| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| eehamburg09-06-06, 09:51 AM | Finally ... the dragonshards have returned. Has anyone had a chance to read it? What are your thoughts? About time that KB put out something of worthwhile mention. I cam eaway with thinking that Droaam is much more complicated and sophisticated and enlightened than people give it credit for. In addition, I saw a new angle to the medusas and how they can be used. This brings up the question of how the other 'monsters' can be utilized differently than simply MONSTERS! All praise the mighty Hellcow for providing us with new information at long last. So ... let the comments begin. Anyone? Here's the link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20060905a |
| Harker Wade09-06-06, 10:06 AM | I found it very enlightening. I think the 'monster' society of Droaam is one of the harder concepts to understand/enjoy in Eberron, especially for gamers who aren't new to gaming with Eberron... |
| Euangelion09-06-06, 10:30 AM | Looks good after a quick read. I like the little touches, like making the spell available to adepts, and connecting with sourcebooks apart from the ECS. But, hey, what do you expect? It's Keith. |
| valkeriesmurf09-06-06, 11:18 AM | I thought it was great. Especially with how long it's been since Keith has written a Dragonshard Article. We've got ieattrollsforbreakfast's write up on Trolls in Eberron. But yeah, lots of fluff and flavor text, showing Medusa's don't have to be played as just monsters. I for one would love to see what other inspirations Keith has for doing some write ups, or other Fans on the Monster Races of Eberron. As to showing that Droaam is more complex then some may realize or see. I have to agree on Harker Wade's comment on gamers who aren't new to gaming in Eberron. Not just to accept, but to stop with treating the setting as generic. |
| eehamburg09-06-06, 11:49 AM | We've got ieattrollsforbreakfast's write up on Trolls in Eberron. where is the trolls in Eberron? |
| Grymar09-06-06, 11:59 AM | I love it. It answers many questions about the nature of monsters and I'm thinking of asking my players to read it so they can get a further insight into the balanced nature of Eberron. Here is a mechanical question about medusa that I've always wondered and the article sort of touched on...is it the look of the medusa that causes petrification or the look of the target? In other words, if the medusa is looking at the ceiling and a person looks the medusa in the eyes, there's no effect? It is only in the pure eye contact where it works? |
| DragonWatcher09-06-06, 01:23 PM | In other words, if the medusa is looking at the ceiling and a person looks the medusa in the eyes, there's no effect? It is only in the pure eye contact where it works? That's the impression that I always got... it's meeting the medusa's gaze. So there has to be eye-contact. I think that this article verified that by discussing where a medusa looks while talking to someone. Great stuff. |
| Kreistor109-06-06, 04:25 PM | SRD TypesSubtypesAbilities Gaze (Su): A gaze special attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature’s eyes. The attack can have almost any sort of effect: petrification, death, charm, and so on. ... The creature also can veil its eyes, thus negating its gaze ability. Actually, no, the passive form of gaze attacks do not require eye contact between the source and the target. The creature with the gaze attack must make certain its eyes are not visible to potential victims it does not want to affect, not just "not meet the gaze of a person with whom it is conversing". The eyes must not be visible at all, since the medusa does not need to specifically look at anyone for it to work. invisibility is not a defense against Gaze attacks. A creature with a gaze attack can actively gaze as an attack action by choosing a target within range. Not meeting a creature's gaze would prevent the active form of its gaze only (as described above), not the passive form described at the top. Just a small oversight on the editing team's part. No biggie. So they wear a veil. Problem solved. FUrther... All the creature’s allies are considered to be averting their eyes from the creature with the gaze attack, and have a 50% chance to not need to make a saving throw against the gaze attack each round. A visitor would at best be considered an ally, so they have only a 50% chance of not making the Save to be turned to stone. |
| gaerfindel09-06-06, 04:30 PM | The gaze of a medusa is a powerful weapon, but most medusas don't think of it as deadly. A petrified victim can be restored to life, after all; within their own society, medusas often use petrification as a way to preserve mortally wounded kin, so they can be restored at a later time when healing magic is available. Likewise, medusas dying of old age often choose to be petrified before they fully pass on.. This has to be one of the most interesting passages I've yet read. Chalk one more up to Keith and his brilliance. Now we know that medusa's kiss can only reverse the petrification caused by a medusa's gaze. But what might the arcanists at Morgrave or Korrenberg come up with if given the opportunity to study such a spell? And who's to say that some of the petrified prisoners in Dreadhold's dungeons weren't medusa-made, eh? |
| Lafarallin09-06-06, 04:31 PM | SRD TypesSubtypesAbilities Actually, no, the passive form of gaze attacks do not require eye contact between the source and the target. The creature with the gaze attack must make certain its eyes are not visible to potential victims it does not want to affect, not just "not meet the gaze of a person with whom it is conversing". The eyes must not be visible at all, since the medusa does not need to specifically look at anyone for it to work. invisibility is not a defense against Gaze attacks. Not meeting a creature's gaze would prevent the active form of its gaze only (as described above), not the passive form described at the top. Just a small oversight on the editing team's part. No biggie. So they wear a veil. Problem solved. FUrther... A visitor would at best be considered an ally, so they have only a 50% chance of not making the Save to be turned to stone. I actually like the eye contact described in this article. It makes medusa far more social now. Before it led to far too many accidently petrifications. This makes them far more interesting in a campaign setting. I have all ready made changes to my campaign to reflect this. |
