|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Honour?!?! I've got seven kingdoms to rule! One king, seven kingdoms! Do you think honour keeps them in line?!?" -Robert Baratheon.
The cleric didn't get you beaten because he roleplayed an honourable character.
The cleric got you beaten because he roleplayed an honourable character BEFORE you'd all gotten onto the boat.
There's a big difference between honour and stupidity, and the cleric crossed that line.
Is the cleric's surname Stark?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So my question is when is it that the gm should intervene on how a characters roleplaying is getting the party killed.
My character tries to talk people out of combat because he actually cares about life and doesn't treat NPCs like soulless little chunks of XP is something to be encouraged, not something you need to pull the player aside for.
Can bob have a character that sets houses on fire because he thinks that any building with monsters should be torched?
No. Thats probably evil
Can the Chaotic good person murder a slaver in his house because he decides the guy is evil and must die?
Yes. And thats a pretty standard faction mission.
Can I play a never allows others to stealth but yelling out loud "Here we come to kill you all you goblin bastards" at the top of my lungs.
Sneaking ahead of the party is always a risky proposition, but doable. Its very hard for a party to actually get a surprise round on the npcs (for doors and other reasons, sir clanksalot being one of them)
You might try telling the player "Hey, I have a rogue here, I kinda need to sneak if I'm going to do more damage than your horse"
|
|
It was an error on the cleric's part, and while you can't kill him for it, you can berate him. Have your character report him to the Venture-Captain that gave you the mission. Make a point of it to the GM running, and see what he does. It won't call for any real repercussion, but will certainly serve notice to the Player that you felt that it was not cool. You could also have your character talk to his character and let him know, personally.
Perhaps the player doesn't care, and is going to react to your reaction defensively. If it becomes clear that he is deliberately doing it to be difficult, then report him to the person running the event. Let them figure out how to deal with it.
You are supposed to be there to have fun, but I always try to find a diplomatic solution first.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't sound like it was the Cleric's fault. The stupid move was to have the single Fighter climb aboard a hostile ship.
If I were the GM, I would not tell the Cleric how to play his character. Heck, a nice Diplomacy check might've worked. When I played this we did just that, and our Bard convinced the pirates he could pay them better than they were getting already (given the fact that we were all wearing magical gear, and he had a ton of gold on him). They were instrumental in piloting the ship for us, too, since none of us had Profession (sailor).
When you realized the crew was hostile, the smart thing to do would have been to row away, and attempt to board at a later date. Row back to shore, grab a scroll of Invisibility Sphere, and do it again. Retreat is always an option, and I shake my head when parties don't realize that.
|
Don't blame the cleric. It is perfectly ok to play a character that acts with honor.
When it became clear that you would have trouble boarding, your group could have retreated and returned after dark (and after talking to your cleric about the importance of a carefully crafted plan). That scenario gives plenty of time for such a strategy.
As an aside, the pirates in that scenario are not slavers, nor do they have poison for their weapons.
|
|
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. Nothing that follows is meant to be mean-spirited, just to give food for thought.
Was this something you expected him to do as you approached the ship? Like, did he announce your presence at the warehouse? Try to talk Boss Croat's thugs into surrender?
If he did either of those things, and especially if his strategy failed both times, then a part of the blame for this debacle is on the rest of the party for not pulling that character aside as you planned the ship and making sure he was on the same page as the rest of you. The way you tell the story makes it seem like the two boats headed out to the ship with vastly different plans - the cleric anticipating a parlay, and the rest of you anticipating a stealth boarding. If that was the case, you were doomed to failure from the start, and the character death was the result of that.
There was a really simple way to get through the discussion, if the rest of your group was unified in your stance: "Hey, cleric, we're going to attempt to sneak our way on board the ship. They way you've been announcing our presence might jibe with your religious beliefs, but that's not how we're going to do things this time, because it hasn't worked out well yet. You have two options here: do it our way, or stay behind while we take care of this." If that conversation happened, and the cleric lied to the rest of you and did it anyway, that's a problem. If the cleric disagreed with your ultimatum, then you could have let him go out to the ship by himself and try the parlay trick, and tried your stealth attack if his talking didn't work.
But, if you didn't have that conversation at all, that's a different problem. Explore, report, cooperate only works if there's a conversation beforehand about tactics.
|
|
Jeff makes some valid points about talking about tactics and expectations beforehand.
