Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Atonement question

Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 6, 2005 7:32:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Just finished running my PCs through _The Ebon Mirror_. If you've read
or played it, you may recall that at the end, the PCs are faced with a
magical chess game between the two aspects of the sorceress. They can
try to help white win (which gives an OK outcome), help black win (a
Very Bad Idea) or force a stalemate (which works out best, and is
preferred).

Well -- to make a long story short, the party cleric managed to ignore
a VERY explicit prophesy from his god (basically, he completely forgot
about it), and tried to force a white win instead of a stalemate. In
doing so, he took the risk that he might screw up and let black win.

A couple of remarkably bad die rolls later, black won.

The outcome: a 21st level lawful evil sorceress has been unleashed upon
an unsuspecting world. She's mean as hell, she's dressed all in black,
she's got a 24 Charisma, and she has Great Plans.

Note that this is a fairly standard D&D world where high level
characters are uncommon and epic ones very rare. So, this is no small
screwup. The PC cleric is lawful good, and, well, it's pretty clear
that an Atonement is called for.

So: what would be appropriate?

-- Some limitations here. The usual "send the PC on a quest" is
suboptimal, because he's part of a group, and also because there's so
much coming towards the PCs in the next few sessions that it will be
hard to fit in a side quest.

A vow of some sort might be nice, but he's already got a vow of
poverty. (Not the feat, just a vow.)

Suggestions?


Waldo

More about : atonement question

May 6, 2005 8:37:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> Please don't give away the solution to a module in the opening
paragraph
> of a Usenet article.

Ah. Sorry; my bad.


> Why? The PC tried for what he thought was the best outcome and got
> unlucky. If you had reminded the player of the prophecy (on the
> assumption that the PC wouldn't forget so easily), it might be a
> different story.

I did exactly this.

I modified the module a bit. Immediately before the final (spoiler),
you may recall, there's a puzzle that's of the nature of... mmm... "a
lot of twisty little corridors, all the same" kinda thing.

I've always hated those, so I replaced it with a different sort of
puzzle: a strange landscape of suspended, spinning mirrors. Each
mirror showed scenes from a PCs' earlier lives, from childhood on.

The key to getting out was to follow the mirrors in chronological
order. This also gave me the opportunity to recap earlier events in
the campaign (which has been going on for a while now).

At one point, of course, I had the cleric PC pass in front of a mirror
that showed a scene several months earlier (in game time; several weeks
in TRW) where he received the mysterious prophecy. Which was, of
course, not mysterious but very explicit, once the context was right.

I should add that Not Paying Attention is an occasional problem with
this group in general, and this player in particular.

So, yah, I did remind him. Went out of my way, actually.

(He did eventually remember the prophecy without being reminded...
about two minutes too late.)

So: now what?


Waldo
May 6, 2005 9:58:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Will Green wrote:


> > So: now what?
>
> First of all, while that was a very cool scene you just described
IMO,
> perhaps a simple reasonably-low Int check might have better
represented
> the *cleric* remembering the prophecy, rather than the player.

I tried that too. Which was something of an exception for me, because
I don't like doing that when it's something the player IMO should have
been paying attention to... but yeah, I gave him a roll, and he failed
it.


> Second, I don't really see why any atonement should be required. The

> cleric screwed up and unleashed Evil on the world -- but this Evil
has a
> face, and, more importantly, a hit point total that can at some point
be
> reduced to -10.

8th level party. 21st level sorceresss. I think you can see the
problem here, no?

-- She does have some weak spots. I ruled that her good half got much
less of the raw sorcerous power, but more of the brains. So the evil
sorceress has a 24 Cha, but only a 10 Wis and 8 Int.

But still. She could wipe the PCs without breaking a sweat; and this
will be true for a long, long time to come.

I /do/ already have a "fix the problem" adventure in mind. It involves
a return to the, er, spoiler, along with a prism and, oh, all sorts of
fun stuff. It'll be a decent sized adventure, and it will happen when
they're maybe 10th-12th level.

But I'd kinda like that to be separate from the atonement, if only
because it's some time in the future.


Waldo
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:50:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Waldo wrote:
> Will Green wrote:
>
>
> > > So: now what?
> >
> > First of all, while that was a very cool scene you just described
> IMO,
> > perhaps a simple reasonably-low Int check might have better
> represented
> > the *cleric* remembering the prophecy, rather than the player.
>
> I tried that too. Which was something of an exception for me,
because
> I don't like doing that when it's something the player IMO should
have
> been paying attention to... but yeah, I gave him a roll, and he
failed
> it.
>
>
> > Second, I don't really see why any atonement should be required.
The
>
> > cleric screwed up and unleashed Evil on the world -- but this Evil
> has a
> > face, and, more importantly, a hit point total that can at some
point
> be
> > reduced to -10.
>
> 8th level party. 21st level sorceresss. I think you can see the
> problem here, no?
>
> -- She does have some weak spots. I ruled that her good half got
much
> less of the raw sorcerous power, but more of the brains. So the evil
> sorceress has a 24 Cha, but only a 10 Wis and 8 Int.
>
> But still. She could wipe the PCs without breaking a sweat; and this
> will be true for a long, long time to come.
>
> I /do/ already have a "fix the problem" adventure in mind. It
involves
> a return to the, er, spoiler, along with a prism and, oh, all sorts
of
> fun stuff. It'll be a decent sized adventure, and it will happen
when
> they're maybe 10th-12th level.
>
> But I'd kinda like that to be separate from the atonement, if only
> because it's some time in the future.