| The Dreaming Duck09-06-06, 04:37 PM | The creature with the gaze attack must make certain its eyes are not visible to potential victims it does not want to affect, not just "not meet the gaze of a person with whom it is conversing"... Just a small oversight on the editing team's part. No biggie. So they wear a veil. Problem solved. *Shrug* Or you take Hellcow's suggestion over the RAW, and the problem is also solved. I think the customs described by the article add far more flavor than saying that they must wear veils at all times, and I think it's reasonable to say that if the medusa is actively seeking to avoid using its gaze, that should count for something: IT is averting its eyes. Essentially, I'm taking the view that the medusa's gaze affects the region it can see (even if it can't actually see you, as in the case of an invisible creature) and as such essentially emanates from its pupils, while you seem to be suggesting that even the whites of its eyes would petrify. You may be right by the RAW, but if the setting designer suggests an alternative in a WotC-sanctioned article and it adds flavor to the game, I'm happy to consider it a house rule. And even if one wasn't willing to make that change, the suggestion of the medusa closing its eyes when talking with a trusted ally would work by the RAW. |
| The Dreaming Duck09-06-06, 04:38 PM | And who's to say that some of the petrified prisoners in Dreadhold's dungeons weren't medusa-made, eh? Given that House Tharashk brokers the services of Droaam mercenaries, I think it would be very interesting to have a Medusa adept on hand in Dreadhold or other high-security prisons as the resident petrifier. |
| Kreistor109-06-06, 04:39 PM | Hellcow freely admits that he isn't the ruleslawyer in his play group. Assuming this was an intentional change instead of an unintentional oversight is serious stretching. |
| Lafarallin09-06-06, 04:42 PM | Hellcow freely admits that he isn't the ruleslawyer in his play group. Assuming this was an intentional change instead of an unintentional oversight is serious stretching. I think the point most are making is who cares either way. I like his take on it better then RAW. I think that is what others are trying to get it at too. |
| The Dreaming Duck09-06-06, 04:46 PM | Hellcow freely admits that he isn't the ruleslawyer in his play group. Assuming this was an intentional change instead of an unintentional oversight is serious stretching. You're missing my point, Kreistor1. Hellcow has presented an idea that makes medusas more interesting as a culture and provides a DM with a roleplaying hook when playing a medusa. You're saying "Oh, that's against the RAW. It was a mistake. The article is invalid, and they should all wear veils." I'm saying that I DON'T CARE if it was a mistake... and I would be surprised if Hellcow does either. It makes for a more interesting story, and that's what matters to me... not the fact that it violates an esoteric element of the RAW. As such, I would rather consider this a house rule when dealing with medusas than throw it out because of the rules on gaze attacks. You are free to do as you wish, but I'll take the flavor over the rules in this case. |
| Hellcow09-06-06, 04:53 PM | Kreistor1 and Dreaming Duck, you're both correct. K1, I was indeed unaware that the RAW would prevent the situation I described from working. However, if I had been, I would have simplied clarified that I intended this to BE an exception to the RAW, applying specifically to medusas. Regardless of the RAW, I prefer the idea that a medusa has to at least be looking in your direction for its gaze to be effective, and that if it's looking up and you see the whites of its eyes, you won't be affected. This article did go through WotC development, and while you could say that they slipped up as well, my opinion is that like me, they like the image... and as such, are willing to use it over the standard rules for gaze attacks. So yes, this is a house rule (albeit one published in a WotC article) that technically goes against the SRD description of gaze attacks. It's up to you to decide whether you'd rather follow the RAW or to take this approach. Just to let people know, while Dragonshards are back, they are not on a weekly schedule. I don't know what the precise schedule will be, but don't panic when you don't see one next week. |
| eehamburg09-06-06, 04:55 PM | I have always been partial to flavor and story over rules any day of the week. If the reason to roleplay is for the story, then sticking tightly to rules hampers in that ability. Rules are meant to be guidelines and not rigid codes. At least, that's my opinion. Just to let people know, while Dragonshards are back, they are not on a weekly schedule. I don't know what the precise schedule will be, but don't panic when you don't see one next week. Hellcow, anything that you are able to deliver is better than nothing at all ... so therefore, thank you for the good work. |
| Kreistor109-06-06, 05:08 PM | Cripes, I have enough of my own exceptions: I don't need my own and KB's too! Manipulating standard creatures is not a good idea. In three months, who is seriously going to remember at the game table that KB decided to change medusa gaze attacks? You'd be better off redesigning this form of the medusa as a subspecies so that it doesn't source from the PHB. |
| The Dreaming Duck09-06-06, 05:14 PM | Cripes, I have enough of my own exceptions: I don't need my own and KB's too! The thing is, you're the first person on the thread who actually paid close enough attention to the SRD to KNOW this was an exception. And that's the issue to me. I DON'T consider it an exception, because I never believed that you could be petrified by a medusa who was looking away from you in the first place. So if you are adhering 100% to the RAW and know every last detail and are concerned with every possible exception, don't use this. Obviously, there's other people who like the flavor that it provides and are more interested in that than the SRD. I am glad that Hellcow wasn't aware of the SRD ruling when he wrote this article, because I much prefer this to the SRD ruling. The SRD is about rules. But don't forget that rule zero trumps all of them. The rules are guidelines for creating a story, nothing more. KWB may not be a rules lawyer, but do you think the players in his campaign are constantly stopping him and saying "Um, excuse me, actually I think the medusa may have petrified me with its peripheral vision", or just enjoying the story? |
