[AP] Curse of the Crimson Throne by GMs Rutseg, Zek and Snowheart (Inactive)

Game Master Balacertar

I'm going to wait for Bashiel to post since he was up near the front with y'all, then I'll respond to the latest posts.

Also, I added a link to the maps such that it should appear right below this alias's name. That way you won't even have to scroll all the way up.

@ Kalem: I moved your token on the Slides map such that you're now in the room instead of on the boat. We'll figure out how far you make it when I post and make a roll for Gaedren's perception.

By the way, hopefully this is clear but just in case it isn't...

In combat, although I'm going with averaged rolls and then actions based on order of posting, if you know what you want to do but want to delay until after someone else goes, or you have a couple of ideas but they're contingent on what someone else may or may not do, you can just write "I'm going to delay until Bashiel moves out of my way, then I'm going to charge the ten-headed dragon," along with your rolls.

Let me know if that doesn't make sense.

couldn't make a 31 sense motive with a 20, so not bothering to roll...

and your post makes sense to me.

let me know when i can go or hear the commotion, becuase I needed 3 rounds i think for the spellcraft.

:< Brin, you're so far away. You're going to miss out!

I rolled a 1 on the perception check so I'm waiting for when the Dm thinks I can hear the battle. and since I said I was messing with the wand how long it takes.

let me know if I need to reroll perception.

Combat and screaming is hard not to hear, particularly since you're on a relatively quiet boat. We can say you finish playing with your wand this round and can act it round 2

I've got to say that this fishery and final encounter has been truly memorable.

I love the setup for this campaign, the reasons we have for being here, and this has been tense! I mean, dangling a halfling child over a crocodile, then sending a bolt into the mechanism to disable it?! Crazy!

lol... to be honest, never expected that to work... got some lucky kickass die rolls there...

It's been pretty damn epic so far.

Glad y'all are having fun! (And epic dice rolls help! Three cheers for the RNG!) ;-)

Looks like everyone has posted for round 2, so I'll have something up shortly.

Varor (and all), on order of combat and initiative, to try to keep things moving at a reasonable pace, I'm just averaging each sides' rolls then having the PCs go in whatever order you guys are on the board. I realize that favors folks who frequently check the boards as they are more likely to first see when a new round has started, but I think it also reduces the pressure to be constantly checking the board to see if everyone who has a higher initiative has gone yet (as would be the case if we went with a stricter implementation of initiative).

That said, if y'all want to discuss some agreed upon tactics/options, so that others may elect to wait or delay until you're able to post, that's fine by me. And the higher rolls help bring up the party's average, so it definitely helps and isn't a wasted investment.

I could also put you into two initiative groups or blocks. So, three of you with the highest rolls go as one block and then the rest with the lowest rolls go as a second block. That's an option I'm willing to do if y'all like.

The reason I'm doing it this way is based on suggestions in things folks have written on GMing PbP games and also based on my experience as a player with what (IMO) does not work, but I'm open to modifying it.

works fine for me.

I'm fine with all PCs in a single initiative block. At higher level that might get a bit less appealing (it starts making combats more one-sided based on who won initiative because of how rocket-tag starts happening) but that'll be a loooooooong time from now.

I much prefer it like this, you dont get blocked up waiting for one person then. But I'm always happy to go with the consensus.

The more I play Kalem the more I wonder if he'd ping on detect evil...

I mean, he cares about his companions and their family. He's willing to forgo his vengeance for that. But I've come to realize that he's got a taste for torture and violence which really isn't anywhere near 'good'...

I don't have a huge hang-up about evil tendencies, but I'm also don't want to adjust the AP to accommodate evil motives (which is why I said no evil PCs in the recruitment thread).

The bigger issue will be intra-party dynamics. If it starts to create a lot of conflict and distractions that aren't proving enjoyable, then an adjustment may be necessary. But that's kind of up to y'all and how you want to handle it.

All of that said... I like some intra-party tension and I'm intentionally having Gaedren try to goad you all into some. It's not at all accidental (and I'm glad I got it right when I had Zellara predict it!), so... play on! ;-)

Good thing this guy has no evil motives. If anyone feels that he goes too far please tell me. He can change his ways with help, and better role models.

I'm not a big fan of intra-party tension, both in the games I've played and those I'm DM'd. Even when the players can handle it well, it tends to strain credulity that the party would stay together. Doubly so when they're in situations that don't require them to stay together. Triply so if there are paladins with their inflexible codes forcing RP.

