Kingmaker. The shadows behind the throne.

Game Master DBH

An odd group gathers together. Their purpose to reclaim the Stolen lands. But what secrets do they carry with them into this dangerous land?

Charter

Party loot

KIngdom tracking sheet

Greenbelt map

Terrain costs and improvements

Notices

Greenbelt RRR

Wyverns


51 to 100 of 1,119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Female Aasimar (Angel-Blooded) Fighter (Aldori Swordlord) 4 | AC 18 (t 13, ff 15) | F+6, R+5, W+2 | Init +3, Per +4 | HP 5/39

Ah damnit - I mis-read how Message worked. My bad. Can't edit the post now either.


Male Human Arcanist 6 ~ AC 17* (t 12, ff 15*) *-4 if no mage armor | F+4, R+5, W+8 | Init +7, Per +8 | A.R. pts 7/8 | HP 44/44

Are Richard and Xantria at door 2 or door 4? Door 4 is where Colwyn heard noise, earlier. Isn't door 2 already open?


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

I was under the impression it was in area two for some reason, he's going to be hovering near the area people think potential enemies are.


Per +12, Init +3, F/R/W +4/+10/+3, AC 21 (T 16, FF 17), HP 39/39, CMB +6, CMD 19 Maps: Thornholme Republic of the Kamelands

I believe the sounds were coming from area 4, so we were circling around via S1 and S2.

Door 2 to the yard was also already forced open by these looters.


Are you sure you want to do that?

This raises a good point. Please move yourselves on the map to where you state you are going, and use the numbers provided.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

I just did, repositioned him to support Colwyn.


Cleric 4 | HP 27/27 | AC 21 : TAC 13 : FAC 18 : CMD 13 AC 24 : TAC 17 : FAC 17 : CMD 17 | Fort +5 : Ref +5 : Will +8 | Perc. +13 (DV 60') : S.M. +8 : Initiative +3 | Move 20' | Longbow +7, 1d8 | Wand 28

About Prisoners

I have found that this is an issue that is potentially acrimonious. So it might be good to talk about this OOC before we get into a party conflict over it. I'm sure the issue will come up again.

The old-school D&D player in me doesn't want the hassle of taking prisoners, and wants their stuff.

But I am having a hard time figuring out how to justify doing that in character. Elena is a cleric of a LG god and her archetype requires her to have the same alignment as her deity.

Lawful good characters want to see wrongdoers punished. But aside from a rather vague confession (presumably because the GM doesn't want to make too big a deal out of this encounter), as far as we know the "bandits" haven't actually done anything wrong. We found them looting an abandoned building, which is neither illegal nor immoral, even though it may not be classy. They did initiate combat with us, but the first time was when they spotted armed men sneaking up on them, and the second time when it seemed like they were surrounded by what they probably thought was a rival gang.

Elena may be LG but Brevoy itself is CN. There are laws in Brevoy but they are haphazard and are often a matter of influence rather than justice. People are not equal before the law in Brevoy and you are not guaranteed a fair trial. So I don't think Elena would be inclined to "turn him over to the law."

But Elena will have a hard time justifying executing this guy. If we want to do that then I will need some help in finding a justification that Elena can live with.

If we want to show mercy then I can go with that but we will need to decide what our duty is with regard to the charter We are not actually in the Stolen Lands yet, so we could say that it is "out of our jurisdiction."


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

Firstly I have the nagging suspicion that GM_DBH wasn't anticipating us to get bogged down debating these guys. They're bandits, I'm not saying they're a rampaging cult of demon worshiping cultists but they are bandits. It kind of made clear they'll be a bit of bread and butter opposition for us early on.

I've considered this a bit given Richard is Lawful Neutral.

It gets long from here on out:

Brevoy is CN but we are within it's borders and empowered by it's authority to act. It is an established Kingdom. If your character is so repulsed by the idea of handing them over to Brevoy because they aren't as lawful as you would like you need to consider that. Would they hand them over to say a Chellish authority over an area? They are lawful after all. More to the point why has your character agreed to be part of the expedition backed under specific terms under the authority of the Brevic government.

It is not a Lawful country but consider it's neighbour's. Numeria? It makes Brevoy look like Taldor. The Stolen Lands? The River Kingdoms? Iobaria? Galt? ...let's face it, they're one of the more orderly countries in the neighbourhood.

So I would have assumed your character might be thinking Brevoy is better than a lot of the others around here however doesn't preclude them from thinking a lot better can be done. Perhaps they hope to have better laws and more nuanced punishments when they help form a Kingdom. If we had a jail we could toss him in it.

The two powers given by the charter are to explore a specific geographic area. Secondly, to strive against banditry and other illegal activity, the area for this has been left loose. Richard assumes this has been left with more wiggle room in case a group of bandits flee the designated area or we find out their operations extend deeper into the Stolen Lands so we can legitimately pursue them. As per the wording of the legal document it can be argued we are well within our jurisdiction. Now a Brevic Judge would probably tell us where we can shove it if we ran over the border constantly into Brevoy but these bandits were in our path on the way to our area so I think it would hold up.

