I'm running if we end up needing a GM NPC (I've got a group that tends to shy away from playing arcane). It doesn't end up being a highly damaging build, but the ability to deliver beneficial touch spells with cards makes it great for support. Between that and most hexes being at a distance, you basically never have to get up close and personal, which is always a plus.
(Coincidentally, if you ever want to go for a damaging Deadly Dealer build again, the card caster archetype of the magus is a decent way to go.)
Just a quick check. So the hobgoblin I'm fighting took 42 hit points of damage and is still standing, right?
Yes, that is correct. (Not standing by much, but he is still standing.)