|
Something tells me this event has taken a turn that was completely unexpected. I was trying to stay out of it, but at this point...
Could everyone just swear the friggin oath without waffling?
Axhammer cited prior commitment to religion as why he can't swear? Cool, good on him. Wyrm Ouroboros mentioned you could swear temporal fealty, and make sure he understands that if your gods call you to another task, you may ask him to release you from that oath, but unless they do, you will serve him faithfully and loyally.
This is not the negative scenario you guys think it is - it's an opportunity. An opportunity that you can seize to work towards the outcome you desire - whether a society that supports and cares for the common man, or a society that upholds the rule of law, or an independent Rostland. But it won't happen if you don't swear. He won't trust you or accept your counsel. This is the price of continuing to the Stolen Lands. This is the price you pay to create the kingdom you want.
1: No as swearing the oaths he asked to be sworn too will eventually cause a paladin that lives long enough to fall.
Think about it this way, elves, gnomes, dwarves all live increadibly long times. Centuries of time, do you really want to be stuck to one set of rulers the entire time when you don't know thier father well.Swearing this places him to the point that he would have to fall if one of them turned out to be Chaotic, and or Evil.2:Thats not what hes asking to be sworn, I tried that route, he ignored it in front of a room full of people. Then stuck his finger figurativly up in the air at Axhammers gods, which happens to be Abadar the God of Cities, and BANKS.....yeah he needs to figure out that he should have just taken the oath as it stood. Instead of pissing off one of the VERY few paladins of Abadar, why he decided to do that is amoral at best, heretical at worste. Asking someone to swear to serve you before the Gods, is Heresy in most religions.
3: This isn't an opportunity its indentured servitude for life. Being a slave to the a crown, to a man none of us know, to a person who just flipped Axhammer off to the extent that hes making enemies.
Yo Axhammer, did you miss the fact that the oath is non binding? This isn't 'indentured servitude' it's a pledge of a assistance. Better question is how Axhammer plans to set up his Hellknight group without, you know, being friendly with the dude that owns the lands.
Did you also know you can word your oath? If you are concerned about him being chaotic or evil then just add a line saying something like "Do long as your motivations are pure and you uphold the word of law, I will always serve you' or words to that effect. He just doesn't want to take someone along that hadn't pledged their aid...which you still haven't done.
Strictly speaking the "stolen lands" don't belong to anyone nor can anyone claim ownership. Basically whoever can hold the land can claim it as that's the rule in the river kingdoms and the stolen lands are part of that "nation". Brevoy is only a little over 200 years old as a nation, being the youngest of the current nations as far as I know. Not being friendly with the king means no support of any kind from him and his resources. Which if he wants to admit it or not come from his family.
This being the main reason anyone puts up with him, besides getting on his families bad side and maybe sparking a civil war depending on your affiliation.
So Axhammer can go at it alone but it's going to be hard, dangerous, and with the king (along with everyone on his side) as a rival. Not the best choice but a choice none the less.
Barring the DM's say so mind you as it's his game, so he makes the rules at the end of the day.
P.S. Pretty sure the DM has been shooting down any word play. So I don't think that's going to work.
Hey, look, the Lawful Good paladin doesn't want to swear a temporal (mundane/non-religious) oath to the king of the country he's going to be a major force in creating, on the off chance that it might in some way trap him. He's making a decision that he doesn't want access to the ruler, decisionmaker, and judge, doesn't want to be able to influence his policies, or be able to give him the Really Good And Necessary Advice To Run A Country straight from the God of Law. The player doesn't want to modify it in any of the suggested manners that would enable him to uphold both oaths, because in the player's opinion it's a bad idea, and that Rudolf is a bad guy because he's a Surtova, ignoring the fact that he is the one and only character here who would be able to know for sure via his paladin and hellknight abilities to detect evil and detect chaos.
It's the player's decision. We all think it's a bad decision, and that Aolis's opinion is a bad one as well. Fine, okay, whatever - the GM has said that it's a bad decision, but it's still the player's decision, and it isn't so critical he'll get kicked out of the game.
So let's move on?
Right, moving on. The topic is dropped.
