Hi, everyone!
We're playing through Curse of the Crimson Throne and our 9th-level party is in dire need of a healer, so our Fighter (Lady Vanessa, LE) took the Leadership feat and recruited a Cleric of Asmodeus as a loyal cohort (Tinnitus, also LE).
***SPOILERS AHEAD***
We are at the point where we have to earn the respect of the Shoanti tribes in order to speak to the Shaman of the Sun Clan. We left the Shoanti village with a covered horse-drawn wagon and four Shoanti warriors to aid and observe. Driving the wagon is our gnome Warpriest. Riding in the wagon are Tinnitus the Cleric, our Gunslinger, and our Sorcerer (Rashib, Efreeti Bloodline, CG). The rest of us follow on foot.
Out of nowhere, Rashib the Sorcerer snarls at Tinnitus the Cleric.
'This space is mine,' he says. 'I need to prepare my spells and you are in the way. Get out.' (Yes, we know that sorcerers don't need to prepare spells, but according to Rashib we cannot know that unless we have Spellcraft).
Fighter Vanessa, playing her Cleric cohort, ignores him.
'I said, get out,' Rashib insists. 'Or else.' He snaps his fingers and uses Light My Fire (cantrip) to set fire to Tinnitus' hair.
Tinnitus, head on fire, casts Create Water on his own head, then casts Agonizing Rebuke on the Sorcerer. Rashib fails his saving throw.
'You dare attack me!' says Rashib, as he casts Touch of Idiocy and easily hits the Cleric, reducing his Int, Wis, and Cha by 4 each.
Tinnitus attempts to cast Forbid Action on Rashib. 'Do not attack me!' he cries, but Rashib passes his saving throw.
(In the meantime, our Warpriest spurs the horses and the wagon pulls ahead of the group, then he reigns them in suddenly in an attempt to trip the passengers to make them stop).
Rashib the Sorcerer proceeds to hit the Cleric three more times with Touch of Idiocy, rendering him unable to cast spells. As a last ditch attempt to fight, Tinnitus channels negative energy, doing 27 damage to Rashib, to the Gunslinger, to the Warpriest, and instantly killing the horses.
Finally, his INT reduced to zero, the cleric falls unconscious. Rashib taunts the comatose Cleric. 'Next time, I'll cut your throat,' he says.
Now we have to cross the badlands with no wagon, no horses, and no cleric, on our way to what will no doubt be a dangerous mission. What does our Sorcerer say about this?
'He shouldn't have attacked me.'
Our sorcerer is entirely pleased with himself, but our Fighter is beyond furious and thinking about quitting the campaign.
So, questions:
1) Who is at fault here?
2) How would you deal with this?
3) Is he using Touch of Idiocy correctly?
Touch of Idiocy is a melee touch attack. If the sorcerer turns invisible his target will be flat-footed to him, making it all too easy to reduce their INT, WIS, and/or CHA to zero and rendering them unconscious. That can't be right, can it?
I appreciate any ideas!
I’m not sure from the way you write this if you are a player or the GM, My quick comments would be:
1 that’s an In character question that needs to be answered in character, because there may be all sorts of other factors in play not listed here.
2 The cleric is an NPC, so is the GM playing them or the fighter’s player? It should be the GM, and it is ultimately his decision if the cleric chooses to remain with the party or walk off.
3. Not quite. The spell can’t reduce stats below 1 and has a relatively short duration of 10 minutes/level. It deals 1d6 damage and requires a melee touch attack, so it’s normally difficult for a sorcerer to deliver in combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
gm seem to be waaaay too easy on letting the sorcerer pull bull-shit stuff.
1:'sorcerer not preparing spells' is the basic of the basics. any 0 level sorcerer has that. seeing that it should be dc 5 or maybe 10 on knowledge arcane or spell-craft to know. why didn't the cleric get to know that? (as a caster himself he should be well versed about the different ways casters get to regain spells)
i also think anything in the player's part of the core handbook should be character and player knowledge, or are you rolling to see if you know that torches need to be lit, or how sniping work?
2: that cantrip is a 3rd party one(some gm don't allow 3rd party but meh) and can't be used on others. only on unattended object. so no hair burn.