You're character pregame has agreed to the charter presumably or why are they going along with the expedition?

This man has admitted he is a bandit, there was no Chellish torture confession he admitted it. He and his allies are robbing people as a gang in an isolated and lawless area... that is the definition of a bandit. That's their past activities. Their current activities include breaking into an unoccupied military base to loot it. You're saying that's not illegal but there's no clear defined timetable for when they'll be back, could be a decade could be next week. The beds are barely cold. As often comes up and is the case in RPGs we do not have an in world legal book to consult. It's up to the GM but I think if we asked the Brevic officer marching his forces to Restov who left here how he felt? Or the local authorities? They would look at us and ask why we haven't dealt with him.

They were trespassing, it doesn't matter if there were no soldiers there it was the local government (presumably Lords) land. They were robbing military/government property. For all we know they were sending back troops with a few wagons to clear out the last few bits at some future point. By looting they are robbing from the government/military arguably. Saying it's not illegal is not clear.

Neither is saying it's not immoral isn't too clear cut either. They were seeking resources here, a military building. Sure they wouldn't turn up their nose at rations or a barrel of ale if they found it but they could raid some farmers barn to get that... what will here have they might not get elsewhere? Weapons and arms? Maybe an overlooked map showing patrol roots and times in case the troops come back? None of those would be put to benevolent uses (maybe a bit of smuggling?). Maybe the building itself as a base of operations. One even said we weren't in Brevoy anymore, that's not a good sign but calling it treason would be a stretch, a sign that they are emboldened and getting more ambitious with the soldier's retreat however is a bit less outlandish.

I very much got the impression they were going to attack the party members coming through the door, as they started advancing with weapons drawn and at least to me there were some definite sinister undertone in the way they were speaking.

He's not repentant, he just knows what is coming. Richard isn't trying to be cruel, because the man confessed Richard is giving him a choice on which method as condoned within the law. That is the law as he sees it. The question is what lawful alternatives are there. Bring him back, Elena doesn't even like that and it will certainly end up with him being executed and we look weak and ineffectual. We let him go? If he had surrendered maybe, but he didn't surrender he got knocked unconscious. We bring him with us to work off his debt to society? Is the group big enough to monitor him, he'll just get away. We currently do not have the resources or the manpower to handle him like that. Richard can be persuaded to go with other options but it's got to be legitimate.

Once we have a Kingdom established we can build a jail, have actual containment facilities and legitimate other options. I suspect that if the current group survives in this incarnation the country might be NG and likely have a less black and white approach to law enforcement. Right now, we have a charter which makes us more than the average wandering adventuring party. We are however on a frontier and as grim as it can get there's a reason there is the term frontier justice.

I know GM_DBH is changing things up but if an actual confession isn't good enough for getting a character to go yeah I am satisfied this guy is a bandit... that character is going to have some huge issues in this campaign even if it's only passingly similar. The level of evidence you want is not going to reasonably be available. He confessed, if you wont accept that, a witness is no more useful as it's more likely they are lying. Bar seeing them with your own eyes attacking people what is the minimum level of evidence your character needs? It wouldn't matter if there was a Paladin in the party neither us nor them are high enough level to register under detect evil even if we are... which wouldn't be proof but it wouldn't help their case.

I would not bat an eyelid as a GM under the circumstances here if not only did a Paladin go along with executing the bandit but did it themselves. However if we came across a repentant one I would expect them to champion alternate options for this person.

As far as my character is concerned he is legally operating as an agent of the law of the land and bringing order. Other circumstances will have different factors.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

...but casting detect magic to make sure he doesn't have any enchantment aura spells on him is a good idea.


Cleric 4 | HP 27/27 | AC 21 : TAC 13 : FAC 18 : CMD 13 AC 24 : TAC 17 : FAC 17 : CMD 17 | Fort +5 : Ref +5 : Will +8 | Perc. +13 (DV 60') : S.M. +8 : Initiative +3 | Move 20' | Longbow +7, 1d8 | Wand 28
Richard Harmon wrote:
Firstly I have the nagging suspicion that GM_DBH wasn't anticipating us to get bogged down debating these guys.

I agree, but it would be good to get things out of the way now rather than handwave things only to set a precedent that is ill-thought out.

As to why did Elena accept the charter? Well, firstly, she sees herself as a kind of missionary and the Stolen Lands as the kind of region that could use Erastil's guidance. Secondly, she thinks she is under some kind of curse and wanted to get away from her loved ones, and this seemed like a good way to do it.

You seem to think that the River Kingdoms are wilder and more chaotic than Brevoy but they really aren't that different from Brevoy. The nearest one from us, Mivon, was settled by Rostlanders.