| Kreistor109-06-06, 06:49 PM | But does it provide flavour? What about "medusas can look at a wall to avoid petrifying people" is flavourful? It's only different. Different isn't inherently flavour, especially on something so small as this. Looking at a wall or wearing a veil are no different. Besides, Medusas aren't going to be a major part in any campaign. They are a Save or Die monster for many levels, and even after Break Enchantment, it still can be. Too much Save or Die runs through too many PC's, creating too much turnover and disrupted storylines. They will be present once, maybe twice, and then you move on to something else in order to keep the campaign interesting. Thus, it becomes such a minor and unimportant difference for the vast majority of campaigns that the flavour it adds is overwhelmed by the other monstrous elements. For most campaigns, the players will not wind up encountering a Medusa in Droaam in a civilized manner, so it's a moot change. Thus it becomes a minor little detail you have chosen to try to remember in the midst of major story elements that provide far more flavour to your campaign. |
| maollelujah09-06-06, 07:04 PM | SRD TypesSubtypesAbilities Quote: Gaze (Su): A gaze special attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature’s eyes. The attack can have almost any sort of effect: petrification, death, charm, and so on. ... The creature also can veil its eyes, thus negating its gaze ability. Actually, no, the passive form of gaze attacks do not require eye contact between the source and the target. The creature with the gaze attack must make certain its eyes are not visible to potential victims it does not want to affect, not just "not meet the gaze of a person with whom it is conversing". The eyes must not be visible at all, since the medusa does not need to specifically look at anyone for it to work. invisibility is not a defense against Gaze attacks. It is implied in the DMG that you must catch its eye. "... Tordek trusts fate and looks the thing in the eye... Jozan... accidentally catches the thing's eye..." The "Passive" form of the gaze (according to the DMG) is the medusa shifting her glance from person to person. Plus it is specifies that unless specified otherwise it can turn off its gaze attack when desired. I don't think the medusa's text says otherwise. Of course all this could've been errated. |
| The Dreaming Duck09-06-06, 07:05 PM | Looking at a wall or wearing a veil are no different... Besides, Medusas aren't going to be a major part in any campaign. They are a Save or Die monster for many levels... OK, now you HAVE entirely missed the point of the article. As I see it, what Hellcow is doing is emphasizing the fact that medusas can be MORE than just a "save or die monster" - that they can be interesting NPCs and representatives of Droaam. A party dealing with Daask on a regular basis may interact with the medusa agent on a regular basis. Likewise, in a campaign focusing on lower Sharn, PCs may get to know Kasslak; the encounter in the novel City of Towers is a perfectly good example of such a non-combat encounter. Hellcow has provided the DM with a interesting little toy to play with in such an encounter - having the medusa adjust its gaze to reflect it's opinion of the party. Now, when I'm roleplaying a medusa NPC, I will make sure that I DON'T look directly at PCs when talking to them. But will I look up, indicating disdain? Down, indicating respect? Or straight at them, but close my eyes? This is a trivial detail. The fact that it contradicts the RAW is essentially meaningless because it's intended to be used exclusively in noncombat situations. And yes, I could just say "he's wearing a veil and you can't see his eyes." But it's these trivial details that MAKE an encounter interesting to me... that make me say "These are social customs a culture has evolved because of its innate abilities." The veil is a flat option; the direction of gaze provides that extra touch of culture and customs. You don't like it. Great, don't use it. Again, RULE ZERO. If some player says "a Dragonshard said bla" you're always entitled to say "So?" Furthermore, if the medusa is never TRYING to avoid looking at you, it's irrelevent, so if you only use medusas as combat monsters, it makes no difference whatsoever. But to say that it shouldn't have been included in the article, when the majority of the people on the thread appear to like it, seems like an astonishingly close-minded attitude. Thus it becomes a minor little detail you have chosen to try to remember in the midst of major story elements that provide far more flavour to your campaign. That's right... a detail *I* have chosen to try to remember. You don't like it? DON'T remember it. I'm the judge of what adds flavor to my campaign, thank you - and I'd rather be given the CHOICE of adding this or not, than to have the designers never do anything that remotely challenges the RAW... the approach you seem to be advocating. |
| The Dreaming Duck09-06-06, 07:17 PM | Plus it is specifies that unless specified otherwise it can turn off its gaze attack when desired. Absolutely correct. "Unless specified otherwise, a creature with a gaze attack can control its gaze attack and 'turn it off ' when so desired." In which case, what Hellcow describes is simply the cosmetic description of the creature "turning off its gaze attack"... it can't actually STOP the power, but by directing its gaze away from creatures or closing its eyes, it can prevent its gaze from threatening a specific creature, while relying on its serpents for vision. In other words, this follows the RAW, but provides more flavor than saying "The medusa simply thinks 'on' and 'off' to activate and deactivate its petrifying gaze." The medusa is SUPPOSED to be able to interact with others without threatening them; this gives a description of how they accomplish it. |
| Just another user09-06-06, 07:24 PM | But does it provide flavour? What about "medusas can look at a wall to avoid petrifying people" is flavourful? It's only different. It is very different, the medusas as you picture them are very solitary creatures that avoid even each other company (afaik medusas are not immune to each other gaze) and that have even problems keeping around slaves or servants without limiting in some ways their powers. Medusas as seen by KB can have slaves, servants or even *GASP* friends as long as they try to not stare them straight in the eyes, Personally I found the second kind much more interesting, but that its just me. |