When I play my paladin, I tell all the players at the table, "If your haven't played with my paladin before, you should know that she is very Good and moderately Lawful. She will try diplomacy before combat except when it comes to obviously evil or monstrous foes such as clerics of evil deities or undead. She will heal any humanoid foes that we fell, and she probably won't heal your characters in combat unless you are unconscious and dying. If your actions are morally questionable, she won't heal you at all. Lastly, she is incredibly gullible; her Sense Motive is -2."
|
|
Humm...seems like this scenario was run wrong. Since you had a different post with a different scenarios being done wrong, I think your GM needs a talk with about modification of the scenarios...especially since that seems to be causing character deaths. Changing the scenario to kill off characters is NOT ACCEPTABLE in PFS. While the other examples could be explained away as GM inexperience or mistake, adding poison is WAY beyond making a simple mistake as there is no poison ANYWHERE in the scenario for that mistake to even happen. So yeah, you have a problem GM...so you need to start having some chats.
|
|
So my question is when is it that the gm should intervene on how a characters roleplaying is getting the party killed.
Hardly ever. What the cleric was doing wasn't unreasonable. Naive, perhaps stupid, but not completely unreasonable. In a different circumstance the cleric might have had the right (and diplomatic) answer.
Honestly, I blame the party. You never:
- Talked about strategy or what you would do when you got to the boat beforehand. Now if the cleric didn't follow the plan, that's completely different.
- Prepared for the eventuality that the pirates would notice you beforehand.
- Prepared so that you wouldn't drown (sounds like your GM was being nice).
- Prepared so that you could board the boat without the pirates leaving ladders and ropes for you.
If you had done all of those things, it would have never happened. When I played this, we also got stuck in the boat (not sure why), but we took out the pirates easily when we got on deck.
Can bob have a character that sets houses on fire because he thinks that any building with monsters should be torched?
Usually setting fires to an urban house can cause many houses, possibly an entire block to burn down, so that would probably be an evil action depending on the location of the house. And it could be unwise in other circumstances. Easy solution, but unwise.
Can the Chaotic good person murder a slaver in his house because he decides the guy is evil and must die?
Anything involving alignment has a lot of different opinions, so it depends on your GM. Mostly it's OK, especially if it's an Andoran killing a slaver. It's what they do.
Can I play a never allows others to stealth but yelling out loud "Here we come to kill you all you goblin bastards" at the top of my lungs.
Depends. Like someone else said, it's almost impossible for the entire group to gain surprise on an opponent, and it's sometimes deadly for the rogue when they sneak ahead on their own (especially with the core Stealth rules).
But if your group had a plan and the other player does that again and again, they're being a jerk. There's so much table variation here, it would depend completely on the players and GM and no one can armchair quarterback this one without being there.
|
As we tried to get aboard the boat the pirates proceeded to kick out asses with crossbows, tanglefoot bags and smoke sticks.
Heck, if I could get a mount like that I might actually try out the Cavalier. :)
But in all seriousness, it seems like the Cleric did the (or a) right thing that just turned out bad. Sometimes GM's just will not let diplomacy and RPing work, and sometimes the dice are not with you, but bloodshed and slaughter are not always the order of the day, and if I remember this scenario correctly, it was pretty inferred that the main boss piratess was very low on friends and allies, so why not try to talk her minions into joining the winning side, when apparently no one else in the entire world could even find their ship, and you do it in a handful of hours starting from scratch.
|
|
Napalm,
I don't see anything wrong there. The bit about the pirates not noticing is, like anything else in the scenario, "If everything goes normally". The PCs tactics (or lack there of) can override what happens. The pirates aren't deaf, if you yell out to them they'll hear you.
Umm...yeah I think you may have missed the poison bit. It was pointed out that the poison is what got the fighter killed. Something they are not suppose to have and there is zero chance this was a mistake in reading the scenario. The others in the other thread...yeah, you can maybe excuse as mistakes and/or inexperience. The addition of poison on the other hand...yeah...nothing there but GM malice. Add this bit into the others...and it becomes much less likely that the other instances were honest mistakes and more likely the GM actively modifying the scenario to kill of characters.
|
|
Well, Alejia does have poison, and her tactics do specifically say she applied it, (as a swift action 1/day). It's possible that they where misrepresenting how things happened, but it's also possible that the DM saw that the grippli has Poison Use and either mixed things up or assumed that they had actual poison, too.
(+4/–2, +2 natural, 20 minutes), poison use
or
Toxic (Ex) Twice per day, Alejia can envenom a weapon she wields with her toxic saliva or blood (using blood requires Alejia to be injured at the time) as a swift action. Vishkanya Venom: Injury; save Fort DC 14; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d2 Dex damage; cure 1 save.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's recap...