Actually, I totally disagree with the above posters. i think an
Attonement is absoloutly called for. Think, people. We're talking
about religion here. First: even accidentally unleashing a great and
powerful evil on the world calls for an attonment, I don't care if it
was on purpose or not. Fact was he did it. And what's more, it was a
sin of pride. he thought he knew best and he was wrong and as a result
there is great evil. The fact that he thought he was doing a good
thing isn't relevant. The path to hell is paved with good intentions
and all that.

Further, his own guilt over having unleashed this evil should warrent
an attonment all by itself.

IMO, this is where the majority of the need for attonment comes into
play. if you bed your best friend's wife, does anyone think that god
cares? I doubt it. But you did a bad thing, you know you did, and you
feel bad, even if you don't think you do. (at least presuming you
follow that sort of religion).

On the other hand, I don't think this is hte sort of offence that is
going to prevent him from being a functional cleric nor do I think
he'll lose spells or abilities, as long as he really feels bad about it
and wants to do something ot stop it.

The church charging him with stopping her is a fine idea since it
creates more plot. Also, i think a proper act of contrition is in
order.

Maybe he must pray for forgiveness publicly every evening or momrning
for a month. Maybe he can't eat or drink anyhting but church
perscribed food and drink (tack and water are a fine choice) for a time
(a month, a year, a lunar cycle, whatever is appropriate). Just make
sure it's something he can live on.

It would be nice to connect the pennance to teh sin. If the church
thinks his rash action or pride lead to this problem, then some
humility is in order and they should punish accordingly.
May 6, 2005 1:46:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:


> > I should add that Not Paying Attention is an occasional problem
with
> > this group in general, and this player in particular.
>
> That's not what I meant. If you had reminded him of the prophecy when
he
> made the decision to
Spoiler
, it might be a different story.


....but I'd reminded him of the prophecy not ten minutes earlier.
Repeated it verbatim, in fact.


> If this obliviousness bothers you, deal with it player-to-player, not
by
> punishing him with a required /atonement/. In this case, I might
gently
> mock the player; i.e., when he starts to do
Spoiler
, jokingly say,
> "Did you already forget the MAJOR CLUE that I just gave you?"

Mm, no. I would never say anything like that to a player.

-- Well, maybe not /never/. If the alternative was TPK or some
equivalent disaster, then perhaps. But otherwise, I'd be very, very
reluctant to spoon-feed a player in that manner.

I'll present clues and information to them clearly and fairly. I'll
give them hints that stuff is significant. I'll repeat myself. I
don't /want/ them to miss stuff, after all.

But coming right out and saying, "Hey, that was a Major Clue, boy..."
Well, ISTM that would be sort of insulting the player's intelligence a
little; and also taking a fair lot of the fun out of the game.

Solving puzzles, figuring out mysteries, and finding the meanings of
obscure and cryptic prophecies is almost as central to D&D as combat.
But who's going to put any effort into solving problems if they know
the DM will point them to the answer?

Finally, I don't think it's unreasonable to require that my players pay
a certain amount of attention.

You may disagree; but if so, then we're up against a fairly basic
difference in philosophy, or at least DMing style.


Waldo
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 3:02:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Waldo wrote:
> Just finished running my PCs through _The Ebon Mirror_. If you've
> read or played it, you may recall that at the end, the PCs are faced
> with a magical chess game between the two aspects of the sorceress.
> They can try to [spoilers snipped].

Please don't give away the solution to a module in the opening paragraph
of a Usenet article.

> Well -- to make a long story short, the party cleric managed to ignore
> a VERY explicit prophesy from his god (basically, he completely forgot
> about it), and tried to
Spoiler
. In doing so, he took the risk that
> he might screw up and
Spoiler
.
>
> A couple of remarkably bad die rolls later, [bad things happen].
> [This] is no small screwup. The PC cleric is lawful good, and, well,
> it's pretty clear that an Atonement is called for.

Why? The PC tried for what he thought was the best outcome and got
unlucky. If you had reminded the player of the prophecy (on the
assumption that the PC wouldn't forget so easily), it might be a
different story. But it sounds like you're trying to punish the player
for bad luck. Isn't the failure bad enough already?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:39:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Waldo wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
>>Why? The PC tried for what he thought was the best outcome and got
>>unlucky. If you had reminded the player of the prophecy (on the
>>assumption that the PC wouldn't forget so easily), it might be a
>>different story.

I agree with this, for the most part...

> I did exactly this.

<snip>

> So, yah, I did remind him. Went out of my way, actually.
>
> (He did eventually remember the prophecy without being reminded...
> about two minutes too late.)
>
> So: now what?

First of all, while that was a very cool scene you just described IMO,
perhaps a simple reasonably-low Int check might have better represented
the *cleric* remembering the prophecy, rather than the player.

Second, I don't really see why any atonement should be required. The
cleric screwed up and unleashed Evil on the world -- but this Evil has a
face, and, more importantly, a hit point total that can at some point be
reduced to -10. Just make it clear that somebody has to clean up this
mess, and, hey, guess who's going to volunteer?

I guess, in a manner of speaking, this is just making the quest to
defeat the sorceress into an atonement. Which seems fine to me.

-Will

>
> Waldo
>
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 5:05:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Waldo wrote:
>
> Note that this is a fairly standard D&D world where high level
> characters are uncommon and epic ones very rare. So, this is no small
> screwup. The PC cleric is lawful good, and, well, it's pretty clear
> that an Atonement is called for.

Not to me, it isn't...and if you tried to demand one of
*my* PC in your game, I'd tell you to shove it
someplace very uncomfortable.

Atonements are appropriate when a character
*deliberately* has done something egregiously
inconsistent with his professed alignment; your post
makes it quite clear that the player "completely
forgot" about the prophecy from his character's god.