| Kreistor109-07-06, 12:53 AM | Wow! Such incredible leaps you are making concerning how I might treat Medusas. Okay, so the Medusae can turn their Gaze off. Thanks for spotting that, DD: I didn't read to the end. So why are they averting their eyes when they can just turn the gaze off in order to look at someone directly without risking accidentally ending their current existence? (Note that most people can't avert their eyes to the side for terribly long periods. It becomes painful, and the eye is attracted to motion, so unless you actually concentrate on it, your eyes will drift to unintended locations, risking the gaze effect. Try having an intense conversation with someone while watching the wall sometime and figure out how long you can actually get away with it.) You will find in an earlier post that the only difference I require is that Medusae wear veils instead of averting their eyes when encountering PC's on the medusae's home turf (and as DD notes, they can choose to turn their Gaze off anyway, so why are they even doing that?). Otherwise, my medusas in Droaam are the same as yours, and they are the same as Hellcow's Dragonshard. Now, let's look at what I said about Medusae in a campaign. I said that they will not be present for more than one or two encounters. I didn't go into the details of why. I was merely generalizing. So, let's look at the why... First, in order to even see this difference, the PC's need to encounter the Medusa on he own turf, and either be desperate enough to accept a conversation without a veil or have no choice in the matter (ie. prisoners). Without those facts in place, the players will insist on anti-gaze defenses. Second, the players and their characters must be of a mindset that they will accept negotiation with a representative of an Evil. No classic paladins. No druids from the Eldeen. And so on. If you don't have these elements controlled, the situation degenerates into Yet Another Combat. So, if you have the right kind of players and party, you could consider this interaction. But could you do it more than once to kick off a mission and a second time to end it? Saying yes leads to railroading. Your players have no choice in their interactions with the unveiled medusa. That gets old really fast. I've done this kind of thing: the first time, the players find it different. The second time, they find it annoying. Beyond that, it rankles. The players need to feel in control of their own fates: taking that away leads to complaint. Since most DM's can expect the PC's to end such a situation violently, a DM can't force this issue too long. Thus, the number of medusa encounters is fundamentally limited by the players' concerns for the survivability of their characters and their requirement of control over the fates of their characters. _______ maollelujah: SRD: A gaze special attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature’s eyes. That sounds pretty clear to me. It activates when the opponent looks at the creature's eyes, not "into the creature's eyes." So it only requires the eyes to be visible, and the creature's choice of direction of vision is irrelevent. When the creature chooses to use the gaze as an attack, you'll note that covering the target's eyes is not a defense. |
| Lafarallin09-07-06, 01:01 AM | Wow! Such incredible leaps you are making concerning how I might treat Medusas. Okay, so the Medusae can turn their Gaze off. Thanks for spotting that, DD: I didn't read to the end. So why are they averting their eyes when they can just turn the gaze off in order to look at someone directly without risking accidentally ending their current existence? (Note that most people can't avert their eyes to the side for terribly long periods. It becomes painful, and the eye is attracted to motion, so unless you actually concentrate on it, your eyes will drift to unintended locations, risking the gaze effect. Try having an intense conversation with someone while watching the wall sometime and figure out how long you can actually get away with it.) You will find in an earlier post that the only difference I require is that Medusae wear veils instead of averting their eyes when encountering PC's on the medusae's home turf (and as DD notes, they can choose to turn their Gaze off anyway, so why are they even doing that?). Otherwise, my medusas in Droaam are the same as yours, and they are the same as Hellcow's Dragonshard. Now, let's look at what I said about Medusae in a campaign. I said that they will not be present for more than one or two encounters. I didn't go into the details of why. I was merely generalizing. So, let's look at the why... First, in order to even see this difference, the PC's need to encounter the Medusa on he own turf, and either be desperate enough to accept a conversation without a veil or have no choice in the matter (ie. prisoners). Without those facts in place, the players will insist on anti-gaze defenses. Second, the players and their characters must be of a mindset that they will accept negotiation with a representative of an Evil. No classic paladins. No druids from the Eldeen. And so on. If you don't have these elements controlled, the situation degenerates into Yet Another Combat. So, if you have the right kind of players and party, you could consider this interaction. But could you do it more than once to kick off a mission and a second time to end it? Saying yes leads to railroading. Your players have no choice in their interactions with the unveiled medusa. That gets old really fast. I've done this kind of thing: the first time, the players find it different. The second time, they find it annoying. Beyond that, it rankles. The players need to feel in control of their own fates: taking that away leads to complaint. Since most DM's can expect the PC's to end such a situation violently, a DM can't force this issue too long. Thus, the number of medusa encounters is fundamentally limited by the players' concerns for the survivability of their characters and their requirement of control over the fates of their characters. _______ maollelujah: SRD: That sounds pretty clear to me. It activates when the opponent looks at the creature's eyes, not "into the creature's eyes." So it only requires the eyes to be visible, and the creature's choice of direction of vision is irrelevent. When the creature chooses to use the gaze as an attack, you'll note that covering the target's eyes is not a defense. Again I think you're missing the point. Nobody is arguing that your interpretation of RAW was wrong or right. I just happen to think the way Keith wrote them up was pretty interesting and a new twist on the old views. The whole concept of how they look when talking to superiors and/or equals was pretty intriguing and a nice glimpse into the medusa culture, I never would have thought of myself. I like it and a few here obviously do too. Nobody is arguing that how you view them is wrong. I just have to say that Keith's view of them just makes sense to me. It makes me look at them in a different light then I had and I find it much more realistic (at least as realistic as a fantasy creature in a game of make believe can be). I am kind of confused why you keep arguing this back and forth with people. |