As far as I know, there's no 'line' or whatever; this is during, or maybe immediately after, dinner ... which means Christian would be going over to whatever table at which Axhammer is sitting, and Merus would be returning to the table he (presumably) shares with Stefan, as well as others.
Which, actually, leads to a question I've been wondering about for a while - is the dinner setup here a medieval-style 'head table across the top of the hall, then other tables offset and perpendicular to it', perhaps with an open space in the middle for entertainments and the like? Or is it a more modern sort of thing, with either a head table and a bunch of round ones, or just all round tables with a podium or something?
|
Strictly speaking the "stolen lands" don't belong to anyone nor can anyone claim ownership. Basically whoever can hold the land can claim it as that's the rule in the river kingdoms and the stolen lands are part of that "nation". Brevoy is only a little over 200 years old as a nation, being the youngest of the current nations as far as I know. Not being friendly with the king means no support of any kind from him and his resources. Which if he wants to admit it or not come from his family.
Aolis is right on all of that, except that most of the nations on the River Kingdoms are even younger than Brevoy, and that Issia and Rostland existed before being conquered and "unified" into Brevoy.
This being the main reason anyone puts up with him, besides getting on his families bad side and maybe sparking a civil war depending on your affiliation.
I hope the characters are not doing it only for the "official recognition" and ample resources Rupert in bringing into the table, but also because, as Rupert said, it is a chance to join an effort to tame those wild and dangerous lands.
So Axhammer can go at it alone but it's going to be hard, dangerous, and with the king (along with everyone on his side) as a rival. Not the best choice but a choice none the less.
Right. So hard that it is probably undoable for him alone to prosper, much less survive, there.
|
|
Hey, look, the Lawful Good paladin doesn't want to swear a temporal (mundane/non-religious) oath to the king of the country he's going to be a major force in creating, on the off chance that it might in some way trap him. He's making a decision that he doesn't want access to the ruler, decisionmaker, and judge, doesn't want to be able to influence his policies, or be able to give him the Really Good And Necessary Advice To Run A Country straight from the God of Law. The player doesn't want to modify it in any of the suggested manners that would enable him to uphold both oaths, because in the player's opinion it's a bad idea, and that Rudolf is a bad guy because he's a Surtova, ignoring the fact that he is the one and only character here who would be able to know for sure via his paladin and hellknight abilities to detect evil and detect chaos.
It's the player's decision. We all think it's a bad decision, and that Aolis's opinion is a bad one as well. Fine, okay, whatever - the GM has said that it's a bad decision, but it's still the player's decision, and it isn't so critical he'll get kicked out of the game.
So let's move on?
Mind keeping your mudslinging elsewhere, no one is insulting you, so please stop insulting others.
Wasn't an insult. Just trying to move the conversation off the topic.
@DM
Diplomacy checks to influence someone can only be done once per day (barring magical items and such that state otherwise). Is that still the case?
@Christian
Is the meeting your proposing after the king's meeting?
This meeting is after midnight...and before the king's
the king's meeting is at 3am
So both meetings are after the duel?
Incidentally, are we looking at dim light for out there near the meeting spot (night w/moon or clear night w/ bright starlight) or darkness (night w/ overcast and no moon)? Also not sure how Coalhouse's Stealth in the darkness (where he's staying at least 70+' away from any targets, and always approaching from downwind in any case, because he IS aware of his natural advantages) is going to work with Aolis Taking 20. I presume that it'd still be a contested roll, because Coal won't always just be there, and Taking 20 on Per only applies to a constant presence, not a contested roll ... ?
yes both meetings are after the duel...I was thinking that the duel would take place at midnight right outside the place that we would have had dinner. Then directly after that we would head back to the coursers camp for a meeting and then after that we would head down to the meeting with the would be king
lol
so it is like this...
duel 1200
meeting with PCs 1210
leave for next meeting at 130
meeting with king 300
I may have to retcon sense Christian's meeting stuff turned up after that post. May have one up later if one of my comrades put in a line about telling me. ;)
Concerning perception and stealth. Anyone standing guard and actively looking may or may not be able to take 10/20, that's up to the DM as far as I know. Also Coalhouse left before everyone, is he camping at the meeting spot because Aolis did not rush. Retcon may even make it so he does not get there for a hour or more after midnight. In which case I don't see how you can sneak up on someone before they get there and your waiting.