Trespassing is a pretty weak accusation and really doesn't have much weight on a property that has been abandoned by the owners. It's certainly not a capital crime.

I don't want to go this route:
"Are you a bandit?"
"Yes."
*Chop!*

My imagining of being lawful implies some desire for a system of due process. And we have no evidence of a crime occurring beyond what this guy has said, which is not enough, in my mind.

I regret not approaching the guys at the gate directly. If they took a shot at me when I had my hands up and was saying "hello" then that would have clarified things.

But Firstly... Do we plan to execute this guy? And if not, what do we want to do?


Male Human Arcanist 6 ~ AC 17* (t 12, ff 15*) *-4 if no mage armor | F+4, R+5, W+8 | Init +7, Per +8 | A.R. pts 7/8 | HP 44/44

I see both sides, here, except for the idea that this fort is abandoned. It was built and manned by Brevoy, it sits within Brevoy's borders, and it is still owned by Brevoy. It's still your house even if nobody is home at that particular moment, no matter how long that moment is.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the rules for banditry outlined in our charter still applies here, because "the punishment for banditry is, as always execution." (Emphasis mine.) If we had a reason that we needed to argue that we not execute him, I suppose we could argue that we were outside of the area defined by the charter, but then why are we worrying about this fort, anyway? But he has no love for bandits, so he's fine with this man's fate.

In the end, Niadroub Kliip is fine with not executing this man if we have a reason not to. We are out here executing the mission, not them. But if we're going to just turn him over to people who are going to execute him when we have been asked to do so, he thinks it's cruel to delay the man's fate, and it's cruel to ask someone else to perform our grisly task.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

But you don't want to give them due process because you don't trust Brevoy and don't want to hand him over.

I'm not getting your how you suggest we go forward from here. If a confession and looting of locked up government property doesn't mean he's a bandit then we're what giving him back his weapons and saying. "We don't believe you are a bandit as you freely admitted. Now there's a very good chance you'll either never see us again or we will make a ham fisted attempt to shadow you and see if you do some banditry." Do we have to catch them dragging little old ladies off wagons and snatching their belongings, because everyone got to invest in ranks of stealth if that's the case.

Or do you want to spend weeks and months tracking down his possible victims to verify his confession. I mean that's some serious dedication, hats off but... I'm going to be over in the Stolen Lands... dealing with the bandits...

I've got to put my cards on the table I'm really scratching my head that apparently that the confession isn't good enough. If that doesn't count then surely an eye witness will hold little weight either as they might genuinely have reasons to lie like that. Do our characters have to be personally present as the crime happens for them to go yes that's a bandit?

There's a lot of variance in the River Kingdoms yes but there's a country run by pirates... and lawful parts too... like Razmiran.

I don't want to drag things too much into the alignment thing because you can have two lawful good characters be at a loggerheads over this,

I say yes we do kill him. He's a bandit, bar someone saying oh he's got an enchantment aura on him. It's an adventure path where the two main things put forward on the charter are explore and kill bandits. Our mission statement for the first book is explore and kill bandits.

He gave no mitigating circumstances or apologies, he's unrepentent... they cover that in the charter. I'm not saying we kill all of them but most of them are going to be killed because they are bandits and probably not going to take kindly to use impinging on their illegal activities.

There's could be some interesting roleplay from this but it might take even longer to do in character.


Portrait N Female Human Ranger 1 | HP 11/11 | AC 18, T 14, FF 14 | CMD: 14 | F 3, R 6, W 1 | Init +4 | Per +5

Serafina's willing to do the deed and get it over with. She'll have nightmares later when she remembers this could easily have been her, but right now, she's willing to be the one to do it.

I think that the characters' viewpoints are worth hearing, and maybe that'd be something better covered in flex-time, spoiler discussions so the story can keep moving. That's what I usually do when I run into this kind of thing in my games.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

No problem Serafina she wont have to. Richard will do it, he'll make it quick. He can be persuaded to accept other resolutions with some convincing but it'll take enchantment magic, either on Richard or revealed to be on this man to convince Richard this man isn't a bandit.


Per +12, Init +3, F/R/W +4/+10/+3, AC 21 (T 16, FF 17), HP 39/39, CMB +6, CMD 19 Maps: Thornholme Republic of the Kamelands

I also like the idea that, while our characters are hotly debating both the jurisdiction of our charter and the ethics of punishing banditry, this guy just sneaks off. Funny yet somehow fitting.


Are you sure you want to do that?

I'll agree what was to be a simple warm-up with some generic NPC's turned into something very sticky, and it did surprise me. :)

I've been wracking my brains for a solution as I didn't want to simply hand-wave some valid differences away with a simplistic 'Because I said so!'

Alignment and how you play it is always a very prickly matter, one that can lead to arguments and rants. And that's even without Paladins getting involved.

