Okay, I wasn't sure. Text is so hard to read intent into.
There's a link on the word "scroll" in my post. If Google Drawing is tough, I've copied the text from the picture onto the Campaign Info tab under Bounties.
Okay, I wasn't sure. Text is so hard to read intent into.
There's a link on the word "scroll" in my post. If Google Drawing is tough, I've copied the text from the picture onto the Campaign Info tab under Bounties.
So long as it's not a combat map I need to interact with we're good. But it's also not shared so I can't see it.
My bad! Fixing it now. I built SO many google drawings and things, I must've missed the settings on that one.
Exploration in my game is going to take some discussion.
I've covered the hex map for Stolen Land with hexagons to obscure what's in each hex. I also have a key for what each hex represents/means. On the Greenbelt map, which is what’s linked, there’s Plains, Forest, and Hills. Finally, I also have an icon that represents where the party is, and their route will be traced in Red for each journey into the Stolen Lands.
A few real-world days before we explore, I’ll have you guys come up with a consensus about which directions to go and how far to go in them. The red hex with the numbers on it on my map is a way to determine which paths you take, or you can draw on the map if you promise not to peek! Drawing might be faster, to be honest. Once a route is set in, we’ll follow it on explorations unless a reason, like geography or a plot thread, comes up not to do so.
Does this sound reasonable, or has anyone had more success with a different method for figuring out where to go?
Out of curiosity's sake, have you guys decided what, if any, of the loot you want? I figured the comp longbow might be useful for Sethiel, but I'm not sure.
There's loot?
From the first fight, sorry. I should have clarified. I mentioned it in a spoiler after combat was over.
yeah, I picked up on that, the first bit of bad guys come to collect dues.
Two of the four KM I've started were there when they ended. One didn't get that far, the other just a bit further. But they stayed out on the prairie instead of the forest.
I was trying to be cute, twice you mentioned all the weapons Angus had, so I thought it would be funny to ask about more.
I totally missed that! While I would love a composite longbow, that one is actually not useful because I only have a +1 Str vs its +2 rating. And even if we happen upon a belt of giant's strength, I would be at best third in line for one. Oh well.
None of it really interests me other than the money. Not it on setting up a loot tracker. I'm already doing it for another game.
Now I'm second guessing myself, when you said:
The sound isn't real - it seems to be illusory, in fact!
Is it the same sound the 'owlbear' is making?
If so, it does sound like I've charged an illusion... Would Angus recognize that?
It is, in fact, the "owlbear" sound. The actual spell in question for the owlbear itself is Silent Image, and I checked up on the rules, you don't actually get a save until you "interact" with it.
Ultimate Intrigue clarifies that you can spend a move action to study the illusion. I believe this derives from the line about illusions in the CRB, "Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion" - with the active Perception check as a move action being to "study it carefully."
If that lines up with your interpretation, then that is what Varrus will do with a move action. Though I guess it is a Will save rather than a Perception check.
Oh, I didn't realize that. If you guys would like to ret-con your actions, I'm okay with that. It'd be realistic for anyone who made their sound-is-illusion save to be suspicious of the owlbear. Sorry.
no, I'm good with charging an owlbear that isn't there, I started thinking about how badly Harbinger needs armor. Though, since Harbinger didn't smell the predator he's wondering what the heck.
Since the image is imaginary, I assume Angus didn't burn a challenge?
since Angus and Harbinger crashed through it, does he realize it's not real? Or is that not what the will save is for?
I'm good with you not burning a challenge, and anyone who's interacted with it honestly should have realized it's not real. It doesn't make sense to shoot or charge through it and then not think it's real.
I'm going to run up a post in Gameplay real quick, then we can move forward.
I've thought about that in other games, and honestly it's not very unreasonable that interacting with it doesn't automatically tip you off that it's an illusion. In this case, if I had watched my arrow pass right through the thing and then failed my Will save, maybe I'd assume it was a ghost? Or immune to arrows? Or any number of other possibilities, since the whole effect was, after all, produced by a talking cricket-woman and a faerie dragon.
In fact, it might be fun to come up with an explanation for why your character still thinks it's an illusion after failing an easy Will save. I have a 6-Int paladin who does this kind of thing all the time, because to me the opposite of knowledge isn't ignorance but wrong knowledge.
What type of watch do you all want? Five of us, rest needs to be eight hours, we can't travel more than eight hours so we can use anywhere from eight hours with no watch to easily twelve hours with multiple.
three watches four hours each? Angus and Harbinger can take the middle, you four split first and last? Split those with low-light vision up one in each watch?
Whatever you decide for watches is what we'll stick with, in general, so it's really just this once figuring out the order.
Or we could just not worry about low-light vision and do five two-hour shifts. Alyssa and Tiff need 8 uninterrupted hours, I don’t as long as I can prep my spells at sunrise. So we could do something like:
Alyssa
Varrus
Angus
Me
Tiff
Pretty sure my sleep doesn't need to be uninterrupted, just that I get 8 hours and then prep spells.
Also if I'm by myself we'll get ambushed on my watch.