So one player decides to try diplomacy (which generally tends not to have casualties), but when it doesn't work the party's combat incompetence gets someone killed.
And for having tried to keep the whole party safer by talking instead of fighting, the OP:
1) Would have killed that character if not for the "No PvP" rule,
2) Compares attempts at diplomacy to "set[ting] houses on fire", "murder[ing] a slaver in his house", or "yelling out loud 'Here we come to kill you all you goblin bastards' at the top of my lungs".
I think we know all we need to know about the OP's situation.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Let's recap...
So one player decides to try diplomacy (which generally tends not to have casualties), but when it doesn't work the party's combat incompetence gets someone killed.
And for having tried to keep the whole party safer by talking instead of fighting, the OP:
1) Would have killed that character if not for the "No PvP" rule,
2) Compares attempts at diplomacy to "set[ting] houses on fire", "murder[ing] a slaver in his house", or "yelling out loud 'Here we come to kill you all you goblin bastards' at the top of my lungs".I think we know all we need to know about the OP's situation.
I was addressing the GM issue in my post. Yes, the players' actions are not equivalent to those things - but I can see him getting frustrated at the cleric not waiting until they were on the boat before calling out. Diplomacy is and should always be the favored approach to a situation.
|
|
I nearly killed him for it but I know the rules say we can't kill other players, even though his actions lead to one of our characters deaths.
I know this is not the thrust of the argument (or question), but there are both campaign rules and real world laws to discourage any killing of the PLAYERS. The players are the people at the table.
I know that PFS has no equivalent to the val'Mehan Emissary from LA (where a DC 50 Diplomacy check was something that could be made with regularity), but I feel that there probably should be more instances written into the scenarios where the interaction with the opposition is not (nearly) always skewed toward combat.
Having written that, it makes little conventional sense to begin diplomacy with known pirates from the disadvantageous position of being in the row boats. The better solution (to allow the Cleric to be played as the player desired) may have been to sneak onto the ship and then attempt a dialog from a more tactically sound position. However, it is up to the other players to voice their concerns before allowing another player to put their character's in danger.
My opinion on the matter.
|
|
Well, Alejia does have poison, and her tactics do specifically say she applied it, (as a swift action 1/day). It's possible that they where misrepresenting how things happened, but it's also possible that the DM saw that the grippli has Poison Use and either mixed things up or assumed that they had actual poison, too.
** spoiler omitted **
or
** spoiler omitted **
The thing is, this GM isn't making the mistake on JUST this case. I might even have done the stretch to the points you have made is this was the only case, but from the other posts...yeah, either this GM is utterly incapable of reading a scenario right and killing characters or he is willfully changing the scenario to kill characters. Either way, it's all bad and the GM needs a talk to. The OP I do admit seems a bit high strung...but if I had to deal with a GM that was either incompetent at BEST and outright malicious at worst...yeah I would be a bit high strung as well.
|
|
I know a guy that has on three occassions sneak off as a fight started, found the boss in the next area, shoots him, then flees to the party drawing the boss with him and finally flees the scenario letting the rest of the PCs to fight two fights. I honestly beleieve he tries this on purpose to wreck the game for people he does not like.
Playing with PCs that are not clever or demand a certain style is part of organized play. If you play with people that have quirks that damage the team strateguze with them to contain it or compromise. If they are stubborn and refuse to. Leave yourself an out when they bring doom on the whole party
We did something similar but were more successful. I used bluff and said we were the goons and pathfinders ambushed us and chased off us.
|
|
The thing is, this GM isn't making the mistake on JUST this case. I might even have done the stretch to the points you have made is this was the only case, but from the other posts...yeah, either this GM is utterly incapable of reading a scenario right and killing characters or he is willfully changing the scenario to kill characters. Either way, it's all bad and the GM needs a talk to. The OP I do admit seems a bit high strung...but if I had to deal with a GM that was either incompetent at BEST and outright malicious at worst...yeah I would be a bit high strung as well.Well, Alejia does have poison, and her tactics do specifically say she applied it, (as a swift action 1/day). It's possible that they where misrepresenting how things happened, but it's also possible that the DM saw that the grippli has Poison Use and either mixed things up or assumed that they had actual poison, too.