I'm happy to delay a little more while the party discusses the matter, and role plays it out if you wish. Settling this now rather than further into the adventure is the best option. I'm also very pleased to see this being discussed without my needing to demand it be sorted out.

It's no real secret that most of you know where this AP is going to go, so getting what the law is, and how it applies sorted between yourselves in the beginning will be a benefit to you in the long run.

The other table is a bit further along than you, but have also had differences in how they will handle the law, and apply justice when dealing with prisoners. It's actually been good for me as a GM to stand back and let people work it out for themselves.


Cleric 4 | HP 27/27 | AC 21 : TAC 13 : FAC 18 : CMD 13 AC 24 : TAC 17 : FAC 17 : CMD 17 | Fort +5 : Ref +5 : Will +8 | Perc. +13 (DV 60') : S.M. +8 : Initiative +3 | Move 20' | Longbow +7, 1d8 | Wand 28
Richard Harmon wrote:
But you don't want to give them due process because you don't trust Brevoy and don't want to hand him over.

I don't want to hand him over because I want there to be due process and there usually won't be if we turn him over to Brevic Authorities.

I am not trying to create a problem for the game - rather I am trying to find a way that I can come to terms with our decision. I feel that a part of my job as a player is to figure out why Elena would support the party's decision.

Niadroub Kliip wrote:
I see both sides, here, except for the idea that this fort is abandoned. It was built and manned by Brevoy, it sits within Brevoy's borders, and it is still owned by Brevoy. It's still your house even if nobody is home at that particular moment, no matter how long that moment is.

In a lawful nation, yes. But Brevoy is chaotic, and things about rules of ownership and property fall under the law/chaos axis. In a chaotic realm, something belongs to you if you hold it, or can enforce your claim on it. If we find an abandoned building out on the frontier we are not going to assume that it is someone else's property and that no one should be allowed to touch it. Even in a lawful land abandoned property reverts to the public domain or the state after a certain amount of time. The bandits weren't hurting anyone doing what they were doing.

Consider this: what would we have done if we arrived at the Fort and nobody was there? We probably would have gone in, and poked around. We probably would have spent the night if it was practical to do so, and we also probably would have taken anything that looked useful or valuable.

How is that different from what the bandits were doing?

GM_DBH wrote:
I'll agree what was to be a simple warm-up with some generic NPC's turned into something very sticky, and it did surprise me. :)

I've been in this kind of game before and so I've seen these issues come up before. So this isn't a surprise to me. Which is part of why it would be good to clear the air now rather than later or keep arguing about it throughout the game.

Part if the idea of this discussion is to make sure we understand how everyone feels on the matter. Some will feel more strongly than others.

And I've been on both sides of the fence too, in other games. I've been in the "just kill them" camp and in the "no, we must show mercy" camp, depending on the character I am playing.

I definitely agree with Niadroub that if we plan to do something, we should do it and not put the moral responsibility on to someone else.

Elena is lawful but is also good. I suspect she would want to get the bandit to repent. Elena has also never killed a sentient being before (though she has often hunted animals) and while she realizes she may have to she is nervous about it. Elena is afraid of her evil side coming out and what would happen if she became cold and unfeeling towards this kind of thing.

Maybe some actual RP with the bandit would be more enlightening. I think Elena would talk to him a bit more.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

There's two bones of contention here.

1) If they are a bandit should we execute them.

Never mind how we come to this conclusion for now, if we are convinced they are a bandit do we execute them. Whether you like the laws of the land or not they are clear how we should proceed if satisfied they are a bandit. If execution is something we choose not to do, what option are we taking? I have still not heard a definitive response.

I can understand why a character might not respect the Brevic courts or government and your anticipation of what passes for due process. But what is the presented alternative? It's not Richard's player says execute, the other choice is don't execute. There are lots of options but which ones work. If we choose not to execute as standard or hand over to the legal authorities are we letting them go? Do we spin this as we got two of ye in the heat of battle we are letting the third off with a warning or a message for any other bandits he runs into. Remember this is if we are satisfied they are a bandit.

If it's, lets not do execution outside our area/related to bandits who operate in that are fine... but still what do we do with this guy?

2) How much evidence are we satisfied with.

At this juncture (extended RP might take us to new places but lets just go with as presented for now) we've got a confession. That is more than you have a lot of the time in RPGs. You often have hearsay. Regardless of the other circumstances what is our minimum level of intelligence to satisfy us they are a bandit if a confession wont do it? It seemed open and shut to me. What greater amount of evidence is needed at a minimum for us to be satisfied of guilt? Because until at least level 3 we are unlikely to get it and lets be honest might not get this much leaving us spinning out wheels. I refer to level 3 because Elena can prepare Zone of Truth, would that make a difference. It'd help... but so would detect magic, he could be under an enchantment spell, no one has checked this, my character is unable to.