I'm good either way, but the assumption is we'll be in camp a lot longer than we'll be 'hiking' I just like to double up watch if we can. I figure Angus has a little help with harbinger, so he's not quite alone. Though I could have him 'stand guard' during Theophania's watch :)
I sort of just jammed tokens on the map, so if you have a different marching order in mind, let me know.
longsword: 1d20 + 5 + 2 - 1 ⇒ (20) + 5 + 2 - 1 = 26 for damage: 1d8 + 6 + 3 ⇒ (6) + 6 + 3 = 15
hoof: 1d20 + 4 + 2 - 1 ⇒ (13) + 4 + 2 - 1 = 18 for damage: 1d6 + 3 + 2 ⇒ (5) + 3 + 2 = 10
longsword confirm crit: 1d20 + 5 + 2 - 1 ⇒ (20) + 5 + 2 - 1 = 26 for damage: 1d8 + 6 + 3 ⇒ (1) + 6 + 3 = 10
Sorry GM Elfriede, I was in a hurry last night, and when I copy and pasted my earlier attack I did not remove the numbers from the 'charge' It probably wouldn't effect angus' attacks but harbinger only rolled a 16.
Thanks for catching that. It doesn't actually matter, though. Kressle's not surviving between you and what everyone else already accomplished.
*sigh* I guess I'll set up a loot tracker before we start leaving a bunch of money behind.
How feature heavy do you want it to be? It can just be a simple list or all the way up to tracking gear for everyone with WBL and encumbrance calculated.
I guess I could write loot in a spreadsheet list instead of in the post, if you guys prefer. That way it's already at least a bit managed.
By the way, if you feel any rolls are appropriate for a situation, I'm totally on board with whatever you feel like rolling. I'll let you know if I feel it's not practical.
So I as a player generally hate dealing with prisoner issues, especially when there is a difference of opinion within the party, but I think what Varrus is proposing is in line with how surrender worked historically and thus how it might work in a quasi-medieval world.
You would offer to surrender to a specific enemy soldier, and if they accepted, then you became their personal responsibility.
Some deep philosophical questions this game! FWIW, Sethiel's opinions aren't necessarily my own, and whatever disagreements he has are with characters only and not their players. So far it's been fun for me to play him as an "Iomedaean who's definitely not a Boy Scout," but if anyone thinks I should back off a bit I will.
deep philosophical questions indeed :) Don't back of on my account, I hadn't noticed, and if I had, I'd still want you to do you.
So Angus is chaotic good, I don't want him to sound lawful, so the idea is take situations one at a time. To him, it didn't sound like anyone was twisting this guys arm to be a criminal. It's not like S&S where folks are pressganged.
Anyway, I need to remind myself that he is Chaotic good, while he doesn't want to imprison anyone, he does want people to make some kind of restitution, because that would be the right thing to do.
As for kingdom building, NG or CG would be Angus' and my preferences. Though I had a friend who did the crunch and Lawful Evil is the most efficient. He followed the math and apparently Rome had the right idea.
And to think I almost played my LN wizard,the one with the slow descent into evil.
Echoing Sethiel's and Angus words - all these disagreements are character driven only. I like what you're doing with Varrus, but Alyssa understandably has a quite some difficulty forgiving these bandits. I definitely wasn't expecting to have it be up to her, but it's a nice way to explore that facet of her character in more depth. Don't want to bog the game down with her indecision though, if you all rather move on.
Wow, this is wonderful. I just got back from a hike, so give me a bit to parse the discussion and decide what my man Egon thinks about all this. Glad I went hiking, though. I'd have jumped in early and ruined the discussion.
I'm very leery of this ex post facto punishment for actions that were legal under the laws of the River Kingdoms.
The bandits weren't even criminals. They were acting as the laws of this place said they could act.
That's why I would be inclined to let go anyone who responds with deference rather than defiance - we are on shaky ground already claiming the 'right' to execute bandits. Restov didn't have any authority here until we showed up. So anyone who concedes that we have that authority should not be treated harshly. We need all the support we can get.
But it seems like Angus, Alyssa, and Sethiel are driven far more by morality than by either political calculation or legal consistency. Which is fine. I just need to decide if I should recalibrate my character so as not to cause friction.
I'm confused, you're saying that under the laws of the river kingdom that the bandits weren't criminals, can you show me that?
I completely understand your position, and were I playing a more politically minded character, I'd be siding with Varrus. But I can't see Alyssa easily letting the bandit's go, given her backstory. It's not even just a question of morality - there's quite a bit of anger and need for revenge mixed in as well.
There's an argument to be made that the 6th River Freedom ("You have what you hold") is pro-banditry. As per the wiki and Guide to the River Kingdoms, "It is acceptable (and perhaps worthy of praise) to take what you want by force." It draws a line between sneaky, break-into-your-house-while-you're-on-vacation thieves (bad) and "your money or your life" banditry (acceptable).
EDIT: I also personally interpreted this freedom as the single reason the River Kingdoms are so politically messy. It's hard to keep anyone in power when every other kingdom is trying to take your land by force.
@Angus - that's what I was trying to say in my first response to you.
"Many of the people of these lands labored under the mistaken belief that this was part of the River Kingdoms and not Brevoy. And so they thought the River Freedoms applied.