So having the party be super cruel and/or bloodthirsty makes it tough to imagine how Bashiel would want to stay with them (or even not turn against them). The RP becomes a pain, since I'll be forced to have him toe the line for the sake of keeping the party together (an out of character concern).

So yeah, I'd prefer less intra-party tension. :>

From the harrowing:

"Kalem draws the Rabbit Prince. "Violence. Chaos. Fickle fate. It may favor you, or turn against you. Embrace it and make it yours."'

"In the middle: "The Peacock. Interesting... A shift of the soul, the mind, allegience. One of you, maybe, or perhaps a foe turned ally... or the reverse. Someone will come to you in one fashion, and turn into something else."'

I'd be willing for Kalem to be the peacock and the rabbit prince, by becoming the better person that he wants to be.

---

But if he, in his current state, is too much of a clash for the party, I can also retire him. Make a replacement character which is more aligned with the party's moral sensibilities.

Well, no big surprise here, but you're going to be working to save the city from some pretty dire things in the near future, so avenues for change will certainly present themselves. Totally up to you how you want to handle them. If you have some ideas you'd like to toss into the air (here or via PM), I'm happy to discuss and maybe steer some NPC interactions/opportunities in that direction.

BTW, I'm starting a new job tomorrow, so my posting frequency may be somewhat erratic this week. I don't expect it will be a problem, but I won't be able to respond as quickly as I have been this week, that's for sure (I was taking this week off).

Congrats!

I'll use the time to think up a new character and to have Kalem leave the party.

Congrats Snow! New jobs can be pretty rough, no worries if you have to bow out for a few days to get your bearings.

And Kalem, dang I didn't mean you should consider switching out characters! Just that toning it down a bit might help the party work better together.

Well the way I rp is to make a character sketch and to let the character naturally play out. Doing what is 'right' for them. This is how Kalem turned out. And while he certainly can change for the better I don't want him to be disruptive, nor do I want to change him without taking the time for character growth.

I'll give it some thought and will work with the GM when he has time to see what can be done to make this as smooth and natural as possible.

Guys I know that this doesn't really matter right now but moving our tokens, for lack of a better word, will become important later down the line so if you say your characters are going to move to a different area, move your tokens. Now I know this seems like I'm nitpicking, but that's only because I am. I'm asking you to do this for my own sanity.

That'll delay my posting by quite a bit. I usually post by phone...

If it's not too much problem for the GM, could the sides be numbered? Saying "I move to A5" would make phone posting much easier

Congrats Snow, I'm sure we all know what starting a new job is like so take it easy no need to add extra stress.

Moving tokens myself is new to me on the boards and I have a lot of trouble moving them on my phone, but I will try my best to remember :)

Kalem, I'm not sure why you would need a new character.

All tieflings don't need to be psychopaths. I think a little tension in the party is fine...in fact, I prefer some tug of war as long as it doesn't derail the whole thing.

I'm also not sure why there couldn't be some character development. The grim Kalem would like to torture and kill Lamm, but sees the rest of the group doesn't. Perhaps he considers their example and that's part of the development and role play.

I'd hate to see you change characters because you feel all tieflings have to torture and never change.

Nothing of the sort. I had hoped that someone like Bashiel would have pulled him aside to 'redeem' him. He also is all into the torture because...well, Lamm. Murdered his brother, taunted him, and he has a dark side.

I saw the pushback against him as the party saying 'this isn't fun', so was planning on making a character with fewer issues to deal with.

"So having the party be super cruel and/or bloodthirsty makes it tough to imagine how Bashiel would want to stay with them (or even not turn against them). The RP becomes a pain, since I'll be forced to have him toe the line for the sake of keeping the party together (an out of character concern)."

I'd rather not toe the line myself on when he becomes too cruel or bloodthirsty. I understand the issues with playing a paladin (it's why I will never play one in PFS). And I think that with people like Brin here toeing the line much better than Kalem, something less disruptive would be for the best.

Plus, this is the most natural time for a switch of characters. We just got Lamm, so Kalem has gotten what he wants. He can fade away, and as the party goes after this new rising threat, someone who fits in better can appear.

Up to you, though it seems like it would be easier to say Kalem is "conflicted." Plus, this is the one guy that might warrant that reaction from him.

I don't see it being an issue we can't resolve going forward, but it's your choice.