-Bluto
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 7:48:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair wrote:
> Actually, I totally disagree with the above posters. i think an
> Attonement is absoloutly called for. Think, people. We're talking
> about religion here. First: even accidentally unleashing a great and
> powerful evil on the world calls for an attonment, I don't care if it
> was on purpose or not. Fact was he did it. And what's more, it was a
> sin of pride.

WTF? It sounds to me like the player got confused, and as a result the
PC did something out of character.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 7:56:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> Why? The PC tried for what he thought was the best outcome and got
>> unlucky. If you had reminded the player of the prophecy (on the
>> assumption that the PC wouldn't forget so easily), it might be a
>> different story.

Waldo wrote:
> I did exactly this .... The key to getting out was to follow [a series
> of clues] in chronological order. This also gave me the opportunity
> to recap earlier events in the campaign (which has been going on for a
> while now).
>
> At one point, of course, I had the cleric PC pass in front of a mirror
> that showed a scene several months earlier (in game time; several
> weeks in TRW) where he received the mysterious prophecy. Which was,
> of course, not mysterious but very explicit, once the context was
> right.
>
> I should add that Not Paying Attention is an occasional problem with
> this group in general, and this player in particular.

That's not what I meant. If you had reminded him of the prophecy when he
made the decision to
Spoiler
, it might be a different story. E.g.,
"Did you forget about the prophecy, or are you deliberately ignoring
it?" Just because it came up in the previous scene doesn't mean that the
player will remember it and figure out its relevance. If it's supposed
to be obvious, make sure it's obvious.

> (He did eventually remember the prophecy without being reminded...
> about two minutes too late.)

If this obliviousness bothers you, deal with it player-to-player, not by
punishing him with a required /atonement/. In this case, I might gently
mock the player; i.e., when he starts to do
Spoiler
, jokingly say,
"Did you already forget the MAJOR CLUE that I just gave you?"
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 8:26:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Senator Blutarsky" <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:427BCDFE.B37586FF@comcast.net...
> Atonements are appropriate when a character
> *deliberately* has done something egregiously
> inconsistent with his professed alignment; your post
> makes it quite clear that the player "completely
> forgot" about the prophecy from his character's god.

I agree that atonement is not required. That said, I believe that it would
be very in character for the player to play the character with an absolute
assload of guilt and remorse over having unleashed this hell onto the world.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
May 6, 2005 9:17:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Nikolas Landauer wrote:

> I want to emphasize his words "at some
> point". The party will not be 8th level forever.

Yeah, but it's going to be a long, long time before they can seriously
consider taking on an epic level bad guy.


> I assume she doesn't have the traditional resources of a 21st level
> sorceress: gear, minions, network of informants, etc. Obviously,
> she'll work towards that, but stymieing her efforts in this direction
> without directly engaging her seems like the perfect kinds of
missions
> to boost a character party above 8th level, into the realm where they
> can challenge a pissed-off Sor21.

True. But, OTOH, she's powerful enough that she can quickly acquire at
least some of these things.

Also, while PCs usually advance much faster than NPCs, that doesn't
mean NPCs stand still. So, when they're (say) 13th or 14th level,
she'll be 23rd.


> > I ruled that her good half got much less of the raw
> > sorcerous power, but more of the brains. So the evil
> > sorceress has a 24 Cha, but only a 10 Wis and 8 Int.
>
> So the evil sorceress is highly likely to be unsuccessful in her
> attempts to gather L21 resources, and the party has a potential ally,
> who is probably a moderate-level Sor herself, and both good, and much
> wiser and more intelligent than their foe.

Well yes, except

mild spoilers for _The Ebon Mirror_ module follow




the good side of her has been cast into another universe. The PCs
would have to go back in there and fetch her out, for starters -- which
would be a medium size adventure in its own right.


> Only if you're not using the standard advancement rules, and only if
> she's got resources and advantages she has no way of having yet.

Ummm. A 21st level spellcaster in a standard D&D world can gather
resources pretty quickly.


> > I /do/ already have a "fix the problem" adventure in mind.
> > It involves a return to the, er, spoiler, along with a prism
> > and, oh, all sorts of fun stuff. It'll be a decent sized
> > adventure, and it will happen when they're maybe 10th-12th
> > level.
>
> That sounds awfully un-fun to me, since it's a pretty clearly fudged
> mechanism for a second chance.

Pas de tout. It's that trip into the other universe to fetch the good
version. If they play it right, they can smoosh the two of them
together. The resulting sorceress will be neutral, but friendly
towards the PCs. Failing that, at least they get the good version on
their side.


> > But I'd kinda like that to be separate from the atonement,
> > if only because it's some time in the future.
>
> Why? The /atonement/ spell is intended to be used *in conjunction*
> with that kind of act of solving the error which caused the need for
> atonement.

Yes, but that doesn't *fit* here.

One, they can't fix the sorceress problem for a long time to come.
Nibble around the edge of it, yes, but not fix it. I want the
atonement over and done with in fairly short order.

Two, I wasn't expecting this outcome. My campaign already has several
perfectly good villains, plus several scenarios and adventures already
headed towards the PCs. I can ad lib, and I'm going to work her in,
but I don't want to make her the new central opponent. (Unless the
players insist, in which case, fine.)

-- I note some folks starting to take sides on whether this is an
"appropriate" situation for an Atonement. Well, I think it is, and
it's my campaign. More to the point, the player thinks it is, too.
He's playing LG all the way. So when Ms. Black Is The New Black starts
her career of destruction, he's going to feel... no, he already feels
guilty as hell. The character wants an Atonement. It's one of those
'This is kinda rough, but it's totally what my character would do'
deals.