| Nived09-07-06, 01:06 AM | You're making several assumptions. Yes HUMAN eyes are attracted to movement, and HUMAN eyes hurt if purposefully averted too long. Medusa aren't human, hell they're not even mammals. Their eyes turn people to freaking stone! A safe assumption is they work DIFFERENTLY than human eyes, not similar. Second we've established medusa can turn their gaze on and off. However the question is 'how'. You're assumingthat its just a matter of will, they can look at anything they want to so long as they will the power off. This is a perfectly valid interpretation and manner of play. Another perfectly valid interpretation and manner of play is they just 'will' themselves not to look anything directly in the eye. There's no specification in the almighty RAW that either is right or wrong it's a matter of DM choice. If you don't care for the later that's fine. That's cool, but it seems you seem to want to tell people that playing this way is 'wrong', and that's not cool. Personally I never gave the creature much thought, but I think Keith's interpretation is interesting and adds a bit of depth. Second, just becasue your players will assume that any encounter with a medusa on their 'home turf' will end in combat doesn't mean it has to. The key theme of the Eberron campaign I'm running defied expectations, going against standard D&D expectations. Their villians have been things typically thought of as 'good' creatures, and their allies have been typically 'evil' things. They're Karrns, a Bone Knight, a Warlock, and a Paladin (say what?). Oh the IC arguements are fantastic, and if I went by the RAW the Karrnathi Paladin would have lost all his powers because the Bone Knights steed is 'evil', and they rode into battle together. But I didn't because I'm DEFYING EXPECTATIONS! Now I STRONGLY want to incorporate a medusa ambasidor from Droaam to work itself into the story because this article has stuck me as interesting. |
| Ellorin09-07-06, 03:35 AM | Another great Dragonshard, and about one of my favourite races( in Eberron, at least) and sites! I still wonder about the fabled medusa architecture style. Right now I'm between 2 ancient greek styles ( I just can't escape from tradition): a)the colourful, labyrinth-like, usually slender-pillared Minoan ( it must be the snakes, I know, I know) and b)the plain robust Dorian. Most marble has given its place to stone though. Of course, they must be edited in order to satisfy a non-human sense of aesthetics. Has anyone else given thought to that? |
| Korhal_IV09-07-06, 03:57 AM | At ConQuest in San Francisco, Keith told the seminar audience that he had four Dragonshards in the pipeline, and that there'd be one on a power from Droaam. He also speculated (speculated! mind you!) that they would be alternating with Eberron Expanded articles - EE one week, DS the other, etc. So if Keith guessed right, we can look forward to an EE article next week. :) At ConQuest he also asked for Dragonshard topics - I suggested one on the heirs of the Lhesh Haruuc - who's in the running, who's not? - and he seemed to like that one, so who knows? We might get some attention for the OTHER monstrous nation! :D |
| Syltorian09-07-06, 06:20 AM | Excellent Dragonshard! Before I read it, I did not particularily feel like including medusas into my campaign, but the cultural aspects and the depth given to the medusas here has definetly changed that! :) So why are they averting their eyes when they can just turn the gaze off in order to look at someone directly without risking accidentally ending their current existence? Assuming they can (in Eberron, as opposed to generic D&D), because it is as much a symbolic gesture as a practical one. They express feelings and social relations - disdain or respect, trust or submission. Even in human cultures, it could be considered an insult to look a superior directly into his eyes, as that implies a challenge or at least equality. It might be completely artificial, but it is still valid as a cultural expression; perhaps like the nuances of bowing to each other in some Asian cultures indicates social relations between two people. Veils can shield others from their gaze, but they cannot express as many nuances as the averting the gaze. Second, the players and their characters must be of a mindset that they will accept negotiation with a representative of an Evil. No classic paladins. No druids from the Eldeen. And so on. How are Medusas (in Eberron) "representative of an Evil"? The Dragonshard states quite clearly that, while many are arrogant, they are "no more inherently evil than humans or elves". Classic paladins might not want to talk to them, but they are working of very intolerant and specieist preconceptions. Gatekeepers might have an issue depending on whether or not they believe there is some Daelkyr influence, but Medusas are not aberrations. Thus no, Medusas in Eberron are not evil. Much less representative of Evil with capital E. But could you do it more than once to kick off a mission and a second time to end it? Yes; for example by having the players live in the Kingdom of Stone without being either slaves or prisoners. For example: envoys of House Tharashk to talk about dragonshard mining rights, Karrnathi diplomats seeking more ties with the Medusa Queen, adventurers hired by the Daughters of Sora Kell to investigate the loyalty of the medusas, or by Breland to work out a plan of rebellion against Droaam. They would spent days in a town almost exclusively made up of medusas, hopefully without slaughtering the lot. Is any of this railroading the players? The PCs might still insist on gaze protections - after all, they could have heard about the petrifying gaze of medusas without knowing anything else about their culture. But do they also require other creatures, such as humans or elves, to peace-bind their weapons when they engage in talks? To a low-level character, a sword can be as deadly as a medusa's gaze, so they would have to refuse to talk to a human without asking him to peace-bind his sword, or to a warforged without asking him to take off his armblade first. |