3: touch of idiocy can't reduce any attribute to lower than 1 so no unconscious (and if i was the cleric id go melee on a sorcerer. mostly grapple).
i as a player would have my lawful character (and follower) gang on the attacker and bring him to curt on assault and battery, arsone and attempted murder charges. try and see if he can be hanged. bandits are killed for less then that on daily basis.
(by all acounts the sorcerer attacked first with his so called cantrip. and there are witnesses)
side note. unless he used greater invisibility. the sorcerer stops being invisible after his first attack (even if he miss, and trying to deliver a touch attack is an attack) and then need to recast his invisibility again. you didn't go tot deep into what he was doing, but seeing all the other stunts he was pulling i wouldn't be surprised if he also said he stay unseen after attacking.
also also. did he cast defensively or out of reach when he used the touch of idiocy (if he was not invisible) . also when he casted the other spells (such as that fire spell or invisibility?) he should have provoked a ton of attacks of opportunities in such a small wagon otherwise.
i know he's chaotic , but he shouldn't be able to ignore the game's rules
I’m not sure from the way you write this if you are a player or the GM, My quick comments would be:
But a humble player am I (Swashbuckler, CN). I may be biased. The same sorcerer has a Cat Sith familiar and tried to use its False Curse ability on me at a dangerous time, because it was new and he wanted to use it on someone. That is why I'm hoping for an unbiased point of view.
I would argue that he is attacking his own party for no good reason. His argument is that as long as he doesn't cause damage, it doesn't count as an attack.
1 that’s an In character question that needs to be answered in character, because there may be all sorts of other factors in play not listed here.
2 The cleric is an NPC, so is the GM playing them or the fighter’s player? It should be the GM, and it is ultimately his decision if the cleric chooses to remain with the party or walk off.
I haven't been clear. The Fighter's player was playing the Cleric, since it was the Fighter's follower. The Fighter's player, who is a real person and not a character, is upset that the Sorcerer attacked her follower, depriving her (and the rest of the party) of an asset for the rest of the adventure. This real person (who plays the Fighter) is thinking of quitting the campaign because of this incident.
3. Not quite. The spell can’t reduce stats below 1 and has a relatively short duration of 10 minutes/level. It deals 1d6 damage and requires a melee touch attack, so it’s normally difficult for a sorcerer to deliver in combat.
That's good to know!
as for the game flow itself. the sorcerer's player was clearly twisting the rules to his own favor while at the same time ignoring them when they were affecting him
" (Yes, we know that sorcerers don't need to prepare spells, but according to Rashib we cannot know that unless we have Spellcraft)."
as spellcraft & knowledge arcane are a cleric class skills how did he know that this specific cleric was bad at it? did he roll his knowledge (local) check to identify the target's skills?
saying the common knowledge about sorcerer's class is barred from the cleric while at the same time acting on knowledge that he himself should not have had is plain cheating
-do tell, how many ranks did he put in the cross-class skill of knowledge (local)?, did he even roll his check before suddenly knowing that the cleric is bad at these skills
also up to dc 10 anyone can know even with no ranks (like knowing sorcerers don't prepare spells), on the other hand knowing what skills a character has is dc 10+cr which is almost always higher then 10 and thous need at least one rank to even be able to try the check.
next he would 'forget' to reduce his own hp when damaged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I haven't been clear. The Fighter's player was playing the Cleric, since it was the Fighter's follower. The Fighter's player, who is a real person and not a character, is upset that the Sorcerer attacked her follower, depriving her (and the rest of the party) of an asset for the rest of the adventure. This real person (who plays the Fighter) is thinking of quitting the campaign because of this incident. "
at level 9 that spell should last about 90 min. so after an hour and a half his cleric is good to go. i would not let him heal any damage done to the sorcerer on the principle of him not being an ally from then on though
at level 9 that spell should last about 90 min. so after an hour and a half his cleric is good to go. i would not let him heal any damage done to the sorcerer on the principle of him not being an ally from then on though
Thanks, this is helpful!
I'm hoping for suggestions on how to talk to the players, but in-game solutions are good too. I'd rather not escalate the hostility within the party though.