=====================================================================

Elena the reality of the situation is our characters are part of an expedition backed by a government. They might not like the government but by continuing the expedition they are accepting that it is legitimate by their actions. OOC you want them to be in an adventure. IC your character doesn't have to be part of the expedition to do missionary work in the Stolen Lands... I am all for the PCs Kingdom being more merciful but right now we are in Brevoy's Sandbox.

They're a CN country yes but I'm not trying to go ah yes they are CN. It's a country that has been established for two hundred years with elements far older. Different lawful characters can take different approaches, you can have lawful characters in legitimate rebellions after all. But we're kind of working for it's government so that limits our options.

If the Fort was in the stolen lands yeah I'd loot everything not nailed down and set up shop. But its not and we know only recently evacuated. Obviously your character is taking a different approach to judging the situation as a Lawful one, but mine is as well as a Lawful one. It's still inside an established country's border, it's still government/military property. Even if people might take more liberties in Brevoy I would say you would be hard pressed to find a Brevic law that says they are in the clear.

But we are in the situation where our source for clarification is the GM. The legal written word of the land and how things are usually enforced are both relevant, we con postulate and theorize but only one person can nail it down.


Are you sure you want to do that?

@Elena.

It does seem a problem has come up. If you don't feel that the laws of Brevoy are something you can follow, why did you accept the charter to operate as an agent of the that country?

This is something that you would have thought over when first considering joining. It is stated plainly on the charter what you are required to do when dealing with bandits.


Portrait N Female Human Ranger 1 | HP 11/11 | AC 18, T 14, FF 14 | CMD: 14 | F 3, R 6, W 1 | Init +4 | Per +5
Elena wrote:
I am not trying to create a problem for the game - rather I am trying to find a way that I can come to terms with our decision. I feel that a part of my job as a player is to figure out why Elena would support the party's decision

Elena doesn't have to support the party's decision, either. This could be a great opportunity for a campfire chat by the fire once we leave the fort, and it wouldn't hold up the game. An event like this could be an opportunity for our characters to discuss what the standard operating procedure with bandits is, and open some characters' eyes to how things are going to be.

Overall, massive alignment discussions about the alignment axis aren't that interesting to me. I'm much more interested in how characters actually behave than in what their two-letter-combo says about them. At the end of the day, though, the charter does have a lot to do with how we behave, but it's not the end-all/be-all of them.


Male Human Arcanist 6 ~ AC 17* (t 12, ff 15*) *-4 if no mage armor | F+4, R+5, W+8 | Init +7, Per +8 | A.R. pts 7/8 | HP 44/44

Agreed. Alignment isn't... real? It's just a game mechanic that doesn't represent the complexity of human experience (or how we roleplay them). Framing this argument around alignment isn't productive, to me.

Is it safe to assume that everyone aside from Elena is on board with executing this man? I'm not trying to gang up on Elena, but I think she needs to hear the bandit's response to her question, and then decide if she's going to speak out against execution in-game.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

I was honestly surprised they kept alignment in Starfinder.

I figure out how the character will generally do things and then go picking an alignment. Richard is LN because he will generally (and sometimes grudgingly) going to abide by the law, he does believe in order and yes justice. However being a Vigilante when he becomes Crimson claw he's more willing to bend the law or in appropriate cases ignore or break it for the greater good.

His response might make a difference but I doubt a huge one given the general synopsis we got of them being bandits. They're bandits in an area with a growing bandit problem to the point where the leadership of Restov have started taking some significant measures. The charters, sanctioning and backing aren't something done every few years or anything.

I'd like to do some RP on it but once responses have been made, if any as I can understand if GM_DBH doesn't want to answer that one without answering the others which would take longer and possibly snowball. But once we know whatever information there is to get, it can simply be put to a vote in character. Richard wont vote in favor executing someone unless he is willing to do it himself. There's no relish or excitement for it, it's an obligation and a duty.

Noblesse Oblige is a big thing in Harmon's mindset. He wont apologize for striking at the man, he saw enemies advancing on his allies with weapons drawn and going by their words and disposition felt he had to act. He feels some obligation to the others in the group. He likely never would have rubbed shoulders with Colwyn (at least as Richard) but he will risk his life to defend Colwyn now and be civil with him. Certainly Richard would be deeply worried if anyone was looking forward to killing this man.

I look forward to roleplay and character development having an impact, if all goes well maybe Elena will get him gravitating towards what could be regarded as lawful good. Or maybe NG... hopefully not LE, things have gone very wrong if that's the case.


Portrait N Female Human Ranger 1 | HP 11/11 | AC 18, T 14, FF 14 | CMD: 14 | F 3, R 6, W 1 | Init +4 | Per +5

I vote we execute him, have a good discussion about it in spoilers while we move the game forward outside of them, and come up with a strategy for how we want to behave, in character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Human Arcanist 6 ~ AC 17* (t 12, ff 15*) *-4 if no mage armor | F+4, R+5, W+8 | Init +7, Per +8 | A.R. pts 7/8 | HP 44/44
Richard Harmon wrote:
I figure out how the character will generally do things and then go picking an alignment.