Coalhouse left before I started to make my rounds. So he is on his own at this point. Judging from what he posted...he will be gone before world might get back to him. At least that is how I perceive things and how I posted them.
|
|
@DM
Diplomacy checks to influence someone can only be done once per day (barring magical items and such that state otherwise). Is that still the case?
You can roll again, but with diminishing returns.
Meaning: The effect is less.But rolling is not everything, the talking can be even more important than the rolling. If you slap Rade, Rupert will get "unfriendly" to you and your diplomacy roll will matter little.
|
|
Incidentally, are we looking at dim light for out there near the meeting spot (night w/moon or clear night w/ bright starlight) or darkness (night w/ overcast and no moon)? Also not sure how Coalhouse's Stealth in the darkness (where he's staying at least 70+' away from any targets, and always approaching from downwind in any case, because he IS aware of his natural advantages) is going to work with Aolis Taking 20. I presume that it'd still be a contested roll, because Coal won't always just be there, and Taking 20 on Per only applies to a constant presence, not a contested roll ... ?
It is an overcast night with a waning moon.
About taking 20 to perception, it means you are not doing anything else. If Aolis is only keeping watch, and not participating in anything else, yes. If he is talking with other people, no, he rolls.But they have an army of people, with their followers, so I think Aolis is not his only problem, if he wants to approach the camps without letting them know.
Going off what the DM said, it sounds like Coalhouse is sending followers to spy on the PC's camp and then follow them. Correct me if mistaken. None of them seem really good at it so their are heavy odds of them getting spotted by any PC with a fair amount of ranks in perception considering the level difference. In which case, are you sure?
Just so you know, I will be at Strategicon all weekend (Friday-Monday evening). Probably won't be home til late Monday. I will try to keep up with posts via phone and computer at the hotel, but I will be mega-busy at the con, so no guarantees. Please bot my character as necessary to keep the game flowing... Thanks, and sorry in advance for my absence.
Obviously this applies to Hareth as well...
"Right, match-up time. We have the Restov Coursers, the Righteous Wanderers, and the Blessed Hospitallers. I need one spotter and one rider for each."Wow...
This was supposed to be a "secret" meeting, and Coalhouse is getting half a dozen people tailing the others?
I didn't saw that coming.
I am not sure what the others will think of so many people skulking around their camps at night. Coalhouse people that is...
Going off what the DM said, it sounds like Coalhouse is sending followers to spy on the PC's camp and then follow them. Correct me if mistaken.
Pulled this discussion over here, because more extensive explanations seemed necessary.
Coalhouse is not getting half a dozen people tailing the others; nobody is tailing anyone.
As for numbers, Coalhouse is getting three people - one per camp - with low-light or darkvision to stay outside the general perception range of - so far as I've seen - mostly humans and others bearing light sources, to watch what's going on. At each individual camp there is, simply, one person they MIGHT spot (at probably 50-100' away; the specific order was 'get in close enough to count heads leaving', and in all honesty, a person can do that at a hundred YARDS, but a hundred feet would be somewhat better, so spotting them in the dark puts them at a minimum 8- to 12-point penalty to their PER roll), one person they probably WON'T spot (another 50', or a penalty of 13 to 17), and one person (and a horse) that is too far away for them TO spot (at another 150' away, aka a minimum penalty of 24 instead of 26 because of a Large creature) - and that is ONLY if all sight-lines are clear, which should only apply to the spotters, because the guards are supposed to be in visual range of their PERSON, not the camp, and 210+' in this sort of place is gonna have sight-lines blocked.
That thought, incidentally, comes from me presuming the camps are not out in the middle of the fraggin' boondocks, that they're on whatever open ground is closest to the city, which means there's houses, inns, farms, and the like - in other words, places to be in order to remain generally innocuous. If this presumption is incorrect, let me know.