Honestly if the sorcerer's player doesn't explain and apologise I'd look at letting the game die and starting a new one. Stuff like that doesn't come from nowhere (so whatever caused it will happen again, barring a fix to the cause) and some sort of reset is needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a pretty classic case of PvP, and one of the real issues with that in games is that different players have very different reactions to that, ranging from ‘it’s a bit of fun’ to ‘this is an attack on me, the player’. There isn’t a ‘right’ approach, and your response can be more emotional than logical.
I suggest having a chat as a group and working out what level of PvP you are all comfortable with, then setting that as an OOC restriction on the game. And by ‘all comfortable with’, if one person says ‘absolutely nothing’ that’s the level.
Thank you, this has all been very helpful!
Putting it into practice isn't going to be easy, but I am loving this campaign and I really don't want it to fall apart.
For my group, PvP has to be consensual. This is flexible, because both players can always evaluate the situation and make up their mind. For example, two of my players ocassionally enjoyed practice duels, but they wouldn't have liked their PCs being backstabbed by an ally in the middle of an encounter.
A static restriction (like Neriathale proposed) has the benefit of being more clear and reliable, on the other hand.
Kill the character, raise them as undead.
If this doesn't work:
Kill the player, raise them as undead.
What's the question again?
In seriousness, this a player perform that needs to be dealt with out of character.
This is inappropriate behavior. If the GM don't address it, you may need to find a new table.
Kick out the player who started this, tell the rest of the players that you will not tolerate PVP. D&D/Pathfinder is meant to be a cooperative game, the party needs to cooperate together. anyone who chooses to be disruptive to that needs to be removed.
Some interpersonal conflict can be fun to roleplay sometimes. but in my 35+ years of gaming experience, it hurts the game more than it helps. Playing together as a team winds up being much more fun in the long run.
I'd toss the sorcerer into the next ravine and tell the player to make another character that doesn't suck and if they continue, toss the player. Or just proceed to dropping the player, it will ultimately save time, as their type is pretty set in their ways.
|
The GM is at fault, for allowing a LE and CG player in the same game.
Seriously though, this sort of thing is likely not anything to do with the particular event where the hostility boiled over. To you, it might seem out of nowhere, but to the players in question, it's probably the result of a long simmering antagonism that was finally pushed over by one last straw. Events like this are usually people problems, not game mechanics or roleplay problems. If you're lucky and it is an in game problem, well, you should have seen that one coming from the start when you let players choose diametrically opposing alignments.
But, I'm still trying to understand these red screen names.
You can set up aliases for your account, either to hold character details or for your own amusement (My Account-Account Settings). Some part of the Art of Regicide clearly overlaps the Dark Arts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick shout-out to one of the more basic, in-game elements before we dive too deep into the social contract of TTRPG's:
Touch of Idiocy doesn't deal ability damage. It levies a penalty (untyped). I may be losing it, but don't you just replace the penalty if the new roll is higher, instead of them stacking? That's...a pretty potent first-level spell, otherwise. Why aren't all Magi ever spamming that one?
Penalties tend to stack. As to why not magi? It's a second level spell which isn't on their spell list, is mind-affecting, can't take out an enemy (can't reduce a stat to 0), and may not have a combat-significant effect on many goons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of checks and balances here that should have nipped this in the bud.
-A CG character wouldn't do these things over such a trivial reason.
-Unless everyone in the party has been absent after a rest for the entirety of the campaign, everyone in the party would know Rashib is lying when he says he needs to prepare his spells. "You've never done that before?" Why would the party continue traveling with a known liar to their own party?
-Like others have stated, Light My Fire cannot target someone's hair.
-Unless the Sorcerer is using Greater Invisibility, Touch of Idiocy does break Invisibility. Touch attacks are still attacks(I'm surprised this needs to be said). Any spell that deals damage, requires an attack roll or requires a saving throw breaks invisibility.
-A Cleric, even a few levels lower, in an enclosed space with a Sorcerer should have probably bodied the Sorcerer.
-Rashib wouldn't know that the Cleric "attacked" him when failing the Agonizing Rebuke saving throw. He knows he failed a saving throw and likely saw the spell cast, but unless he succeeds a spellcraft check he wouldn't know what spell was cast. This also shows that Rashib is the one who is escalating versus someone who clearly does not want to fight which is pretty out of line for a Good character.