| Loki565409-07-06, 06:24 AM | I, personally, see no conflict between the RAW and Keith's idea. I imagine it like walking aroung with a loaded gun pointed directly at whatever I'm looking at. Sure, I can choose whether or not to fire it, but the people I point it at would still be nervous about it. So, depending on how much I like a person, I might look away, pointing my gun away from them. On another note, I really like the "passive snake-vision" and the Serpentine language. Very cool. |
| maollelujah09-07-06, 07:47 AM | When the creature chooses to use the gaze as an attack, you'll note that covering the target's eyes is not a defense. I believe it is a defense. From the DMG/MMIII: "...that opponent must attempt a saving throw but can try to avoid this as described above." Described above is averting his/her eyes or wearing a blindfold/closing one's eyes. That sounds pretty clear to me. It activates when the opponent looks at the creature's eyes, not "into the creature's eyes." So it only requires the eyes to be visible, and the creature's choice of direction of vision is irrelevent. This line isn't in the DMG, but surprisingly in the MMs... by the fluff in the DMG one would've guessed it was the other way around. |
| eehamburg09-07-06, 11:35 AM | No one is attacking the statement of what the rules say. But where is it written that rules have to be rigid and unmoveable and have strict interpretations? Can someone point that out to me? What sourcebook says this EXACTLY? |
| DragonWatcher09-07-06, 01:40 PM | Umm... the dictionary? An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest. |
| Kreistor109-07-06, 02:49 PM | Well, this took a while becuase I had to rewrite it. The dead time nuked my response. *sigh* Nobody is arguing that your interpretation of RAW was wrong or right. Nobody besides mao, you mean. Nobody is arguing that how you view them is wrong. No, but people talk to me. So I talk back. Nature of a conversation and all. It makes me look at them in a different light then I had and I find it much more realistic. Realistic is a subjective term. Realism is based on our own perception and experience, so what's realistic to you may be a gross violation of realism to someone else. That's why I never accept a "realism" argument when discussing rules. That isn't me saying you are wrong in deciding this is more real. All I am saying is that it is realer to you, and that's fine, but it's not an argument someone else can accept, since their sense of realism is based on different knowledge and experience. I remain neutral on the subject of whether it is more real based on my own sense of realism. You're making several assumptions. I assume my legs aren’t going to collapse when I stand up. I freely admit to making assumptions: no one can live without them. Yes HUMAN eyes are attracted to movement… Actually, that isn’t an assumption. Eyes have developed something like 7 times independently during the course of evolution. They all work fairly similarly. One of the common features is the attraction to movement. It’s a survival mechanism. If they aren’t attracted to movement, the predator has a better chance of sneaking up on you or the prey has a better chance of avoiding your attention. It is entirely reasonable to retain that quality in all predator and prey, living or dead. Second we've established medusa can turn their gaze on and off. Which obliviates the need to divert the medusa’s eyes or wear a veil, and that changes the whole need for KB’s change. She can turn it off and look straight at you. That’s much more frightening. Frightening is flavourful. :) Another perfectly valid interpretation and manner of play is they just 'will' themselves not to look anything directly in the eye. That I’ll discuss a moment. Given that a medusa’s allies are not invulnerable to her gaze, the medusa’s choice to not look at them is not the only factor involved; thus, it is not a valid interpretation that the only requirement is the medusa’s choice to divert her eyes. Note: when you talk about “interpretation” you are talking about “interpreting the rules”. If you intended this sentence to have a different meaning (ie. “perfectly valid implementation” suggesting you could play the medusa differently), then you’ll need to clarify. If you talk about interpretation, then you are stepping into rules lawyering territory. There's no specification in the almighty RAW that either is right or wrong it's a matter of DM choice. Really? An incorrect interpretation is a valid interpretation? No. You can choose to implement your own rule, but if you interpret the rules, there should be only one valid interpretation. You can implement your own rules, but that isn’t interpreting rules. And, I have my own houserules, so I don't view the RAW as almighty. I limit my houserules to much less than what I think is realistic, because my players cannot be expected to predict what I find real or not. They need a firm foundation for making their choices, not the quicksand of arbitrariness. So, I try to stick to RAW even though my own opinion on a rule's accuracy is different from WotC’s, for my players’ sakes. There are also DM’s here that do want to play to the RAW, for whatever reason. If you don’t like the RAW, then ignore my comments on it. Some people do want it, and it is those people I provide my insights for. Your admonitions against it are irrelevant to their needs. That's cool, but it seems you seem to want to tell people that playing this way is 'wrong', and that's not cool. Checking back, I never used the word “wrong”. If you are going to quote me, then quote me. I say enough that you shouldn’t need to invent things I didn’t say. I say enough that people do have a problem with: I don’t need you inventing more for them to have a problem with that I never said. *Land of Confusion just started playing. Disturbed version. Highly appropriate to this thread.* just becasue your players will assume that any encounter with a medusa on their 'home turf' will end in combat doesn't mean it has to. I didn’t say my players would. I think I’ve already referenced the fact they have had to deal with a fiendish dragon and a vampire (on their home turf, though I didn’t mention that detail) already, and they got through both without resorting to a TPK. (BTW, my players come from the good spectrum, meaning they do have issues with these situations.) But it is not typical, in reading the threads about other DM’s stories on these forums. Most players overreact, react with severity, or are otherwise unable to deal with the moral ambiguities of this kind of situation. The reason can be player related or character related. Now I STRONGLY want to incorporate a medusa ambasidor from Droaam to work itself into the story because this article has stuck me as interesting. That’s great. I could, but my storyline has been to and left Droaam already. I’ve got a Green Hag (not a DoSK) lined up that might be the next un-nice social encounter and mission provider… it could also be a combat. That’s up to the PC’s. because it is as much a symbolic gesture as a practical one KB wrote it as a solution to the practical problem of conversing without stoning your audience. But if you treat it as a symbol, it presents these concepts to the players: 1) I can kill you at whim, merely by choosing to look at you without warning. 