They are not - neither spotters nor guards nor riders - following the others; they're watching the camps, and undoubtedly the first message will come saying 'there's a bunch of them what went to the camp of where-ever this Let's Get All The PCs Together meeting is going to happen'. The riders have also specifically been told that if they can't get ahead of a group headed south, to stay well behind them - in other words, get the hell out of their way.
The only post where Aolis and Sacha are 'keeping watch' is the one where they - both of them - are apparently intending on showing up at the place where the meeting with the king is supposed to take place; this is the only likely point of leads/cohorts doing the standing-guard routine, so while the rank-and-file might spot a single unidentified individual standing in the dark and watching their presumably-lit-up-for-the-humans front gate at an easy longbow-shot distance (60'), if they make a move, that individual has orders to withdraw, then disappear - so it simply becomes a matter of 'somebody was watching our front gate, but we rand them off'.
Ten of Coalhouse's 28 followers know that there's a meeting; six of those followers are family members. (If my miniscule organization has already been penetrated by spies, well ... I'd say that I'm doomed already.) Only TWO of those followers, two of the most trustworthy who are both staying back in camp know anything remotely near the details as to 'where'.
Meanwhile, on an OOC note, I'm kind of not sure why simply sending out three individual spotters on the big camps is raising such a fuss, that I out of everyone earn a 'wow'.
- Aolis, instead of coming alone, has brought (I THINK to the meeting with the king, since he didn't mention going to someone else's camp) his strongest follower (i.e. his cohort).
- Christian d'Elagante has already given orders to his cohort to actually have all of his group surrounding the meeting site with the king (albeit at a distance of more than a mile).
- Axhammer has his entire group armed up for battle, and 'leaves orders to move the troops out and to be ready to either charge in to assist him, or to flee the area should he be slain.' I think that's for the meeting with the other PCs, but it might be to be going down to the meeting with the king, I can't honestly tell.
- Amavin is bringing her entire group of followers along to help provide security for the secret meeting with the king. I know it's not with the meeting with the other PCs, because she declined that invitation.
- Ignatius brought along only one of his low-level followers as a messenger, though I'm not sure if that's to the meeting with the king or to the 'PCs' meeting; I think it's to the latter, but still.
- And finally, at least half of everyone has told ALL their followers, not just two select ones, all the details (direction and distance) of 'the secret meeting with the king'.
Coalhouse is going to the meeting with the King just like Aramil - alone. Hell, he hasn't even told Alysandra about the meeting with the king. And all in all, he's been the most discreet one here. This isn't mean to be PvP; this is meant to let me know ICly more-or-less what's going on.
For rolls, and particular distances. Each of the following will Take 20 for Perception, and Take 10 for their Stealth, if that's allowed; if not:
Dice: Quentin Quarrel (Low-light vision, Restov Coursers, will take cover and stay at least 60' away, further if possible, so at least a +8 (+6 distance, +2 dim light) to the DC to spot him.)
Dice: Lida Rose (Low-light vision, Blessed Hospitallers, will take cover and stay at least 50' away, further if possible, so at least a +7 to the DC to spot her.)
Dice: Freiya Fjar-Bana-Högg (Darkvision, Righteous Wanderers, will take cover and stay at least 60' away, further if possible, so at least a +8 to the DC to spot her.)
TL;DR: Yes, mistaken. Coalhouse is not getting half a dozen people tailing the others; nobody is tailing anyone. The three people doing the observing are night-qualified, as it were, and most likely are going to be able to watch three camps torchlit for the night-blind at quite a distance further than the distances I've posted; the other five people are going to be out of view of the camps. The three riders have specific orders to stay the hell away from anyone, at least a quarter-mile. For everyone, between distance and light levels, their identities should be concealed, and if they get approached, they're supposed to bug out.
This isn't meant as PvP; this is meant as allowing Coalhouse to know some of what the player reads in other peoples' posts - like the existence of the meeting of the PCs, the major movements of other peoples' followers, that sort of thing. That's all it is. (Especially since, if you haven't noticed, Coalhouse's people are NOT the fighting types that most everyone else is. We're teamsters, for gods' sakes!! :D )
It is an overcast night with a waning moon.