Conclusion:
Everyone is at fault. If I were the DM, I would rewind to before this moment. Quite frankly, unless this was the culmination of some roleplay buildup, the party should have stepped in and smacked down the Sorcerer who is clearly acting insane.
Wait . . . . .Kill the character, raise them as undead.
If this doesn't work:
Kill the player, raise them as undead.
What's the question again?
When in doubt, use Necromancy. Never fails.
What's the question again?
In seriousness, this a player perform that needs to be dealt with out of character.
This is inappropriate behavior. If the GM don't address it, you may need to find a new table.
Are you the Thread Necromancer's Guild?!
Sorry to tangent. This is a serious issue, on a serious topic, and your advice is sound and echoes most of the sentiments on here. . . .
But, I'm still trying to understand these red screen names.
I'm is one of the founding members of the Thread Necromancer's Guild!
Which is to say it's a funny alias I created. Well, I think it's funny anyway.
Like Nekomatabane said, you can create aliases for your account (often used for Play by Post campaigns on the Forums). You can look up any alias and get the original account, so they're not useful for shenanigans (thankfully!).
On topic, I wouldn't be super quick to jump to kicking someone out if the group, disbanding, or leaving.
Just talk to the group unless it causes you undue stress.
The alignment component is tricky. Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil is a powder keg. So I have a few questions here. I have read the sorcerer did a curse against another player correct? That suggests a problem player. You mentioned a Warpriest in the group as well, why couldn't he act as a healer for the group if one was needed.
Good question! I don't know.
What are the alignment of the rest of the group. I read a Chaotic Neutral?
My character, Hepzibah (Swashbuckler), is Chaotic Neutral. Her actions lean toward being good but her motivations lean toward being selfish, therefore CN. She has also been known to rob a rich traveller or two with a 'Stand and deliver!', but wouldn't go as far as to hurt anyone.
The Fighter, Vanessa, used to be Lawful Neutral, but she tried several times to become a slave trader (legal in Korvosa), and then kidnapped and murdered two helpless drunks as a sacrifice to Asmodeus, and was informed by the GM that she was now LE.
The Gnome Warpriest is Chaotic Good. He is a devoted follower of Shelyn and acts accordingly.
The Rogue is Chaotic Neutral. He sometimes steals gold from the rest of the party, but gives it back if we're nice to him.
The Sorcerer is Chaotic Good, but... he abandons people in need, treats everyone with contempt, and often commits arson in a crowded city, aside from his conflicts with the rest of the party.
The Dwarf Gunslinger is Chaotic Neutral. He drinks heavily. That's about all there is about his character, but he's new.
The two characters we have lost during the campaign are: a Chaotic Good ranger, who was honestly always good, and an alcoholic Lawful Good Cleric of Sarenrae who was the embodiment of Lawful Good when he was sober, but less so when he was drunk.
Also what is the GM's reaction to this and other PVP situations?
He's pretty sick of things like this bogging down the game. Sometimes he prefers to let some things slide rather than waste more time arguing.
In my opinion our GM is great, but there's only so much that he can be expected to deal with. We also play at the game store, and he has to keep an eye out for customers while we're playing.
I'd like some answers because there is always a second and third version of the same story.
One thing the Sorcerer has said in his defence is that he thinks of his character as being similar to Raistlin from Dragonlance. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The terrible intraparty dynamics in Weis & Hickman's RPGing strikes again. Tho' Raistlin at least was smart enough to keep it to nasty sarcasm until he left the group for good.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I insist that all characters be Good at my table.
As a GM, I would have just said ‘No, you don’t.” When the character said they were going to attack.
If it needed explaining then the explanation is simple: we only have a few hours together each week to play and we’re not spoiling it with pvp.
I started packing my stuff away once. I didn’t need to finish.
The group needs to take this as a time to lay down the ground rules that they should have had from the start. In all probability, most of the table probably thought those rules didn’t need spelling out. Now you know they do.
Rule 1: if you’re not in the right frame of mind to contribute to a fun shared experience that everyone enjoys, stay home. Let the GM know that you’re not coming.
TTRPGs are like sex, unless everyone is having fun, you’re doing it wrong.
