Jackdaw curses the gods for this cultist who can defy the laws of physics and magic, and moves to the door, hoping to block it, but knowing in his head that it is too late.
Now tell me: What rule did I violate by having the high level leader of the cult cast invisibility? I'd say that's pretty hard to tell from your point of view. And I think to not let you kill the end boss of this dungeon level in an accessory sentence is reasonable.
I gave a concentration roll for casting defensively, and another one for casting while grappled. I guess the CMB of the cuffs is not that high.
You try to CDG her, which requires you to have both hands on your two handed weapon. A simple readied action on her behalf should be enough to cast this spell. Even if she needs to grab her holy symbol first.
"But she can't do that with her hands on her back!" Well, it's nowhere written which way she is shackled.
But it was also her first real action in Game. She could as well be a sorcerer with the still spell feat. And not caring about any of those restrictions. Because wearing the same dress as the other cultists tells you nothing about the abilities.
Just to give you an idea about my thoughts, how this should be within the rules. But if you feel like I'm trying to screw you over, just because I can, then we have a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can of course reopen the doors and come in. As Saul doesn't have the key to the doors and didn't use DD to lock the doors its not locked out in the literal sense.
Moved Jarithe to the double door. His action of chaining handles together doesn't really work for secret doors.
Locking the secret door will only be available through Disable Device, after finding the keyhole.
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil
characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life,
whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern
for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make
personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others
and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others
actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some
evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have
compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the
commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
What do you think? Did some of the characters earn an alignment shift?
I will agree that it is close if not there for an alignment shift for sure. We are killing people to keep things quiet. She didn't do anything to us, she did want us to sacrifice her on the altar for her ultimate goal.
We could have turned her over but then lost out on a hide out for sure as she would have told the Thrunes all about it.
Fhingle is Lawful Neutral, I will again have to look that up exactly what the Pathfinder Tenants are on that. He won't just kill people we could have detained her and the Hell Knights come in and see what they had to say about it.
I know that even a LG pally is more or less a murder hobo. I'm just asking as the roleplay of Jackdaw showed the 'I don't care' attitude towards the question of wrong or right of killing her and Jarithe acted equally cold blooded. With Zea reacting quite different.
Both are not good aligned so no too bad deviation from expected behaviour. Just throwing this question into the ring.
I will agree that it is close if not there for an alignment shift for sure. We are killing people to keep things quiet. She didn't do anything to us, she did want us to sacrifice her on the altar for her ultimate goal.
We could have turned her over but then lost out on a hide out for sure as she would have told the Thrunes all about it.
Fhingle is Lawful Neutral, I will again have to look that up exactly what the Pathfinder Tenants are on that. He won't just kill people we could have detained her and the Hell Knights come in and see what they had to say about it.
Fhingle's greatest issue would be to work with the rebellion, if he is lawful. I guess that earns a alignment shift too. ;)
A rebellion can be done Lawfully in a sense, Fhingle is breaking the "Unjust Laws" but he isn't going around just killing people willy nilly
|
Chaotic neutral, like Jackdaw, is definitely a gray place. The cultist is clearly an enemy... they have captives, we can’t turn them over to authorities in this AP, and we can’t become jailers, and we can’t risk letting her go. I think killing our evil prisoners is really the only option for the sake of our plans. So that is where Jackdaws mind is at. He isn’t relishing it or enjoying it. For the greater good, with sadness, has become his way.
Law Versus Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect
authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short
of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences,
resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition,
and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to
authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness
can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence
to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability.
Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only
lawful behavior creates a society in which people can
depend on each other and make the right decisions in full
confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.
On the downside, chaos can include recklessness,
resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary
actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote
chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal
freedom allows people to express themselves fully
and lets society benefit from the potential that its
individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has
some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to
obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but
can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
That would definitely be evil, as it is in the definition: Killing inoocent.
What caught my attention, besides your roleplay, which didn't convey the regret about having to do this, but more the killing in cold blood, was the part about conveniently killing her. Because, you totally could put her in shackles where the youngsters are now.
But that is only interesting for RP reasons and the dynamics in your group. Mechanically it wouldn't do much, as none of your classes have alignment restrictions as far as I know. If you think neutral is a matching alignment, I'm fine with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Fhingle would be better suited as Neutral Good instead of Lawful Neutral.
|
|
Well y'all, this is a bit of a difficult post to make, but the time is probably due. As much as I love the Saul/Jackdaw character, I just feel that this game has probably run its course. None of us have been putting the effort in to give the detailed posts needed to make the game momentum's push forward, and now that I am looking at this double door and seeing it to be more work than fun, it is a sign that the game isn't healthy anymore. We had a great game for over a year, but we've been floundering and barely floating along the last 4 months. Posts from the GM and from the players that are regularly two sentences, or shorter, is not a good sign, and this has been happening for quite some time now.
Fhingle, its been a pleasure and hopefully I will run into you again on these boards. Foxy, thanks for the fun. Everyone else, I'll see you in our other games. I leave with no hard feelings and plenty of good memories. I hope you all can as well and if the game continues without me that you have a good time.
Foxy, feel free to drop me and my many mistake alias's from the PC list.
Agreed, Jackdaw. We've had fun but it does look like the wind has been leaking from our sails.
Thanks, GM!
See you around, all.
Some more words.
I guess this will be the end of the game. When we started, we had players who wrote long and colorful posts. It was a special experience, as I tend to lead games, where the posts are shorter, but more frequent.
Only Saul and Fhingle were left from this starting group. Lately I had a lot less time for the boards, and even with Saul the fun side quests we had didn't appear anymore and the game became lackluster. And a good deal of that is my fault.
But in the result we're down to infrequent posting with no spark left to bring it back to a bonfire. So I suggests we close the game.
This is the natural course of PBP games and even IRL games. Making it into the multiple thousand posts and keeping a game going for over a year is a success. That said, Zea's final act is going to be to release those guys. :D
Oh, damn. I enjoyed this game and group. Sorry if my posting was part of the problem. Every writing mentor I ever had impressed upon me the need to use concise diction and "pack every word with power." That tends not to lend itself to florid posts, which I do see the appeal of.
Well shucks, I was enjoying this and I like the character of Fhingle, we have floundered through many issues with people coming and going.
I know that some of my posts were on the short side at times, to echo what Cassius said, I have read a bunch of the "How to PbP" forums, some say write bit posts others say make sure everyone you say can help with carrying momentum,
I think the fact that we don't have a solid front liner and that our combats tend to take forever was an issue as well as we tend to get stuck well into the combat aspect of things.
All the fun side quests were awesome. thanks again