So, since player and DM agree, can we just move on past that, please.
Thank you.



> Hell, she sounds like a *fun* campaign arch-villainess.

Actually, yeah, kinda. She's going to start by taking over a minor
city-state. And her plan for this won't be subtle. (She's not subtle,
at all.)

Day One: Move in. Throw around some Charms and Dominate Persons.
Day Two: More Charms and Dominates. Acquire some thug muscle.
Day Three: March into city council, all buff spells on, thugs trailing
behind. "Good morning." [Summon Monster IX] "Okay, I'm in charge
now. Any objections?" [Horrid Wilting] "Oh, you would, would you?"
[Finger of Death]

-- I see her as a nasty, not very bright, but very powerful NPC whose
solution to most things is brute force and plenty of it. She's just
bright enough to pick someplace a little out of the way for her first
takeover. Wackiness will surely ensue, but she's got the muscle to
pull it off in the short run.

[pre-snip six people telling me why This Would Never Work. It's an
illustrative example, folks.]

I am looking forward to having her around. But she's probably not
going to be the central bad guy.

Anyway. Still interested in thoughts on HOW or WHAT to do wrt the
Atonement, as opposed to WHETHER or WHY.


Waldo
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:30:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> That's not what I meant. If you had reminded him of the prophecy when
>> he made the decision to
Spoiler
, it might be a different story.

Waldo wrote:
> ...but I'd reminded him of the prophecy not ten minutes earlier.
> Repeated it verbatim, in fact.

Not the same thing.

> I'll present clues and information to them clearly and fairly. I'll
> give them hints that stuff is significant. I'll repeat myself. I
> don't /want/ them to miss stuff, after all.
>
> But coming right out and saying, "Hey, that was a Major Clue, boy..."
> Well, ISTM that would be sort of insulting the player's intelligence a
> little; and also taking a fair lot of the fun out of the game.

That's fine. However, you're planning to punish a player for "ignoring"
a clue. If you're going to do that, it had better be a conscious
decision. In other words, if you're going to punish a player for missing
the obvious, make sure that it really is obvious. Remember that the
players don't have the same understanding of the situation that you do.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:51:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Waldo wrote:
> Will Green wrote:
> >
> > Second, I don't really see why any atonement should be
> > required. The cleric screwed up and unleashed Evil on
> > the world -- but this Evil has a face, and, more
> > importantly, a hit point total that can at some point
> > be reduced to -10.
>
> 8th level party. 21st level sorceresss. I think you
> can see the problem here, no?

I agree with Will Green... And I want to emphasize his words "at some
point". The party will not be 8th level forever.

> -- She does have some weak spots.

I assume she doesn't have the traditional resources of a 21st level
sorceress: gear, minions, network of informants, etc. Obviously,
she'll work towards that, but stymieing her efforts in this direction
without directly engaging her seems like the perfect kinds of missions
to boost a character party above 8th level, into the realm where they
can challenge a pissed-off Sor21.

> I ruled that her good half got much less of the raw
> sorcerous power, but more of the brains. So the evil
> sorceress has a 24 Cha, but only a 10 Wis and 8 Int.

So the evil sorceress is highly likely to be unsuccessful in her
attempts to gather L21 resources, and the party has a potential ally,
who is probably a moderate-level Sor herself, and both good, and much
wiser and more intelligent than their foe.

> But still. She could wipe the PCs without breaking a
> sweat; and this will be true for a long, long time to come.

Only if you're not using the standard advancement rules, and only if
she's got resources and advantages she has no way of having yet.

> I /do/ already have a "fix the problem" adventure in mind.
> It involves a return to the, er, spoiler, along with a prism
> and, oh, all sorts of fun stuff. It'll be a decent sized
> adventure, and it will happen when they're maybe 10th-12th
> level.

That sounds awfully un-fun to me, since it's a pretty clearly fudged
mechanism for a second chance. Make the characters *work* for the
second chance instead.

> But I'd kinda like that to be separate from the atonement,
> if only because it's some time in the future.

Why? The /atonement/ spell is intended to be used *in conjunction*
with that kind of act of solving the error which caused the need for
atonement.

Don't penalize the cleric or the player at all, just remind him that
his character is required by dogma and responsibility to remedy the
problem he created for the world, and start focusing the campaign in
that direction.

Hell, she sounds like a *fun* campaign arch-villainess.

For lower-level adventures, remember:
* Minions
* Her plots are probably farther-reaching than the PCs, so there are a
lot of opportunities for them to thwart her desires without facing her
yet.
* Minions
* Neutral parties courted by both sides; this provides potential for
non-combat adventures where the party still gets to thwart the BBE.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 12:32:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Waldo wrote:
>> Note that this is a fairly standard D&D world where high level
>> characters are uncommon and epic ones very rare. So, this is no small
>> screwup. The PC cleric is lawful good, and, well, it's pretty clear
>> that an Atonement is called for.

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
> Not to me, it isn't...and if you tried to demand one of
> *my* PC in your game, I'd tell you to shove it
> someplace very uncomfortable.

The back of a Volkswagen?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 12:32:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd7nl3b.q2d.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Waldo wrote:
>>> Note that this is a fairly standard D&D world where high level
>>> characters are uncommon and epic ones very rare. So, this is no small
>>> screwup. The PC cleric is lawful good, and, well, it's pretty clear
>>> that an Atonement is called for.
>
> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Not to me, it isn't...and if you tried to demand one of
>> *my* PC in your game, I'd tell you to shove it
>> someplace very uncomfortable.
>
> The back of a Volkswagen?