To be fair, I think non-Good or even Evil PC's can work, as can PVP. But they need to be handled correctly. Especially the latter one; if your players are feeling personally targeted/attacked/hurt, they're either not in the right mindset to play a game like this or the game isn't set up correctly.
Is this player an issue regularly?
They seem to think that an alignment justify bad/stupid decisions. Would someone who believes in personal freedoms, fighting tyranny and the rights of the individual...strand themselves and their companions in the wilderness as described? I guess if they were unintelligent or foolish. But clerics are...the opposite of foolish.
I've had situations like this come up. With players that mean well, it's usually just a brief discussion before we can all agree "that didn't happen" and we pick up the story from an early point.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
UPDATE: We followed everyone's advice and had a talk. The Sorcerer apologised to the Fighter. The Fighter also apologised back for something else that happened a few months ago and that may have led to this. I apologised to both of them for not being more understanding. They both apologised to me, and we all apologised to the GM.
It's a Christmas miracle! Or that's how I choose to see it, anyway. :)
We'll see how it goes. We won't be playing for a few weeks anyway, so there's plenty of time for everyone to get over it and hopefully return with a better attitude.
I do hope it won't become too 'vanilla', as some narrative drama is a big part of the fun, but there has to be a sweet spot between 'bland and predictable characters' and 'everyone at each other's throats'.
Thanks to everyone who offered their advice. It may not seem like it, but it was incredibly helpful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like everything worked itself out, BTW, being "selfish" falls under the Evil alignment, not "Chaotic Neutral"
Sounds like everything worked itself out, BTW, being "selfish" falls under the Evil alignment, not "Chaotic Neutral"
I think she's Chaotic Neutral, but you be the judge. Based on the following bio, what's her alignment? (I saw this on another thread. It might be fun?):
Hepzibah was a small female tiefling making a living as a tavern dancer and sometimes small-time criminal out of The Narrows of Korvosa, not above the occasional street robbery or petty heist. Hot-tempered and quick to anger, she would answer any perceived insult with her blade, but just as quickly forget about it. She had few friends, but was fiercely loyal to them.
Left for dead on Wave Street after a botched job she was rescued by the legendary hero Blackjack and developed a massive crush on him, which led her to do no more crimes and to become involved in the political troubles of the city. However, she considers herself a simple peasant and is uncomfortable being involved in the affairs of important and influential people.
Many have judged her motivations to be entirely selfish. When a plague befell her city, she fell in lust with a young priest of Abadar and volunteered at the temple to care for the sick, day after day, in an effort to impress him (it worked). She rescued a group of Vistani prisoners from a necromancer's lair, but convinced them to keep quiet about it as she didn't want a reputation as a do-gooder. She also went to great lengths to free a group of slaves from a caravan, but only because she personally abhors slavery. She saved a Vistani family from a fire, but only because they were her friends.
She is usually poor and quickly fritters away any money she makes. She still hopes to be loved by Blackjack (and his obvious alter ego), but has no ambitions or aspirations in life beyond that, and would rather spend it on wine, song, and sweet, sweet lovins'.
Looks CNish to me, though why did she free the Vistani prisoners? And abhorring slavery is a nudge towards good, though not enough on its own.
& I'm glad to hear the result a few posts up.
Sounds like everything worked itself out, BTW, being "selfish" falls under the Evil alignment, not "Chaotic Neutral"Selfishness isn't inherently evil - it's how the player portray the character could lead that perceived "negative" to be. Kicks in everybody having a different morality and conflicts appear.
Being selfish is pretty much one of the actual items used in the Evil alignment descriptions...
Neutral Evil
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is <out for herself>, pure and simple.
Out for herself = selfish....
Looks CNish to me, though why did she free the Vistani prisoners? And abhorring slavery is a nudge towards good, though not enough on its own.
& I'm glad to hear the result a few posts up.
Well she does have a conscience. No one else was going to save the Vistani, and she couldn't just abandon them to their fate. It's just that she doesn't want the responsibility and would prefer it if someone else did it.
And thanks! I really didn't want this campaign to fall apart, and it looks like no one else did either.
|
She takes risks to protect people? Good it is.
Now, she might be only Neutral for the moment, but descent into Good is likely if she does not change her ways.
I am not sure about the Chaotic part. I feel her as Neutral on this axis.