After giving it some thought, I'll stick with Kalem. If for no other reason than we've already done the harrowing so it makes the most sense. I'll RP it off as this reaction being due to Lamm, and I'll tone it down for future encounters so he won't be impossible to work with for Lawful Good characters. One of his character goals, after all, is proving to himself that he is better than what he was born as.

I'm glad. I think he's been a fun character so far. He's the one Ilsa's a little scared of.

Plus, I'm chaotic good...we might be able to bend a little on how we reach our goals. I think playing this off as due to Lamm works perfectly. Kalem's cool and I'd hate to see him out since we all have a reason to be working together.

Thank you. Part of him going straight to torture was him trying to be helpful in finding finding Bridget. The entire 'grapple' and take hostage move was for that purpose. If it wasn't for her, he'd have been much more likely to just put a hammer through the man's chest.

And I'd think that Kalem should be more afraid of Ilsa than the other way around. I mean, he's got Will (+1) against a mesermist. And as an urban boodrager, he can't increase that with his rage. So all it takes is a painful stare and sleep, and Kalem is out for the night. :p

Snow: I've mentioned this before but I do have some out of character knowledge because I've read the original books. I'm only applying it here because I know it doesn't really matter but if it is a problem do tell me.

Kalem: Tiptoeing on the line isn't a problem, a problem would be if you actually cross it. Like if none of the characters had a personal stake against Lamm then I definitely would have had Varor get up in your face about it instead of just, "I'll talk to him later," this is a fine dynamic for roleplay. Just try to make sure that the line of reasoning behind your actions does justify your actions and you'll be fine.

Varor, nope, not a problem.

So, after Lamm, I expect things will be a little less complicated morally and will endeavor to make them so. But I think this is helpful in terms of fleshing out character personalities and histories.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

Okay. I gotta think.

LOLOLOLOL

Based on OOC comments from Varor and Bashiel, my sense is there is some discomfort, perhaps with the scenario involving Gaedren generally but definitely in terms of resolving differing motives and actions within the party.

Preliminarily, I’ve read this can be a tough adventure for folks. For this encounter, I thought it was strictly related to the nature of Gaedren's conduct towards kids, but I can see how it brings up in-character issues, too. For what it’s worth, I'm running Gaedren as provided in the AP; he feeds kids to Gobblegut, he's an awful horrible person, and he's taunts the party members based on their associations with him.

But, actions by some PCs are causing moral/alignment issues for other PCs. Now, short of attacking another character, I'm not going to tell a player they can't have their own character do something. On the other hand, I realize it's not fair to have some players doing "bad things" while other players are expected to have their characters consistently look the other way. There are short-term and long-term issues presented here.

Short Term
I see Brin's bluff as providing an easy way out for everyone in terms of the immediate situation. Yes, we all know out-of-game, with metagame knowledge, what just happened. However, literally not one character is being asked to be stupid or walk out of the room. There is an in-game, rules-based method that gives us all a comfortable out on this.

My suggestion would be we try to get past this particular encounter and move forward. After taking into account his prior damage, Gaedren legitimately died with the shark’s first attack but, to be honest, I probably would have just deleted those rolls and hand-waved it had they not given me the same result. I think we need to get past this scene. But…

CotCT has a few moments in the campaign that could be emotionally difficult for some people. If you would like specifics constituting potential spoilers, send me a PM. For this post, it should suffice to say there are some very evil antagonists in this AP.

Further, Kalem and Brin both have some dark pasts. I think that's very appropriate for this AP, both in terms of content and tone. I don't think it needs to be a show stopper. But some discussion may be in order if this is going to lead to intraparty conflict.

For my part, I'm going to take Bashiel's earlier comments to heart and will try to reduce the risk of it. My suggestion for you is to talk this out OOC amongst yourselves to figure out how to move your characters forward and resolve the mixed motives. (I tried to get at this in-game with Zellara's first reading, but I may not have been explicit enough or there was enough a sense of urgency that it just got pushed to the side.)

How is your character going to react to really evil folks? (Gaedren is certainly the most provocative but he is not the last.) Kill them, subdue them, arrest them, convert them?
How is your character going to react to those who feel differently?
As part of the story you want to tell for your character, do you want (or are you open) to shifting that character's alignment over the course of the AP?

Still here. Just in a different room so nothing to do in gameplay. I think it would be best to describe potential conflicting actions ooc in the discussion thread first. While was open to just making a Lawful Good paladin to ensure no party conflict, I see now that Kalem isn't the only character with a 'kill the bad guys attitude.' Short of playing LG good guys I think the only solution is communication prior.