<shakes head sadly>

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 1:28:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
> Waldo wrote:
> >> Note that this is a fairly standard D&D world where high level
> >> characters are uncommon and epic ones very rare. So, this is no small
> >> screwup. The PC cleric is lawful good, and, well, it's pretty clear
> >> that an Atonement is called for.
>
> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Not to me, it isn't...and if you tried to demand one of
> > *my* PC in your game, I'd tell you to shove it
> > someplace very uncomfortable.
>
> The back of a Volkswagen?

That's why I love rgfd: references aren't lost on
people.

-Bluto
May 7, 2005 1:53:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I think an atonement is perfectly appropriate --- ultimately, of
course, such things are for the DM to decide --- but if I were DM I
would figure out something that the cleric had to do to make it up.
Given that it was a mistake rather than a deliberate evil act, a less
sever quest might be assigned... I think that the player(s) probably
were not paying adequate attention... especially given the fact that a
vision was provided telling him exactly what he had to do. I think
gods in the fantasy world can be pretty harsh to their followers --
especially harsh to followers who fail them. Remember, this isn't a
loving and forgiving god --- it's a god of "law and good." And "Law
and Good" are not negotiable to the lawful good gods. In my game if a
player isn't paying attention and he declares that his PC does
something boneheaded, the player characters suffer the consequences ---
its part of the fun (seriously, it is!). In my magical universe, a
cleric who wasn't supposed to do something like eat pork would still be
punished if he unknowingly ate something that contained pork. "Lawful"
doesn't mean "relativist." A paladin who stole to feed starving
orphans would get rewarded for saving orphans but would have to pay a
penalty for stealing food.
The decisions of the players impact the game -- for good or ill. I'll
let players take notes and in most cases talk amongst themselves out of
character -- that helps if they have to remember from session to
session. I write up a "campaign log" and post it on the www ---
important clues and NPCs are listed in here -- so players have access
to the information -- they can even review the action between sessions
-- and this can help them out --- especially in cases of great import
--- but if they screw up, its on them. Almost a year ago my players
were passing through a ruin, a section of which was trapped with a
summon swarm spell which was triggered if you entered an area without
first reciting a short prayer. They found a scrap of paper with the
prayer written out and one PC took possession of the note. He read the
paper aloud, stuck it in his pocket and entered the room without harm.
The next player attempted to enter without saying the prayer and got
swarmed. He retreated and the third player recited the prayer, got
some of the words (and the name of the God) wrong, entered the room and
was swarmed. This went on for quite some time until they finally
convinced the first player to return with the parchement and let them
recite the prayer properly. It was rather entertaining but, if they
had cooperated or thought ahead and not allowed the one player to take
off with the prayer written on the paper, they wouldn't have gone
through that.
Read the description of the atonement spell on page 221 of the player's
handbook and it says that an atonement may be called for even if the
act to be atoned for is not the character's fault. It states that a
quest or geas are often a part of the atonement.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 4:08:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> Waldo wrote:
>
>>Will Green wrote:
>>

<snip>

> I agree with Will Green... And I want to emphasize his words "at some
> point". The party will not be 8th level forever.

<snip>

> Don't penalize the cleric or the player at all, just remind him that
> his character is required by dogma and responsibility to remedy the
> problem he created for the world, and start focusing the campaign in
> that direction.
>
> Hell, she sounds like a *fun* campaign arch-villainess.

Exactly! Waldo, you now have a powerful villain whom the PCs -- and the
Cleric in particular -- should feel *compelled* to defeat, and it will
take a good long while to do it. This is *awesome.*

-Will
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 4:10:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Not to me, it isn't...and if you tried to demand one of
>>*my* PC in your game, I'd tell you to shove it
>>someplace very uncomfortable.
>
> The back of a Volkswagen?

Sounds like his M.O.

Am I still glowing?

-Will (sorry)
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 9:09:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Waldo wrote:
> >> Note that this is a fairly standard D&D world where high level
> >> characters are uncommon and epic ones very rare. So, this is no
small
> >> screwup. The PC cleric is lawful good, and, well, it's pretty
clear
> >> that an Atonement is called for.
>
> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Not to me, it isn't...and if you tried to demand one of
> > *my* PC in your game, I'd tell you to shove it
> > someplace very uncomfortable.
>
> The back of a Volkswagen?
> --
> Bradd W. Szonye
> http://www.szonye.com/bradd

I think you just found the reason for the decreasing birth rate
in Germany.

LL
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 3:40:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

ROT13 used to protect the unspoilered.

Waldo wrote:
> Just finished running my PCs through _The Ebon Mirror_. If you've
> read or played it, you may recall that at the end, the PCs are faced
> with n zntvpny purff tnzr orgjrra gur gjb nfcrpgf bs gur fbeprerff.
> Gurl pna gel gb uryc juvgr jva (juvpu tvirf na BX bhgpbzr), uryc
> oynpx jva (n Irel Onq Vqrn) be sbepr n fgnyrzngr (juvpu jbexf bhg
> orfg, naq vf cersreerq).

Just one question: Qvq lbh znxr pyrne gur eryngvir qvssvphygvrf bs
nggrzcgvat gb jva naq sbepvat n fgnyrzngr? V qba'g xabj zhpu nobhg purff
orlbaq gur onfvp ehyrf, ohg V qba'g guvax fgnyrzngrf unccra gung bsgra. Nf n
cynlre, V'q cebonoyl graq gb anghenyyl nffhzr gung nggrzcgvat gb jva gur
tnzr jnf n yrff evfxl fgengrtl guna gelvat gb sbepr n fgnyrzngr - ybtvpnyyl,
gur punaprf bs lbhe bccbarag jvaavat fubhyq or ybjre vs lbh'er cynlvat gb
jva guna vs lbh'er cynlvat gb qenj.