Ditto.

*fist bump*


Cleric 4 | HP 27/27 | AC 21 : TAC 13 : FAC 18 : CMD 13 AC 24 : TAC 17 : FAC 17 : CMD 17 | Fort +5 : Ref +5 : Will +8 | Perc. +13 (DV 60') : S.M. +8 : Initiative +3 | Move 20' | Longbow +7, 1d8 | Wand 28
Richard Harmon wrote:
The reality of the situation is our characters are part of an expedition backed by a government. They might not like the government but by continuing the expedition they are accepting that it is legitimate by their actions.

Yes, but let's not go overboard here. Brevoy is a country teetering on the brink of civil war and lots of people in Brevoy are not happy with the government, and the adventure is designed with the possibility that some of the characters could also be against the government.

Brevoy may be CN but the material suggests that the king is basically CE. Certainly Choral the Conqueror was. Elena is not a big fan of the king, but is not about to start a revolution. She would rather have a hand in what happens in the Stolen Lands than have a bunch of CE goons take on this task.

Eliminating bandits is not the main purpose of our mission. There are people in Brevoy whose job it is to go after bandits. I'm not saying we should ignore the bandit issue but Elena doesn't see herself as a bounty hunter.

Niadroub Kliip wrote:
Richard Harmon wrote:
I figure out how the character will generally do things and then go picking an alignment.

Ditto.

*fist bump*

Normally I do this too, and I originally was going to go with NG, but I have an archetype that requires a strict alignment match with my deity.

Richard Harmon wrote:
I'd like to do some RP on it but once responses have been made, if any as I can understand if GM_DBH doesn't want to answer that one without answering the others which would take longer and possibly snowball.

We seem to be handwaving it right now and I think it does deserve more attention. The issue will come up later on. These won't be the only bandits.

It feels pretty cold right now. And I'd prefer to humanize it a bit.

Richard Harmon wrote:
He likely never would have rubbed shoulders with Colwyn (at least as Richard) but he will risk his life to defend Colwyn now and be civil with him.

I think this is how Elena feels, but we haven't had much chance to RP with one another, so I feel I'm still getting to know who everyone is. Erastil is a community-based faith though and I think Elena would see the group as her new "community."

This does give me an angle to find a common ground with the group.

Richard Harmon wrote:

There's two bones of contention here.

1) If they are a bandit should we execute them.

Actually, we shouldn't forget the conditional clause. If he is an unrepentant bandit then we should kill him. But we really have had no dialogue with him to see if he is or could be brought to repentance.

Erastil is strict, but not cruel. I think this would be Elena's preferred outcome.

But then, what do we do if he does repent? How do we handle that?


Are you sure you want to do that?

It seems there is no real solution to this. Enough time has been wasted while the discussion goes in circles.

So I'm getting the game moving again and asking Elena to either abide by what everyone agreed to do at the start of the module, or to leave.

You came into this game with open eyes, throwing up a roadblock at the first encounter and deciding your personal beliefs override everybody else's is bad gaming.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

GM_DBH, I take it further inquiries like Elena asked IC lead to the same general response?

If so I'll start getting things going again. People to greater or lesser extents seem to go with execution, though Elena voting against that IC is certainly reasonable. Richard offered the man a choice between the rope or blade, suggesting the sword as quicker. Richard's offering the choice as the man did admit to his crimes, he'll give him some respect for that and allow the choice.


Cleric 4 | HP 27/27 | AC 21 : TAC 13 : FAC 18 : CMD 13 AC 24 : TAC 17 : FAC 17 : CMD 17 | Fort +5 : Ref +5 : Will +8 | Perc. +13 (DV 60') : S.M. +8 : Initiative +3 | Move 20' | Longbow +7, 1d8 | Wand 28
GM_DBH wrote:
You came into this game with open eyes, throwing up a roadblock at the first encounter and deciding your personal beliefs override everybody else's is bad gaming.

Please don't misunderstand. I am not trying to filibuster the game.

The first thing that I asked for was help with finding a justification for Elena being okay with what is happening. This is because I am in kind of an alignment straightjacket with this character, and am not sure what to do. I am trying to find an out for Elena here, not convince the party to go another route, unless there is some reasonable justification for doing so. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I know there will be more bandits to execute.

So far people have mostly posted how their characters would feel and that's good to understand, but aside from Elena seeing the party as her "community" I am not sure what angle to go with.

If the bandit refuses to talk any further then Elena will feel she is helpless and basically would likely say "I'll pray for you," but wouldn't get in the way. On the other hand, she wouldn't want to be the executioner.