My own litmus test for Law-Chaos is how does the character react when told what to do by a legitimate authority, and especially by one in their own culture. Do they reflexively obey (Lawful) or rebel (Chaotic) or do other factors play a greater role (Neutral)?
Another criterion is tradition (again from their own culture) : do they tend to respect and follow it or do they tend to flaunt it?
She takes risks to protect people? Good it is.
Now, she might be only Neutral for the moment, but descent into Good is likely if she does not change her ways.
I am not sure about the Chaotic part. I feel her as Neutral on this axis.
My own litmus test for Law-Chaos is how does the character react when told what to do by a legitimate authority, and especially by one in their own culture. Do they reflexively obey (Lawful) or rebel (Chaotic) or do other factors play a greater role (Neutral)?
Another criterion is tradition (again from their own culture) : do they tend to respect and follow it or do they tend to flaunt it?
Oh, she rebels. There is no such thing in her mind as a 'legitimate' authority. That can be a little tricky to roleplay, because in a written adventure when the Field Marshal tells the party, 'I need you to go and do X,' you can't very well answer, 'I don't wanna!' So I justify it as her having feelings for Blackjack and wishing to please him, which means doing what Cressida asks. Hepzibah won't obey an authority figure, but she'll do anything for love, even if it works out to the same thing. Otherwise my character's personality would interfere with the flow of the game, and we've had enough of that.
Also, if a powerful and well-armed authority figure backed by an equally powerful and well-armed army tells her what to do, she will likely obey, not because she wants to but because she isn't bloody stupid.
Good vs Evil
Do you want to help people and preserve innocent life and are you willing to make personal sacrifices to do so? vs You're fine with not helping people in immediate need/danger and have no issues killing or harming(and putting people in a position to be killed or harmed) innocent people to get to your goals.
Addendum(Personal Sacrifice): Being good is not about being good when it is convenient for you to do so. Being good is about making real sacrifices whether it is putting your life, time, or gold on the line. A rich man tossing beggars a few silver is a good act...but not a GOOD act.
Law vs Chaos
Do you respect legitimate authority and the letter of the law? Are you more likely to call upon the authorities/seek official authorization or settle things yourself when the natural inclination is to get the authorities? Adventurers typically lean towards chaos or neutral on the Law/Chaos axis.
Addendum(Legitimate Authority): This is a tricky one. This is heavily influenced by the character's nationality, culture and religion. A tribesman is unlikely to take a town guard's word seriously, but would take a chieftain's word. If someone declared themselves a necromancer in Ustalav or Lastwall, you'd probably be killed on sight. A Milani or Caydenite is unlikely to respect any kind of authority in Cheliax. In other words, unless your character has a specific reason for WHY they do not respect the authority of the land, they should. Even if chaotic. Petty criminals are typically chaotic. Bureaucrats loopholing their crimes would be lawful.
Addendum(Oaths and Trustworthiness): A chaotic character can keep their word and be typically honorable without any issue on this axis. "Honor among thieves" is a common saying. A Lawful character has difficulty maintaining their lawful status without keeping their word.
Addendum(Free Will and Domination): How your character regards Indentured Servitude/Slavery to absolute freedom/anarchy falls under the Law/Chaos axis.
True Neutral: In my experience, it is very difficult to maintain a true neutral status throughout a campaign as it requires your character to lack any serious commitments to help others. To hook a character into a campaign your character has to feel someway about something and that often becomes a defining part of your character. You eventually risk your life to accomplish some goal and depending on how you go about doing so, you will eventually no longer be True Neutral.
Basically you have to be an animal or bug to stay true neutral.
Final Addendums
The Friends and Family Clause: Ignore everything I said up above when it comes to someone your character deeply cares about. Mortals are irrational beings when it comes to their family and loved ones. Acts committed during brief moments of passion are typically not enough to change your alignment.
Once really isn't enough...unless it is: A single act or even a few are typically not enough to change a character's alignment. An honorable guard letting someone go in a moment of weakness or a good man killing someone in a rage isn't enough. A Good person betraying his party and allowing a necromancer to sacrifice a nation of people is a different story obviously.
Finally: Alignment is always a reflection of your actions, not the dictator of them.