--
Mark.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 11:25:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de <Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de> wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Not to me, it isn't...and if you tried to demand one of
>>> *my* PC in your game, I'd tell you to shove it
>>> someplace very uncomfortable.
>>
>> The back of a Volkswagen?
>
> I think you just found the reason for the decreasing birth rate
> in Germany.

Don't thank me. Thank Kevin Smith.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0113749/quotes
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 1:04:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Waldo" <peggoliathy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115425067.416373.82360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:

>> Hell, she sounds like a *fun* campaign arch-villainess.
>
> Actually, yeah, kinda. She's going to start by taking over a minor
> city-state. And her plan for this won't be subtle. (She's not subtle,
> at all.)
>
> Day One: Move in. Throw around some Charms and Dominate Persons.
> Day Two: More Charms and Dominates. Acquire some thug muscle.
> Day Three: March into city council, all buff spells on, thugs trailing
> behind. "Good morning." [Summon Monster IX] "Okay, I'm in charge
> now. Any objections?" [Horrid Wilting] "Oh, you would, would you?"
> [Finger of Death]

I think a better way to do this is to march in and say, "Okay, who is in
charge here?" When the Major/King.whatever says "I am," she hits that guy
with the Horrid Wilting and repeats the question. That would tend to make
things very clear.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
May 8, 2005 1:46:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:

> > Actually, yeah, kinda. She's going to start by taking over a minor
> > city-state. And her plan for this won't be subtle. (She's not
subtle,
> > at all.)
> >
> > Day One: Move in. Throw around some Charms and Dominate Persons.
> > Day Two: More Charms and Dominates. Acquire some thug muscle.
> > Day Three: March into city council, all buff spells on, thugs
trailing
> > behind. "Good morning." [Summon Monster IX] "Okay, I'm in charge
> > now. Any objections?" [Horrid Wilting] "Oh, you would, would
you?"
> > [Finger of Death]
>
> I think a better way to do this is to march in and say, "Okay, who is
in
> charge here?" When the Major/King.whatever says "I am," she hits that
guy
> with the Horrid Wilting and repeats the question. That would tend to
make
> things very clear.

Well, this leads to an interesting question.

I want her to rise to a position of some power -- take over a
city-state or an island kingdom, type of thing -- so she can start in
on some Lawful Evil badness, slave trading or something.

She gave the PCs a small mirror that she can use to talk to them (and
find them, heh). I'm thinking that now and then, the mirror will light
up and produce a cut-scene.

So: what would be some cut-scenes of her taking over and generally
being Bad? I kinda like the "walk in and throw Horrid Wilting", so
that's probably one. (It may not be completely plausible, but it's
grisly cool.)

Any others?


Waldo
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 7:05:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Stefan wrote:
Almost a year ago my players
> were passing through a ruin, a section of which was trapped with a
> summon swarm spell which was triggered if you entered an area without
> first reciting a short prayer. They found a scrap of paper with the
> prayer written out and one PC took possession of the note. He read
the
> paper aloud, stuck it in his pocket and entered the room without
harm.
> The next player attempted to enter without saying the prayer and got
> swarmed. He retreated and the third player recited the prayer, got
> some of the words (and the name of the God) wrong, entered the room
and
> was swarmed. This went on for quite some time until they finally
> convinced the first player to return with the parchement and let them
> recite the prayer properly. It was rather entertaining but, if they
> had cooperated or thought ahead and not allowed the one player to
take
> off with the prayer written on the paper, they wouldn't have gone
> through that.
> Read the description of the atonement spell on page 221 of the
player's
> handbook and it says that an atonement may be called for even if the
> act to be atoned for is not the character's fault. It states that a
> quest or geas are often a part of the atonement.

I hate players like that, meaning the player who kept the note in his
pocket. I could be wrong, but was that player playing a rogue?
They're usually rogues. They're the type of player who thinks of his
own character first and foremost and everyone else be damned. If he
finds a gem as part of the normal process of the adventure but it just
so happens no other party member was with him at the time, he'll keep
it for himself, never mentioning it. Likewise, if he finds a book or
papers or some type of medium of information that contains important
need to know information or else the party is doomed or at least very
inconvenienced, he gets a smile on his face because he knows something
that no one else in the party knows, and he's not going to tell them.
He's "one up" on everyone else just like he wants and will keep it that
way for as long as possible. In combat, he'll do his part, but if
things look bad for the party, he'll be the first to run away. There's
nothing wrong with the concept of a party retreating, but for him it's
always his first option at the slightest hint of the party in a losing
position. They are the "fifth" type of roleplayer, the Real Jerk.

Gerald Katz
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 2:16:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hadsil wrote:
>
> I hate players like that, meaning the player who kept the note in his
> pocket. I could be wrong, but was that player playing a rogue?
> They're usually rogues. They're the type of player who thinks of his
> own character first and foremost and everyone else be damned. If he
> finds a gem as part of the normal process of the adventure but it just
> so happens no other party member was with him at the time, he'll keep
> it for himself, never mentioning it. Likewise, if he finds a book or
> papers or some type of medium of information that contains important
> need to know information or else the party is doomed or at least very
> inconvenienced, he gets a smile on his face because he knows something
> that no one else in the party knows, and he's not going to tell them.
> He's "one up" on everyone else just like he wants and will keep it that
> way for as long as possible. In combat, he'll do his part, but if
> things look bad for the party, he'll be the first to run away. There's
> nothing wrong with the concept of a party retreating, but for him it's
> always his first option at the slightest hint of the party in a losing
> position. They are the "fifth" type of roleplayer, the Real Jerk.