** spoiler omitted **
or
** spoiler omitted **
To be fair, it is PFS, and entirely possible that different GMs are involved. Either way, there is a lot of fudging things at those events.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know a guy that has on three occassions sneak off as a fight started, found the boss in the next area, shoots him, then flees to the party drawing the boss with him and finally flees the scenario letting the rest of the PCs to fight two fights. I honestly beleieve he tries this on purpose to wreck the game for people he does not like.
Playing with PCs that are not clever or demand a certain style is part of organized play. If you play with people that have quirks that damage the team strateguze with them to contain it or compromise. If they are stubborn and refuse to. Leave yourself an out when they bring doom on the whole party
We did something similar but were more successful. I used bluff and said we were the goons and pathfinders ambushed us and chased off us.
This reminds me of Final Fantasy Online. You couldn't directly attack other players, so some people would do it by drawing aggro from a monster or monsters and bringing it into the area where there were people you didn't like (typically because they were camping to close). If I were GMing and saw a player do this, I think I would call it PvP. At a minimum I would do my best to have the monster chase the offender.
|
|
The thing is, this GM isn't making the mistake on JUST this case. I might even have done the stretch to the points you have made is this was the only case, but from the other posts...yeah, either this GM is utterly incapable of reading a scenario right and killing characters or he is willfully changing the scenario to kill characters. Either way, it's all bad and the GM needs a talk to. The OP I do admit seems a bit high strung...but if I had to deal with a GM that was either incompetent at BEST and outright malicious at worst...yeah I would be a bit high strung as well.
That's a possibility, I was more thinking that it's also possible that the player either misunderstood or misrepresented what happened a bit. Did the fighter that died, die on the same ship that they are having issues with or did (s)he die later from poison in a later encounter? Or is it possible that the grippli was throwing their alchemical bombs and assumed it was poison based off of the description, because you usually don't die from poison, and even if you do it takes a long time. I don't now the DM, or have any context from past games with them, so I don't know except what had been written above, which is kind of hard to follow at times.
As we tried to get aboard the boat the pirates proceeded to kick out asses with crossbows, tanglefoot bags and smoke sticks. only one of our fighters could make it up on the ship where the pirates used poison weapons and shanked him to death.
The figher who was on the ship died due to attacks or oprotunity when he tried to escape the ship.
So there is a Fighter and an Armor Specialist Fighter. The AS Fighter is down there drowning with a Sorcerer to dumb to pull him up on the boat being rowed to shore, I'm guessing and never actually made it on to the boat. So the other Fighter got killed when he made it on to the boat finally, but also got killed trying to flee from it??? Which is it? But wait, didn't they get slammed with tanglefoot bags and smoke sticks? Tanglefoot bags means no movey-movey and smoke sticks means well, no AoO to kill you for the second time. This is really leading me to believe it isn't the DM that's mixing things up here.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know a guy that has on three occassions sneak off as a fight started, found the boss in the next area, shoots him, then flees to the party drawing the boss with him and finally flees the scenario letting the rest of the PCs to fight two fights. I honestly beleieve he tries this on purpose to wreck the game for people he does not like.
That wouldn't fly at my table. If the same person did it more then once I would interrupt the scenario give the player a blank chronicle ask him to leave and then since I am an organizer ban him from my events. That kind crap has no place in the PFS environment, in a home game fine.
|
|
As the cleric from the scenario is question I have a few things things to point out.
First, The cleric had already succeeded twice in convincing the "bad guys" to give up there evil ways and convert.
Second, At no point did any of the baddies use poison of any kind.
Third, The second ship (the one containing a fighter and the summoner, not a sorcerer, but not the cleric) was discovered not when the cleric was talking to the pirates but when they attracted the ship. Pulled out axes and rolled damage against the side of the ship.
Fourth, When the fighter did make it on board the ship by himself he did die. He died when, against the gm and other players advice, he took not one but three Attacks of opportunity. Yes when flanked by two characters and next to a third he took a move action to walk away.
Now my cleric happily takes the blame for a poor diplomacy role. He would feel bad taking responsibility for the summoner not knowing that his eidilon had a climb speed, or for the armor-master holding his action for several rounds while within crossbow range because "I don't think I can make that climb check" and other various misfortunes over which he had no control
Okay...so this a definitely different account of what happened. WHY did the fighter and summoner chuck axes at the side of the ship?!? If they are this stupid, how the heck did they not die in the first game?!? I'm sorry, but this part does not make too much sense. Why did you not wait till everyone was on board before doing a diplomacy check? First rule of diplomacy is to negotiate from strength...not weakness. Being sitting ducks in row boats is a position of weakness. That is more then just a bad diplomacy roll.