So ... dim light, or darkness? And does darkness apply when the targets you're looking for are carrying light sources, i.e. is it the light level at the point of your object (not your own location) the light level that matters?? It's been a while since I did this (can'tcha tell?). ;)
As far as I can tell
most PCs are going to this meeting at the coursers
exceptions:
Coalhouse
Aolis (who might be joining us depending on posts)
Amavin (who declined but might still come depending if Christina was convincing enough)
Is there anyone that I missed?
If not then after the duel we can start the first meeting.
Thanks
Ah, too bad you didn't ask Alysandra.
And you could have the meeting simultaneous with the duel ...
I do not think I can do that as I can not be in two places at the same time.
Uh ... this is text. You can be in ten thousand places in the same post, so long as you delinate at what specific time point each is taking place. If you want to keep it purely linear, then sure, you're right.
Clarification Wyrm, Anavin isn't bringing anyone to the secret meeting. The followers are hanging around camp, not spying on any PCs, or any of the major players of the party, but instead attempting to get the 'word on the street' to see if anyone unknown is planning on gate crashing. If they notice anything, they can contact Ishana, who can signal Amavin at a distance. It's my fault though, I originally had them taking an active defensive role before deciding that wouldn't be how Amavin would really use her network. I edited some things, kept others but it's clear I kept the tone of the old version, apologies for that. Reconfirming though that her followers are nowhere near the secret meeting. Ishana is probably closest sitting within a distance where she could fire off a magical flare should their be trouble. IDK what vision range that would be but it's probably reasonably far away.
Ah, that ... didn't quite come across. (And since it'll be at least after midnight ... there's not likely any word on the street. ;) ) Though for a signal flare ... I'd guess you could see it, presuming there's nothing blocking your view, probably at least 10x the spell's range?
For some odd reason beyond me, maybe I was tired or had a brain fart. I did not roll any knowledge on anyone to gain information on them or their past etc etc. I must cleanse this shame upon my bookwormish name. ;)
If they don't qualify for knowledge nobility replace it with local the mod is the same. Please let me know if they qualify for both so I can roll again on anything that's low.
Uh ... this is text. You can be in ten thousand places in the same post, so long as you delinate at what specific time point each is taking place. If you want to keep it purely linear, then sure, you're right.
gee, I did not know that....
I am willing to do multiple scene post at the same time and try to delineate the time line to the best of my ability. I feel that the duel and the meeting are too close and could have an affect on the meeting....say merus drops out of the duel and Christian has to take his place. He dies in said duel...how is he to host a meeting then. It would be a waste of players time and rp post. (only in this situation)
|
|
Diplomacy=32
Striding up to the King he bows head before speaking, "I have oaths that I swore long before you were born, you ask for an oath to join you and serve your line. With no timeline on when service would be done. I have other obligations that may come between that oath, for if I live to my old age I will see your grandchildren grow old, and thier children grow up. I cannot be here so long, you said you were not a pious man, I am, and if any of the Five calls to me and bids me to go I must follow thier call. Surely you realize this was not meant to offend you but simply to tell you the truth. I cannot guarentee that I will be here in 10 years, or when your grandchild takes the throne, or thier grandchildren. Simply put its not that I don't wish to join you its that I can't promise you that I will be here in 10 years time, or perhaps 5 if something happens in the World Wound that calls for another Crusade.His Majesty Rupert Surtova seems to ponder Axhammer answer.
"You are right we ask a lot from you. But in this time and place we cannot venture into our new Kingdom with nobles, that no matter how good reputation they have, we have not meet in person without an oath of fealty, and maybe more. We are not just placing our resources and sovereignty into this nobles, but we are placing the safety of our daughter in their hands. So, if you feel unable to do the oath, we thank you for your honesty, and we free you from taking it, wishing you well. And if you want to help us in our new kingdom, we would thank you for it, but you will understand it won't be in the same level of the sworn nobles."
Looking up at the human, he took in the question, "Perhaps should he decide that Clerics are not out to lie to him, and willingly lie to him he will learn more....
The part about the clerics was supposed to be said to Lord Christian, I seem to have not placed his name into who I as talking...OOPS
As for seeming twofaced. This is politics, just because you hate someone or think they are heretical/an afront to the Gods themselves doesn't mean that you have to not work with them if its in the best interest of the situation.