2) I don’t care that you are concerned for your life while speaking with you. 3) I lack the basic politeness to level the playing field during this conversation. That’s not a very diplomatic symbolic gesture. It would end any conversation before it began. If you want diplomacy, you have to be diplomatic. If you want war, then you ignore basic diplomacy. Veils can shield others from their gaze, but they cannot express as many nuances as the averting the gaze. Borrowing a page from Nived, I’ll point out that as an alien creature, body language and facial expression for the medusae may not be the same as human, making it difficult to determine these things in the first place. That’s DM discretion stuff, so entirely implementation rather than interpretation. I really only find it ironic that I can use Nived against you. :P How are Medusas (in Eberron) "representative of an Evil"? The Dragonshard states quite clearly that, while many are arrogant, they are "no more inherently evil than humans or elves". As diplomats of the Daughters of Sora Kell, the medusae are Representatives of Evil, regardless of their personal alignments. The DoSK have long histories of capriciousness (note the broad expositions on the DoSK in the My players want to kill the Daughters of Sora Kell thread which I'm not hunting the link down for), and do happen to be Fiendish (according to the Dragonshard), which pretty much makes them Evil with the capital ‘E’. So, Representatives of Evil is an accurate term for the medusae of Droaam. For example: envoys of House Tharashk to talk about dragonshard mining rights, Karrnathi diplomats seeking more ties with the Medusa Queen, adventurers hired by the Daughters of Sora Kell to investigate the loyalty of the medusas, or by Breland to work out a plan of rebellion against Droaam. None of these people would accept an audience without the medusa veiling, and the medusa would be rude beyond reason to insist on an audience without it. It's a deal breaker: you don't expect an economic discussion to take place under the imminent and accidental threat of death. None of these people would trust a representative of the Hags, and neither would the medusa expect them to trust her. As a basic survival requirement, these people will insist on gaze protections. Of course, the medusa would also expect peace binding, or even a compete lack of weapons, so yes, what's good for the goose... . If the medusa has a dozen Ogres for guards, well, she just may not care about the visitors’ weapons, which is symbolic in its own way. |
| eehamburg09-07-06, 02:49 PM | Umm... the dictionary? Oh ...so you never bend or break rules? Every speed limit you follow? You never litter? You never get drunk in public? Or anything that could be against the law? Those are rules. The point here is that RULES in roleplaying are guidelines. They help establish a theme for organized play. That doesn't mean that a DM can't change them and do something different. There is no one from WotC standing over each DM with a gun telling them to do it their way or else. You always have the freedom to do as you please. You can choose to like some things and not like others. It is that simple. |
| Kreistor109-07-06, 02:54 PM | I believe it is a defense. From the DMG/MMIII: "...that opponent must attempt a saving throw but can try to avoid this as described above." Okay, I can accept that. However... SRD Allies of a creature with a gaze attack might be affected. All the creature’s allies are considered to be averting their eyes from the creature with the gaze attack, and have a 50% chance to not need to make a saving throw against the gaze attack each round. The gazing creature can do nothing except veil its eyes or turn off its gaze attack in order to protect allies. there is no provision for the gazing creature to not look at its allies to avoid the gaze hitting them. |
| Kreistor109-07-06, 02:56 PM | eehamburg, who are you speaking to in #36? |
| eehamburg09-07-06, 03:07 PM | K1: I was referring to Dragonwatcher. I get annoyed when people quote the RAW as absolute and say that things can only be done one way as if DMs aren't allowed to have house rules or aren't allowed to decide for themselves as to how they want to run their games. |
| Kreistor109-07-06, 03:17 PM | Okay, I think you're overreacting. Technically, Dragonwatcher is correct. If they are rules, then the dictionary definition applies. You're choosing to see them as guidelines, which have a different definition. It is a matter of choice. Some look at them as rules, others as guidelines, and there is no sense getting riled up because of the other group. They don't hurt you, and you don't hurt them. But note, you need people's help, which people here try to provide, and the group that view the books as rules need help too. Those people deserve help as much as you. |
| DragonWatcher09-07-06, 03:34 PM | Oh ...so you never bend or break rules? Every speed limit you follow? You never litter? You never get drunk in public? Or anything that could be against the law? Those are rules. The point here is that RULES in roleplaying are guidelines. They help establish a theme for organized play. That doesn't mean that a DM can't change them and do something different. There is no one from WotC standing over each DM with a gun telling them to do it their way or else. You always have the freedom to do as you please. You can choose to like some things and not like others. It is that simple. LOL... okay, calm down a bit. You asked a question, and I provided you with a simple and true answer to the question asked. Nothing more, nothing less. By their very nature, rules are supposed to be rigid and have strict interpretation. Now, does that mean that you can't break the rules? Of course not! However, in some cases doing so can have an effect that you either don't want, or don't expect. Does this mean that you can't use other rules? Again... the choice is yours. However, when it comes right down to it, whatever rules you decide