|
|
To be fair, it is PFS, and entirely possible that different GMs are involved. Either way, there is a lot of fudging things at those events.The thing is, this GM isn't making the mistake on JUST this case. I might even have done the stretch to the points you have made is this was the only case, but from the other posts...yeah, either this GM is utterly incapable of reading a scenario right and killing characters or he is willfully changing the scenario to kill characters. Either way, it's all bad and the GM needs a talk to. The OP I do admit seems a bit high strung...but if I had to deal with a GM that was either incompetent at BEST and outright malicious at worst...yeah I would be a bit high strung as well.Well, Alejia does have poison, and her tactics do specifically say she applied it, (as a swift action 1/day). It's possible that they where misrepresenting how things happened, but it's also possible that the DM saw that the grippli has Poison Use and either mixed things up or assumed that they had actual poison, too.
** spoiler omitted **
or
** spoiler omitted **
True...but that just means that the GM staff needs a talk to about how to run a PFS game. Once is a mistake, twice is coincidence, three times and you have a pattern. A pattern of bad GMs in an area is something that should be looked at by the local VOs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer to the original question is no, a GM should not tell players how to play their characters. The only time a GM should get involved in action choices is when (1) a player is about to commit what the GM interprets as an evil act, (2) direct PvP, and/or (3) when the player is choosing an action that might indicate they forgot or are unaware of important game information. But, even in these cases, the player is entitled to do whatever they want and the GM is really not empowered to stop them. There might be consequences for those actions of course. YMMV
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm loving the bickering over this failure the thread has generated. I can just imagine the heated arguing back at the Grand Lodge. Good chance for roleplay and lolz.
Shady rogue: You spoiled the plan! We were to sneak aboard and catch them unawares - but you had to trumpet our location!
Righteous cleric: 'Tis no chance that our band could climb that ship wall! Nay, tis better to let the wisdom of Iomedae turn the hearts and minds of those pirates, rather them win them over with steel.
Fighter in bandages: Four pirates! Four of them! And a frog man with bombs!!! I can take four men easy enough - but bomb throwing frog men?! Where were you? I yelled for support and all you did was throw a bloody axe at the ship?! And I thought I was the dumb one!
Elf rogue: I was aiming for a pirate's head. If I had hit, it'd have killed him in a single blow. Really.
Cleric: Dishonourable tactics! Iomedae would --
Elf rogue: --would you SHUT IT about I-owe-mee-day?!
Ambrus Valsin: YOU THREE! IN MY OFFICE! NOW!
Party: :gulp:
|
Being dumb for any reason is not illegal. even if the cleric didnt have a roleplay thing to talk, many peopl emight have thought it reasonable to ask permission to come aboard - i know i thought we were all gonna die when i ran it, being told my dwarf with -7 ACP was going to have to stealth up a rusty chain and possibly swim. yeah.
The only time it is illegal is when a player, for any reason, tries to cause another player to fail a faction mission. just getting you killed with bad ideas is legal.
|
|
Being dumb for any reason is not illegal. even if the cleric didnt have a roleplay thing to talk, many peopl emight have thought it reasonable to ask permission to come aboard - i know i thought we were all gonna die when i ran it, being told my dwarf with -7 ACP was going to have to stealth up a rusty chain and possibly swim. yeah.
The only time it is illegal is when a player, for any reason, tries to cause another player to fail a faction mission. just getting you killed with bad ideas is legal.
No...there is bad ideas...and getting other characters killed because you do something without letting them know your gonna do the bad idea and ruining their fun. And that is a best case scenario here (seriously, diplomacy while on row boats when you had surprise to get aboard the ship?!?). At worst, this is a PvP action in which the cleric player basically aggroed the encounter in hopes that somebody gets killed by it. Best case...the cleric was a jerk...so he failed the don't be a jerk rule (if the other players all say no and you do it anyways, your being a jerk...if you do not even give them a say so...once again, being jerk). Worst case, this is PvP and the player need a talk to that further such actions will absolutely NOT BE TOLERATED. Such actions have zero place in PFS. This of course assume the issues that the OP brought up is actually factual mind you. There has been some doubt brought on about this. Then again, the cleric player didn't argue the key point of attempting the diplomacy from the rowboats either. Now of course there is the issue of if the GM also fubared the encounter on TOP of this issue. Seriously, I think your local VO should really get involved at this point. They are there to help...use them.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cleric was trying a tactic that had already worked several times in the scenario. He had not tried to pull the encounter, he was trying to negate it. Further, if you read the Cleric's account, it sounds like there was a lot of bad tactics going on. In no way did the cleric fail the Don't Be A Jerk rule, at all. I would *like* more players like this cleric, actually.
|
|
The cleric was trying a tactic that had already worked several times in the scenario. He had not tried to pull the encounter, he was trying to negate it. Further, if you read the Cleric's account, it sounds like there was a lot of bad tactics going on. In no way did the cleric fail the Don't Be A Jerk rule, at all. I would *like* more players like this cleric, actually.