Lawful Good neither has to be stupid or nice :P
Baby will be here soon.
Bot me if needed. Will post when I can. Most likely seveal days before I will be able to post again.
|
|
But, as far as I know, lawful means you say the truth... you actively avoid deception and lying, and very much avoid taking trash about people behind their backs.
If he doesn't like Rupert Surtova, I don't expect a Lawful character go an talk nice to them while harboring ill will for them in their mind.
The IC statements and actions so far are the best example I can come up with as to why the King would want people - yes, even servants of LG gods - to swear an oath of temporal fealty. Y'all are arguing that he should trust you implicitly, and then you're demonstrating exactly why he should NOT ...
@DM
If lawful means you speak the truth, I would point at Cheliax how they lie very easily. They even actively rewrite history (lying and deception on a huge scale) and their a nation of lawfuls. I could also go the other way and point you to Lastwall that guards the secrets of a god like lich they have bottled up.
I would agree with you that paladin's, due to their code, can't actively lie. But that's about it, don't get me wrong it should not be the norm or easy for them but not beyond them ether to be a certain degree of deceptive. More a case by case affair rather then a blanket statement.
P.S. Did you miss my last post?
@Wyrm
They called us, we did not call them as it were. Considering it's his own actions and demands that motivated the reaction. I would say it's a self fulfilling prediction. He created the distrust by forcing the oath he hopes will guard against it.
Your family high jacks someone's project and muscles you in, then you gate crash a party full mostly of the people your family has been subjugating, then demand everyone you just met to swear their loyalty or they can take a hike. He does all this while having, no land, no army, no people, and no real authority. Even his guards are bought and paid for by his family so to speak. He didn't so much as give us a free dinner yet, the mayor who had his project taken out from under him floated the bill. All things considered, he is lucky at everyone's mild reactions.
Mostly because they are looking at the bigger picture, taking the high road, or find it in their own best interest.
Yeah it's clear that paizo expected Lawful characters to be trustworthy, tell the truth, and have respect for authority. This is probably paizo thinking of Lawful good rather than Lawful evil, but the text "tells the truth" is often there. You can actually look it up in the srd and if I had a hard copy of the core rule book I would suspect I could find it there as well. Cheliax would be the special case since it's a lawful evil nation where manipulation is common, that said, the alignment text are GUIDELINES, no one should be complaining if someone is stepping out slightly, because people change.
That said, Axhammer is a special case. He is a Lawful good Paladin, and being a Paladin means that he is held to a higher standard. I tend to think codes of conduct are a load of BS but ilregardless, if you are playing a Paladin, you cannot be dishonest, and you need to be respecting authority. This goes double for Axhammers character, because he holds himself up as "The Law Guy". If he is playing that angle, he should be meeting those alignment requirements. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean that we all go into a schoolyard huddle and chant FALL, that would be rude and unhelpful. What's clear though is that the GM is so far right to bring up Axhammers alignment because he is pushing that line. The key issue is whether Axhammer shows up at the secret meeting. If he does, he is no longer respecting the Kings authority and therefore his Lawful alignment starts looking a little shaky.
|
|
A nation of lawfuls can have a handful of chaotics rewriting history.
My game: Lawfuls will try, whenever possible, to tell the truth, and be true to their word.
Don't like it? Don't make your character lawful.
And it is doubly so for paladins. Paladins should TAKE PRIDE they do not lie, do not deceive, and do not "make politics" by "sucking up" to the king while talking trash about him at his back.
In Cheliax case, the government is the one rewriting the history. It's not a few choatics, it's the lawful authority of the land. They have an order (can't remember which off the top of my head) of hellknights go out and collect the old histories to be destroyed. They punish anyone they find having an old history book. They publish new history books to replace the old. I think they do this every three months or so.
As for paladin's, never played one. So I have little to say about them from a PC's point of view. So play as the DM wants them, comes with the class.
Concerning alignments, I agree with Amavin. It's a flexible thing as a whole. I tend toward the neutrals myself, I personally find it hard to play extremes.
|
|
Axhammer has that right. Except for:
- He has a charter from Brevoy saying he is one (which, everybody can agree, is worth whatever the person reading the parchment want it to be worth).