Or, you know, they're playing a Neutral or Evil
character.

-Bluto
May 8, 2005 8:49:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The player who kept the note in his pocket was playing a Bard. The
party he is in is not a very coherent group... the room protected by
the "swarm effect" held a number of valuable looking items and as soon
as the Bard realized the importance of the note he took full advantage.
He didn't realize it at first -- he read the note aloud before
entering the room but when he was the only one who didn't get attacked
by the swarm he figured it out and started looting while the rest of
the party was still trying to deal with the swarm.
It was actually a really funny roleplaying event. The other players
were trying to remember the prayer but hadn't paid close attention.
They couldn't look at the paper because it was in the room with the
bard and he was too busy taking his pick of the loot to come over and
give it to them! As an evil DM, I occassionally like to see the party
at cross purposes. Providing no one takes it personally (and my
players are really good about not letting in game conflict spill out of
game), it adds a fun "rivalry" to the game. Of course, the player of
the bard got his comeuppence later --- due to his greed, he stole the
gems out of the eyesockets of a statue of an evil god, and, due to the
curse, currently has a CON of 6!
May 8, 2005 9:04:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<quote>Or, you know, they're playing a Neutral or Evil
character.

-Bluto </quote>

The Bard is neutral.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 2:34:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <sOWdnVGsr6QjEuDfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Waldo" <peggoliathy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1115425067.416373.82360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
>
>>> Hell, she sounds like a *fun* campaign arch-villainess.
>>
>> Actually, yeah, kinda. She's going to start by taking over a minor
>> city-state. And her plan for this won't be subtle. (She's not subtle,
>> at all.)
>>
>> Day One: Move in. Throw around some Charms and Dominate Persons.
>> Day Two: More Charms and Dominates. Acquire some thug muscle.
>> Day Three: March into city council, all buff spells on, thugs trailing
>> behind. "Good morning." [Summon Monster IX] "Okay, I'm in charge
>> now. Any objections?" [Horrid Wilting] "Oh, you would, would you?"
>> [Finger of Death]
>
>I think a better way to do this is to march in and say, "Okay, who is in
>charge here?" When the Major/King.whatever says "I am," she hits that guy
>with the Horrid Wilting and repeats the question. That would tend to make
>things very clear.

Didn't something almost like this happen on Order of the Stick a while ago?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 3:51:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 8 May 2005 22:34:15 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
scribed into the ether:

>In article <sOWdnVGsr6QjEuDfRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
>Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Waldo" <peggoliathy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> Day One: Move in. Throw around some Charms and Dominate Persons.
>>> Day Two: More Charms and Dominates. Acquire some thug muscle.
>>> Day Three: March into city council, all buff spells on, thugs trailing
>>> behind. "Good morning." [Summon Monster IX] "Okay, I'm in charge
>>> now. Any objections?" [Horrid Wilting] "Oh, you would, would you?"
>>> [Finger of Death]
>>
>>I think a better way to do this is to march in and say, "Okay, who is in
>>charge here?" When the Major/King.whatever says "I am," she hits that guy
>>with the Horrid Wilting and repeats the question. That would tend to make
>>things very clear.
>
>Didn't something almost like this happen on Order of the Stick a while ago?

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=1...

Ask and you shall receive.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 10:04:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Waldo <peggoliathy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I want her to rise to a position of some power -- take over a
> city-state or an island kingdom, type of thing -- so she can start
> in on some Lawful Evil badness, slave trading or something.
>
> She gave the PCs a small mirror that she can use to talk to them
> (and find them, heh). I'm thinking that now and then, the mirror
> will light up and produce a cut-scene.
>
> So: what would be some cut-scenes of her taking over and generally
> being Bad? I kinda like the "walk in and throw Horrid Wilting", so
> that's probably one. (It may not be completely plausible, but it's
> grisly cool.)
>
> Any others?

I don't have any offhand (I haven't been following the thread) but I'd
suggest making the scenes suggestive rather than explicit.

Not in the sense of "don't show her doing it", more in the sense of
making the scenes *suggest* her nature rather than spell it out.
Don't have her /meteor swarm/ an orphanage. Have it show her
obliterating someone associated with a particular holy order. For
additional fun, have the truth be that the person in the holy order
was bent -- she was actually in the right, as it were. Or he was bent
and had been caught performing some dastardly deed (on her order, and
she was hiding the evidence?)

As the story unfolds:

part 1: obliterate Holy Sir Whosit
"Oh my god, she killed Whosit!"
"... bastard!"

part 2: it comes out he was bent
"She killed a villainous traitor (or a treacherous villain)!"
"... good work!"

part 3: the rest of the truth comes out
"*She* was the one who bent him!"
"... bastard!"

Whipsawing perceptions can be fun. Within reason; I don't do it for
everything, but having someone important turn out to be not what was
expected can work well.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 11:01:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Anivair wrote:
> > Actually, I totally disagree with the above posters. i think an
> > Attonement is absoloutly called for. Think, people. We're talking
> > about religion here. First: even accidentally unleashing a great
and
> > powerful evil on the world calls for an attonment, I don't care if
it
> > was on purpose or not. Fact was he did it. And what's more, it
was a
> > sin of pride.
>
> WTF? It sounds to me like the player got confused, and as a result
the
> PC did something out of character.

Maybe, but I don't think we can adjudicate based on whether or not he
was actring in character. And even if he was, you really have to look
at it from the church's point of view. I think the church will assume
that some pennance is in order whether he did it on porpose or not.
take a look at real world religion. The church dishes out pennance for
accidents all the time.