Agreed.
Though waiting to get on to the ship before initiating diplomacy still would have been the smarter way to go.
I believe there's a saying "Everything's 20/20 in hindsight" or something like that.
|
|
Though waiting to get on to the ship before initiating diplomacy still would have been the smarter way to go.
Possibly, but it doesn't exactly sound like that was a party that could reasonably expect to sneak its way onto the ship. (special orders in the scenario are irrelevant, the players don't know about them)
|
|
Here is what the scenario says:
|
|
No...there is bad ideas...and getting other characters killed because you do something without letting them know your gonna do the bad idea and ruining their fun. And that is a best case scenario here (seriously, diplomacy while on row boats when you had surprise to get aboard the ship?!?). At worst, this is a PvP action in which the cleric player basically aggroed the encounter in hopes that somebody gets killed by it. Best case...the cleric was a jerk...so he failed the don't be a jerk rule (if the other players all say no and you do it anyways, your being a jerk...if you do not even give them a say so...once again, being jerk). Worst case, this is PvP and the player need a talk to that further such actions will absolutely NOT BE TOLERATED. Such actions have zero place in PFS. This of course assume the issues that the OP brought up is actually factual mind you. There has been some doubt brought on about this. Then again, the cleric player didn't argue the key point of attempting the diplomacy from the rowboats either. Now of course there is the issue of if the GM also fubared the encounter on TOP of this issue. Seriously, I think your local VO should really get involved at this point. They are there to help...use them.
I gotta disagree. What it actually sounds like is that the Cleric resorted to a good tactic, (in and of itself that really needs to be encouraged in PFS not discouraged), but also one they had demonstrated in the game with success at least twice in that game. Meaning there is no chance that the other players didn't see this coming, and like I pointed out, the Stealth attempt actually would have turned out bad all around, even if they didn't know it. So what actually seems to have happened is he rolled poorly, not that he did something wrong, (as in at all wrong), and it also seems that the DM in fact did run this correctly, and it was the player that either had or presented false information, and probably needs the talking to about. It also seems (keeping in mind that so far it's one player's word vs another's), that in fact it was not the Cleric that was basically trying to force the PvPish play style, but the other character whose accusing the Cleric actually doing it, and being the jerk. Some of the things I pointed out about Lastshade's story didn't make sense, but they kind of do now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shady rogue: You spoiled the plan! We were to sneak aboard and catch them unawares - but you had to trumpet our location!
Righteous cleric: 'Tis no chance that our band could climb that ship wall! Nay, tis better to let the wisdom of Iomedae turn the hearts and minds of those pirates, rather them win them over with steel.
Fighter in bandages: Four pirates! Four of them! And a frog man with bombs!!! I can take four men easy enough - but bomb throwing frog men?! Where were you? I yelled for support and all you did was throw a bloody axe at the ship?! And I thought I was the dumb one!
Elf rogue: I was aiming for a pirate's head. If I had hit, it'd have killed him in a single blow. Really.
Cleric: Dishonourable tactics! Iomedae would --
Elf rogue: --would you SHUT IT about I-owe-mee-day?!
Ambrus Valsin: YOU THREE! IN MY OFFICE! NOW!
Party: unanimously rolls eyes, making no effort to conceal it
Ambrus: stomps into his office
Party: "dambass!"
Fighter: "Guy mad me forget what we where even talking about. . ."
Shady/Elf Rogue: "Killin' Pirates. For Iomedae or whatever."
. . . .
Ambrus: "They heard me right?"
. . . .
Ambrus: "What was that line. . ." tries really hard for a stern face, "Mess with the bull and you get the horns."
Party: enters his office, less battle weary and more on the drunk side of the victory
Ambrus: "Finally, I had begun to . . ."
Shady/Elf Rogue: "Oh, just shut up will yah, here."
Fighter: "UM UM!!!! We are in a hurry, so sign here and here."
Cleric: "Yah, go ahead and send this up by tomorrow. That shall be all."