One of those Freedoms is the right to commit robbery and the right to resist robbery. 'You have what you hold.' I think there are enough who wish for actual civilization that we can explain the laws of Restov now apply, and robbery is not permitted."
Egon's not much of a talker, so it's a short post from me. I'll be around all evening, though, so once we've resolved him one way or another, we can move on.
Speaking of which, back to Oleg's or do some tracking down of the bandits?
@Angus - "You have what you hold" is one of the River Freedoms.
It basically means robbery is legal. A more aggressive version of "Finders Keepers."They had every right to try to rob us when we came to their camp.
We had every right to kill them and take their stuff.Kingmaker is about trying to impose a semblance of actual civilization on a piece of the anarchic River Kingdoms.
Which necessarily means getting rid of that River Freedom.
OK, so I get that one of the present tenants of this very wild, lawless and chaotic land is 'you have what you hold' That doesn't mean that it's a law, it's more an absence of law, but not a law. So by that standard, whatever we can enforce by strength of arms means we can do it. IE might makes right. But that's not a law either. I digress.
ok, are the 'river freedoms' in the Player's Guide? I don't see them at quick glance. I'm trying to figure out if Angus would know them or not.
Answering the GM's question, Angus, wanting to watch the bandit longer, would say stay out on the trail, especially if their letting him go when they get back to Oleg's.
They're not. Lemme grab them, they're pretty common knowledge in the River Kingdoms, so I'd say they're at least vaguely known by people who know much about the region.
Not to distract from the morality play but here's a practical concern.
I went with a list type with a few formulas to make things slightly easier for figuring our net worth.
I can handle adding items in. I know Angus claimed a longbow but I forget if anyone claimed anything else. Things I won't track are basic ammunition and rations, eventually non-masterwork armor and weapons, probably around the time my bonded amulet gets its first upgrade.
OK, so if there not in the Players Guide, I'm not sure why we're talking about them like they are laws. I'm not even sure we should know them.
Looking at them now, seriously anarchic, love the fact that the annual meeting held for the most powerful leaders is called "the Outlaw Council" so even if Varrus doesn't think it's against the law, they do.
I'm sorry, the last time I started this game we were given a Charter before we left city of Restov. Was this group not given such a charter? We're here to stop the 'outlaws' not be them. So talking about the anarchy like it's a law is a little frustrating.
I get letting him go. But I also get killing him where he stands. I think I could justify either as Chaotic Good. Keeping an eye on him to see if he's truly repentant, seemed the middle ground.
Did I forget to link and mention the charter? How could I possibly have forgotten the charter!? I had it built and everything...
EDIT: Nope, I mentioned it, I just forgot to link it in Gameplay. It is linked in Campaign Info, but that's not really enough. Sorry, my bad.
NO it's cool, I didn't go looking for it. I'm just trying to figure out why were calling their anarchy a law, when we were sent to do the exact opposite as they...
lol
No, we were given a charter. From Restov.
But Restov doesn't actually control the area (and as to what we know or don't know, it is absolutely clear from the Players' Guide that the Stolen Lands are part of the River Kingdoms and therefore Brevoy/Restov have no authority there).
It's a power play.
By sweeping in here, and applying Restov law to replace the River Freedoms, we are asserting Restov's claim to this land.
The people who live here, like Oleg, generally don't think of themselves as under the authority of Restov. We have to impose that authority.
And I am advocating that it be done delicately.
Yes, our charter says the penalty for unrepentant banditry is death. That's Restov or Brevoy law. The penalty for unrepentant banditry in the River Kingdoms is praise. Our law only applies in this region to the extent that we can get the locals to agree it applies.
Which I thought would be easier if we used a light touch.
We are trying to enforce law that has not previously applied here. We are trying to convert this place from River Kingdoms to Restov-adjacent.
We are here as conquerors. There are a few ways to approach that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player I perfectly get what you're saying, and like I said, I like what you're doing with Varrus here - he's looking at the big picture and considering the longterm implications of our actions here. He's concerned about how our actions might look for the people already here, trying to make it seem like we're not bringing drastic changes to the region - in a way, you want to give Oleg close to what he wanted: things should stay mostly the same, but without the bandits. He needs to understand there'll need to be compromise on some things, but it's not going to be a drastic change to strict Restov law.
I do think any concerns about the "legality" of our actions is a bit much however: either we're hunting down these bandits in accordance with Restov's law, or we're just exercising the 6th freedom, taking them down and getting their stuff. Interested third parties judging us unfairly are basically trying to have it both ways "Oh, it's fine for the bandits to follow the laws of the River Kingdoms, but you guys shouldn't".
I really don't want you to change how you're playing Varrus, and would really like to engage more with your argument - Alyssa's smart and good at diplomacy, she should be able to have a rational reply to your points - in this specific situation however, it's pretty hard for her not to go with a mostly emotional response.
I'll try to get a post up later to get us moving along and hopefully set things up for further interactions down the road. She'll definitely need some guidance to be able to function in one of the leadership roles, and this situation is a good way to start getting her thinking ahead. You'll all have to help her get over her issues first, though.