...I think it would be best to describe potential conflicting actions ooc in the discussion thread first...

If we can all agree to do that, I think it's a great suggestion. Sometimes the surprise of another character's actions can be fun, but not always.

Still here also. I'm finding everything that's happening entertaining but I can see it from both sides. Gregor wouldnt stick around with Tom while all that was happening so I took myself out of it, his need for revenge is surpassed by his need to look after his son now.

But as was said by others, if we can just talk it out we should hopefully gets past any potential problems.

I can do that, If it makes anyone feel better I was planning on killing him that way from the moment Kalem cut him I saw a opening to be one of the ones the help carry him up. No meta-gaming just simple plan and messaging to be in the best possible spot when the time came.

I'll try to discuss more on the future. when I think these moral quandary are bound to come up. My intent was not to take away from the group.

How is your character going to react to really evil folks? (Gaedren is certainly the most provocative but he is not the last.) Kill them, subdue them, arrest them, convert them? subdue them in most cases if in character I believe they are the worst of the worst I will kill them. (basically CE only.)

How is your character going to react to those who feel differently?
doesn't matter Brin is live and let live. opinions are like a&&@%+~s everyone has them, and most of them stink.

As part of the story you want to tell for your character, do you want (or are you open) to shifting that character's alignment over the course of the AP? totally, I chose the alignment originally but realize that the alignment could change.

I'm good with moving on and basically agree that this is a good way to have Gaedren bite the dust without going through a big rigmarole of court proceedings. From an OOC perspective, its a fitting end too, attacked by a creature drawn to feed at his base.

For Bashiel, well, as mentioned before I'm not planning on playing him as a stickler for the law. In fact, I was looking for a good excuse to allow Kalem to finish him off (now that we'd learned the fate of Briget) and purposefully didn't want Bashiel to guarantee anything to Lamm as a result. This works just as well TBH.

Agreed that OOC communication is best in situations like this.

Bashiel, we had all the evidence we needed, we had testimony, and we had the criminal. The only thing you would have had to do was write-up a report and then testify in front of a judge, both of which could have been hand wave a way. This is basic even in the real world, and if Bashiel does not understand this then... No he should understand this.

Brin, Your characters chaotic good, they are extremely concerned about people's opinions, not f*** off everyone has an a******. If this is how you envisioned him as a character that's fine, but you should have made him a chaotic neutral character .

And I know what you're thinking and the answer is yes I am that guy.

ok, I am going to issue a apology. I'm sorry this is my first PbP game. and I didn't want to read anyone's background. because I wanted to get to know the characters organically.( I can see now that this is a mistake simply for these instance because either me or you would have to change some of our character to be a better group with less conflicts.) I didn't read yours until just now Varor. because I wanted to know why you were so obviously upset about It. This was my bad. All I can do is move on. sorry.

maybe the DM can do a faked death and Gadrean was really trying to escape with a druids help (as a shark) for him to come back.

Actually I was talking about alignment and role-playing them (that guy) the way you set them up. This is literally the first level, alignment shifting decision should not be happening this early on. and to be fair I haven't read your backstory either (or anyone else for that matter) so it's not a big deal to me.

Varor, you seem really upset by this and I am not sure why. His alignment is an issue for me in terms of adjudicating spell effects; it's not really an issue for other PCs.

What's going on here and what is the resolution you want?

(Brin, I appreciate the suggestion of retconning the scene or having it be a fake death, but I think drawing out interactions with Gaedren is the absolute worst thing to do in this situation. Let's look at ways to run things more smoothly in the future.)

Weighing in, I think there can often be conflict in a party when one person tries to unilaterally do something that the others might disagree with.

However, I should note that at least four of us did that here: Kalem with the torture, me with the non-lethal torture, Brin with pushing him in, and even Varor with the secret messages.

Personally, I think the DM should be the ultimate arbiter of whether something worked or didn't (as he did here), and that the players should simply accept it and move on. We may not always like the result, but personally I found his demise incredibly fitting.

Looking over Varor's backstory, it looks like he wanted to redeem Lamm. There's nothing wrong with this...but the same character tortured/abused everyone else's characters and/or killed/captured loved ones. This means that everyone had a big reason to kill Lamm except Varor. And while we might know about your goals via player knowledge, your relationship with Lamm and characters goals came up IC.

If IC Varor had told everyone that he wanted Lamm alive because xyz I'm sure that we could have had a conversation about it. But as is, even Kalem was tempted to just hit the guy with his hammer because he didn't trust the courts.