Furthermore, what's wrong with some attonment or other? It's a
punishment for the character by the church, not a punishment for the
player by the DM.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 8:39:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> WTF? It sounds to me like the player got confused, and as a result
>> the PC did something out of character.

Anivair wrote:
> Maybe, but I don't think we can adjudicate based on whether or not he
> was actring in character. And even if he was, you really have to look
> at it from the church's point of view. I think the church will assume
> that some pennance is in order whether he did it on porpose or not.
> take a look at real world religion. The church dishes out pennance
> for accidents all the time.

There's a difference between "the church offers penance to people who
feel guilty about having caused an accident" and "the church requires
penance" of same.

> Furthermore, what's wrong with some attonment or other? It's a
> punishment for the character by the church, not a punishment for the
> player by the DM.

That's not the impression I got here. And atonement isn't supposed to be
punishment in the first place.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:57:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 09 May 2005 16:39:34 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:

>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>> WTF? It sounds to me like the player got confused, and as a result
>>> the PC did something out of character.
>
>Anivair wrote:
>> Maybe, but I don't think we can adjudicate based on whether or not he
>> was actring in character. And even if he was, you really have to look
>> at it from the church's point of view. I think the church will assume
>> that some pennance is in order whether he did it on porpose or not.
>> take a look at real world religion. The church dishes out pennance
>> for accidents all the time.
>
>There's a difference between "the church offers penance to people who
>feel guilty about having caused an accident" and "the church requires
>penance" of same.

Yes there is. But that doesn't make it unreasonable for an LG church
to require penance for someone who serves the forces of evil
inadvertantly by screwing up.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 2:04:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Will Green wrote:

> Exactly! Waldo, you now have a powerful villain whom the PCs -- and the
> Cleric in particular -- should feel *compelled* to defeat, and it will
> take a good long while to do it. This is *awesome.*

That was pretty much my reaction: "Hey - new chase villain! Cool."
As for the cleric: if his part becomes known, have him called into
the presence of a high-ranking ecclesiastical "problem solver".
(Might be someone he's clashed with before.) He gets chewed out down
to the ankles and told that - while he's not being cast out or even
cut off from church goodies - his career is on hold "... until you
clean up this little mess. _Completely._"


Robert Huff
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 2:08:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:

> I think a better way to do this is to march in and say, "Okay, who is in
> charge here?" When the Major/King.whatever says "I am," she hits that guy
> with the Horrid Wilting and repeats the question. That would tend to make
> things very clear.

"Buffy the Vampire Slayer", season three, episode 16 "Dopplegangland".


Robert Huff
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:11:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Suddenly, Robert Huff, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the darkness
and exclaimed:

> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>
>> I think a better way to do this is to march in and say, "Okay, who is
>> in charge here?" When the Major/King.whatever says "I am," she hits
>> that guy with the Horrid Wilting and repeats the question. That
>> would tend to make things very clear.
>
> "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", season three, episode 16
> "Dopplegangland".
>

Also that Wesley Snipes movie "Passenger 37" (57?)

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it's us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:11:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Billy Yank" <billyUSCOREyank@verizonDOT.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96524A4638421billyyanknetzeronet@199.45.49.11...
> Suddenly, Robert Huff, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the darkness
> and exclaimed:
>
>> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>
>>> I think a better way to do this is to march in and say, "Okay, who is
>>> in charge here?" When the Major/King.whatever says "I am," she hits
>>> that guy with the Horrid Wilting and repeats the question. That
>>> would tend to make things very clear.
>>
>> "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", season three, episode 16
>> "Dopplegangland".
>>
>
> Also that Wesley Snipes movie "Passenger 37" (57?)

....and in the second Die Hard movie.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:26:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Waldo" <peggoliathy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1115425067.416373.82360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Nikolas Landauer wrote:
>
>
>>>Hell, she sounds like a *fun* campaign arch-villainess.
>>
>>Actually, yeah, kinda. She's going to start by taking over a minor
>>city-state. And her plan for this won't be subtle. (She's not subtle,
>>at all.)
>>
>>Day One: Move in. Throw around some Charms and Dominate Persons.
>>Day Two: More Charms and Dominates. Acquire some thug muscle.
>>Day Three: March into city council, all buff spells on, thugs trailing
>>behind. "Good morning." [Summon Monster IX] "Okay, I'm in charge
>>now. Any objections?" [Horrid Wilting] "Oh, you would, would you?"
>>[Finger of Death]
>
>
> I think a better way to do this is to march in and say, "Okay, who is in
> charge here?" When the Major/King.whatever says "I am," she hits that guy
> with the Horrid Wilting and repeats the question. That would tend to make
> things very clear.
>
http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=1...
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:34:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:

>>> "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", season three, episode 16
>>> "Dopplegangland".
>>
>>Also that Wesley Snipes movie "Passenger 37" (57?)
>
> ...and in the second Die Hard movie.

Except Allison Hannigan in tight leather is _way_ better looking than
Bruce Willis and Wesley Snipes combined. (Your mileage may vary.)


Robert Huff
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:49:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Robert Huff" <roberthuff@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:X_6dnWG0SO-kBxzfRVn-2g@rcn.net...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>
>>>> "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", season three, episode 16
>>>> "Dopplegangland".
>>>
>>>Also that Wesley Snipes movie "Passenger 37" (57?)
>>
>> ...and in the second Die Hard movie.
>
> Except Allison Hannigan in tight leather is _way_ better looking than
> Bruce Willis and Wesley Snipes combined. (Your mileage may vary.)

Not by an inch.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
!