Portrait N Female Human Ranger 1 | HP 11/11 | AC 18, T 14, FF 14 | CMD: 14 | F 3, R 6, W 1 | Init +4 | Per +5

This is the last time I'm weighing in on this, because alignment is the worst part of the game for me.

First, alignment usually doesn't matter that much to most GMs. They're not out to catch you and make you lose your class features. If you're egregiously non-Lawful or non-Good, you're in trouble, but this is easy to justify.

Second, justification for execution for Elena. Erastil is the god of community and family. He's not a particularly kind god, but those are the things he's about. This man, admittedly, forsook his community and family to go bandit, which is a mark against him. He also, most likely, killed people, associated with those who killed people, or through his banditry ruined the families of merchants traveling the roads. Further, he's not repentant, there's nothin to indicate he's doing this for a good cause, and there's no proper justice within a days' ride. I'd say this is justifiable to Erastil.

I'm done arguing alignment. Serafina was originally meant to be a lawful/evil character, but I changed so she could fit in the game. Alignment isn't worth not playing the game.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

The problem is I can't tell you how Elena would do things differently because that's Elena.

However if Richard was Lawful Good he'd be doing things similarly but a bit more grimly. The alignment isn't a straight jacket, there's still a lot of shades in it, it's how you interpret it and Lawful Good can go a lot of ways.

She'd like to help bring about more redemption but there's a group empowered by the charter not a single person. Even if Elena isn't thrilled by the majority consensus can she live with it? Is Elena the kind of Lawful Good that can only operate in a party of similar minded Lawful Good characters, it can happen.

I can offer perspectives for how a Lawful Good character can act and view things but I can't offer you perspectives on Elena, that's up to you.


Cleric 4 | HP 27/27 | AC 21 : TAC 13 : FAC 18 : CMD 13 AC 24 : TAC 17 : FAC 17 : CMD 17 | Fort +5 : Ref +5 : Will +8 | Perc. +13 (DV 60') : S.M. +8 : Initiative +3 | Move 20' | Longbow +7, 1d8 | Wand 28
Serafina "Switch" Koenig wrote:
First, alignment usually doesn't matter that much to most GMs. They're not out to catch you and make you lose your class features.

Yeah, I guess this is the big worry for me. If I was playing a wizard or a fighter I wouldn't worry so much, but I'm playing a class that can have all the cool abilities taken away if I play it "wrong." There's even a magic item that allows a player to get hints from the GM about when the character is not toeing the line.

I looked up the Erastil paladin code but it doesn't really have anything in it about crime & punishment.

GM DBH: how do you feel about giving "alignment warnings" if I am veering off alignment?

Serafina "Switch" Koenig wrote:
Erastil is the god of community and family. He's not a particularly kind god, but those are the things he's about. This man, admittedly, forsook his community and family to go bandit, which is a mark against him.

This is exactly the kind of angle I was looking for. Thanks!

Serafina "Switch" Koenig wrote:
Serafina was originally meant to be a lawful/evil character...

I usually prefer neutral characters because of the flexibility there. Or NG or CG or CN. But Erastil is big in the theme of this AP, and I think they created the deity Erastil for it.

Richard Harmon wrote:
However if Richard was Lawful Good he'd be doing things similarly but a bit more grimly.

Yeah, I think I'm there already. She does think it's pretty serious.

Richard Harmon wrote:
Even if Elena isn't thrilled by the majority consensus can she live with it?

As long as it is clearly a group decision, i.e. a vote, sure. Part of the issue is that I am trying to figure out which way Elena would vote! But even if she is outvoted, she isn't about to make trouble for everyone else.


Are you sure you want to do that?

Sorry all. Today turned so hectic I don't have time to sit down and update any of my games. Good news is what was going to be a busy Thursday is now nearly empty. So lots of updating tomorrow.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

So basic plan brewing in my head is our ranged characters up on the southern ramparts, easy to just stay down and out of view. Stealthy melee types hiding behind the sides of the doors to the left (South) to cut off retreat a bit. Less stealthy melee characters ready to pour out of A3.

Elena since you're our healer and ranged I suggest you being up on the ramparts near the ladder to the bottom (East). You can rain down fire and in a pinch reposition to support. If the stealthy melee characters are to the left we should be able to block them getting access to the ladder and to our ranged support while being close enough for Elena to assist us if needed.

If we do it right and don't hold back I hope we can take out about three or more in the surprise round.

What do people think? You know your characters and abilities better than me but it's the basics of a good plan.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

Running Tally of Loot:

Leather armor - 5.
Longbows - 5
100 arrows
Shortswords - 5.
Trail rations - 10 days total.
50gp total.

Richard Took 20 Arrows and a Longbow. Colwyn took 20 Arrows.
If we say everyone took two days of rations it'll cover getting to Olegs.
Keep the remainder of the arrows (We'll use them) and the gold... which leaves...