- He has been accepted as one (officially at least) by everyone except Axhammer.
I problem is not with Axhammer not accepting him as King. That is valid.
My problem is with Axhammer "taking nice" to Rupert, while at the same time slandering him on his back. Politics, as you said.
I would expect Axhammer to be over them, not in the middle of the mud puddle, throwing it towards everybody, while at the same time "diplomacing" the situation.
Take it as said by your DM: Your paladin shouldn't be doing that. If he don't support Rupert, it is ok. But he should be honest and straightforward about that.
|
|
Axhammer has been true to his alignment and Paladin code. Rupert is an upstart wannabe tyrant who displayed arrogance and deceit in his forcing of an oath to thwart the Restov nobility. If I had a Paladin I would have refused to swear such an open ended and long term binding Oath also. If this was a major plot point for the game, the GM should have made allowances for Paladins or restricted them.
Everyone hammering Axhammer (pun intended) over his choice of following his code as he interprets it is unfair as he was given no guidance on the opening events to which he would be subjected.
|
|
About Aolis questions... good ones, I was wondering why anyone asked about them.
Aolis is not "local", but knows what is normally known about them:
The four swords (Ralph, Michael, Don and Angelo Khavortorov)
Charming and Daring disciples of Rudolf Ferdinand Aldori III, hated by husbands and fathers, loved by women of all ages. Regarded as good hearted, if completely imprudent.
Rudolf Ferdinand Aldori III
Last living descendant of the first Aldori swordlord, regarded as a cunning and ruthless political figure, able with the sword, but deadly with his mind.
His Majesty Rupert Surtova
The "black sheep" of the Surtova family (or should we say "white sheep"?). He abandoned Port Ice and Brevoy's capital, as well as his family prerogatives, to dedicate himself to a live of adventuring. He tried to keep a low profile, but there are songs of his exploits, saving people for tyrants and brigands, killing monsters and doing good deeds.
Rade Surtova
Nothing.
Anando Verisisi
Some of you have got word of him. Regarded as a master planner and organizer, seems to have worked together with Rupert Surtova for several years now, as a logistics master for him.
Kesten Garess
Member of Garess family, got into disgrace a couple years ago for a nasty romantic situation (noone can remember the details).
--------------------
So, have your meeting, and when you are done we can continue with the duel and after that the second dinner.
|
|
Axhammer has been true to his alignment and Paladin code. Rupert is an upstart wannabe tyrant who displayed arrogance and deceit in his forcing of an oath to thwart the Restov nobility. If I had a Paladin I would have refused to swear such an open ended and long term binding Oath also. If this was a major plot point for the game, the GM should have made allowances for Paladins or restricted them.
Everyone hammering Axhammer (pun intended) over his choice of following his code as he interprets it is unfair as he was given no guidance on the opening events to which he would be subjected.
Again: The problem is not with Axhammer refusing to take the oath, and not liking Rupert. That is ok.
The problem is with him going to talk with Rupert and "talk nice" to him, while slandering on his back.Again, as DM: If he don't support Rupert, it is ok. But he should be honest and straightforward about that.
Any questions about it?
|
|
Axhammer has that right. Except for:
- He has a charter from Brevoy saying he is one (which, everybody can agree, is worth whatever the person reading the parchment want it to be worth).
- He has been accepted as one (officially at least) by everyone except Axhammer.I problem is not with Axhammer not accepting him as King. That is valid.
My problem is with Axhammer "taking nice" to Rupert, while at the same time slandering him on his back. Politics, as you said.
I would expect Axhammer to be over them, not in the middle of the mud puddle, throwing it towards everybody, while at the same time "diplomacing" the situation.
Take it as said by your DM: Your paladin shouldn't be doing that. If he don't support Rupert, it is ok. But he should be honest and straightforward about that.
I am not sure that 1 king saying another is king really makes one king though? Am I wrong about that?
Hes playing nice with Rupert for now, as he needs to find out more about the situation, that however doesn't mean that he doesn't think that the "king" is a great guy. Also depending on what he says to my next post will determine alot of things.