Longbow x4, Shortsword x5, Leather Armor x5


Male Human Arcanist 6 ~ AC 17* (t 12, ff 15*) *-4 if no mage armor | F+4, R+5, W+8 | Init +7, Per +8 | A.R. pts 7/8 | HP 44/44

Are you counting the gold as community gold, or are you assuming we each took 8 gold and change?

An ambush is definitely the way to go, especially if the bandits arrive on horseback. (Someone should ask if they do that. Niadroub Kliip is up on the catwalk.) Ranged can use the catwalks to gain higher ground.

Perhaps we can see how quickly we can close the gates so we know if we can do it in a combat situation? We can leave one gate closed and one gate partially open to be able to close them quicker. We don't want them getting away.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

Good idea.

I hadn't assumed splitting the gold yet... nothing to spend it on yet.


Cleric 4 | HP 27/27 | AC 21 : TAC 13 : FAC 18 : CMD 13 AC 24 : TAC 17 : FAC 17 : CMD 17 | Fort +5 : Ref +5 : Will +8 | Perc. +13 (DV 60') : S.M. +8 : Initiative +3 | Move 20' | Longbow +7, 1d8 | Wand 28

If someone wants to be the party treasurer and keep track of how much loot there is that would be cool.

If we keep the broken arrows, Elena could prepare mending and fix them. It would be time consuming but Elena doesn't like to be wasteful.


Per +12, Init +3, F/R/W +4/+10/+3, AC 21 (T 16, FF 17), HP 39/39, CMB +6, CMD 19 Maps: Thornholme Republic of the Kamelands

I'll volunteer to be treasurer. I actually really enjoy keeping track of details like that.

I'll start drafting a Google spreadsheet that I can link here.


Are you sure you want to do that?
Colwyn the Toad wrote:

I'll volunteer to be treasurer. I actually really enjoy keeping track of details like that.

I'll start drafting a Google spreadsheet that I can link here.

Thanks for that Colwyn.

For some reason I always prefer the players to keep track of the loot?


Per +12, Init +3, F/R/W +4/+10/+3, AC 21 (T 16, FF 17), HP 39/39, CMB +6, CMD 19 Maps: Thornholme Republic of the Kamelands

Here a draft of the treasury sheet


Female Aasimar (Angel-Blooded) Fighter (Aldori Swordlord) 4 | AC 18 (t 13, ff 15) | F+6, R+5, W+2 | Init +3, Per +4 | HP 5/39

When Richard suggested Xan hide in the building to the west, did he mean A3 or A4? Because I only just noticed that north on that map is off to the right.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

Sorry I was thinking A3. The map orientations are always a bit annoying.

...I keep rolling minimum for damage. Still better to hit with a little than not at all.


Male Human Arcanist 6 ~ AC 17* (t 12, ff 15*) *-4 if no mage armor | F+4, R+5, W+8 | Init +7, Per +8 | A.R. pts 7/8 | HP 44/44

Sooooo, I don't even roll martial characters that are as good with attacks at first level as this arcanist is with a crossbow.


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

I can relate... I made a sorcerer for a game before... after a while I just kept firing the crossbow until we hit level four... I even picked up exotic weapon proficiency for a repeating crossbow.


Male Human Arcanist 6 ~ AC 17* (t 12, ff 15*) *-4 if no mage armor | F+4, R+5, W+8 | Init +7, Per +8 | A.R. pts 7/8 | HP 44/44

Hi, gang. I'll be traveling Wednesday through Sunday. I dont expect to really be offline, bit if I miss a day or two, that's most likely why.


Are you sure you want to do that?

Thanks for the heads up. I'll bot you if needed.


Are you sure you want to do that?

Loot:

Light horse - 6
Alchemists fire - 2
Leather armor - 7
Dagger
Short sword - 6
Composite longbow (+2 Str) with 20 arrows
Longbow - 6 with 20 arrows each - 120 total
14 days of trail rations
Silver Stag Lord amulet worth 20 gp
95 gp

Haps Brydon had the Composite longbow and the Silver amulet.


Per +12, Init +3, F/R/W +4/+10/+3, AC 21 (T 16, FF 17), HP 39/39, CMB +6, CMD 19 Maps: Thornholme Republic of the Kamelands

I've updated the party treasury


Male Richard's Map Vig 6, HP: 23/46, AC: 21, FF: 17, Touch: 15, CMD: 20 CMB: +6 Fort:+4, Ref:+10, Will+6, Initiative +4, Per +9, SM +9

The composite longbow is an upgrade for Serafina I believe.

The rations, aclehmist's fire and gold are clearly worth keeping.

The arrows are worth holding onto if Oleg and Svetlana don't mind us keeping a chest here to store them, long term we'll use them.

The horses... free horses are handy.

Everything else might as well be sold I think.

51 to 100 of 1,119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Online Campaigns / Play-by-Post Discussion / Kingmaker. The shadows behind the throne. Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.