to play with, rules themselves are rigid and there to be followed. Without everyone following the same rules, it can be difficult (if not impossible) to be playing the same game. Now, since I answered your first question, allow me to answer this deluge by saying that other than occasionally breaking the speedlimit within a few mph, I don't do any of the other things that you mention, though thank you for clarifying what rules are. Let me just say that if I did get caught doing any of those things, there would almost certainly be some form of punishment for doing so. Let me also say that while you're absolutely correct that any DM can make up whatever rules they want, once they make them up, they are generally enforced. So, whichever rules you choose to enforce in your game are still rigid and unmovable... otherwise they're NOT rules. BTW... I personally LOVE the Dragonshard, and regardless of the exact wording of how a Gaze attack is supposed to work, I will be using the suggested guidelines... no... rules, for Medusa Etiquette in my game as well. I personally feel that describing a Medusa "turning off" its Gaze attack by directing it's Gaze elsewhere (with implied meaning behind where it's directed) is a flavorful and interesting twist that has more draw to me than just saying "It's wearing a veil". However, if K1 wants veils, or just a direct Gaze with the power turned off... more power to him. He too, is free to use whatever rules HE deems fit! :D |
| eehamburg09-07-06, 03:35 PM | Okay, I think you're overreacting. Technically, Dragonwatcher is correct. If they are rules, then the dictionary definition applies. You're choosing to see them as guidelines, which have a different definition. It is a matter of choice. Some look at them as rules, others as guidelines, and there is no sense getting riled up because of the other group. They don't hurt you, and you don't hurt them. But note, you need people's help, which people here try to provide, and the group that view the books as rules need help too. Those people deserve help as much as you. I don't disagree. I wasn't really getting riled up. I just don't like people arbitrarily telling me that I need to do something or that I am wrong on something that a matter of opinion in the first place. No biggie. |
| eehamburg09-07-06, 03:42 PM | BTW... I personally LOVE the Dragonshard, and regardless of the exact wording of how a Gaze attack is supposed to work, I will be using the suggested guidelines... no... rules, for Medusa Etiquette in my game as well. I personally feel that describing a Medusa "turning off" its Gaze attack by directing it's Gaze elsewhere (with implied meaning behind where it's directed) is a flavorful and interesting twist that has more draw to me than just saying "It's wearing a veil". And that is all that I am saying ... if you enjoyed it and you think that you can use it, then all the power to you. |
| The Dreaming Duck09-07-06, 04:00 PM | Checking back, I never used the word “wrong”. If you are going to quote me, then quote me. Fair enough, I will. Just a small oversight on the editing team's part. No biggie. So they wear a veil. Problem solved. This is the statement that got me from the start. True, you do not use the word "wrong". However, the intent of the statement is "the article is flawed, you should not do what it says, and should instead use the solution I supply." Dragonshards are, by their nature, optional material. No one has to use them. Hellcow himself has stated that even if he was aware of the RAW ruling on gaze attacks, he would have left this as is but perhaps clarified it further. You don't say it's "wrong". But you say that it's something the editing team should have removed, at least if they were as smart as you. All I'm saying is that I'm glad they chose not to. I'd rather have the setting creator explore the world as he sees fit than throw out interesting ideas because of possible conflict with minutiae of the RAW that *I* as a DM wasn't even aware of until you brought it up. She can turn it off and look straight at you. That’s much more frightening. Frightening is flavourful. You are entitled to your opinion, and you can use it in your game and take satisfaction in the fact that the RAW back you up. For ME, a medusa having an "off switch" in its head isn't flavorful at all. A medusa closing its eyes and looking at you through the eyes of its snakes? That's flavorful and explores the relationship between the medusa and these serpents. Saying that basilisks and medusas all just have magical mental off buttons? That's boring... to me. Your mileage will, of course, vary. The gazing creature can do nothing except veil its eyes or turn off its gaze attack in order to protect allies. Right. Key words here: "Turn off its gaze attack." It cannot make use of its gaze attack while protecting its allies. However, the whole issue is what it means to "turn off its gaze attack." By the rules, the creature can ensure that its gaze is a threat to no one. This could be because it just thinks "stop gaze!" and the gaze power stops - which seems to be your preference in the matter. It could be because it is capable of closing its eyes and seeing through other means, as Hellcow has suggested by letting it see through its snakes - so it "turns off" its gaze and can still see, but it can't actually stop its eyes from working. Or you could allow it to intentionally direct its gaze in a harmless direction, provided it is harmless to all beings. It cannot attack one creature with its gaze and shield another from it. But it can, by the rules, make its gaze harmless. So given that, all we are doing is arguing about a cosmetic detail: what is the appearance of a medusa with this harmless gaze? I am perfectly willing to consider what the Dragonshard describes as an example of a medusa intentionally choosing to make its gaze harmless. You're not, you prefer the deactivation of the gaze and think that's frightening and flavorful, and that's great. I'm simply glad that the editing team DID make this oversight and gave me something I like and wouldn't have thought of on my own. From the very begining, my reason for arguing has been your statement that the editing team made a mistake in letting this reach us. You can choose not to use it. But if I'd never seen it, I wouldn't have had the opportunity TO use it. And I'm glad that they erred on the side of providing more options, instead of limiting them. As for the whole "dictionary definition of rules" thing - much as I realize it's not a serious argument - I'll point out that the DMG is chock full of "You're the DM, in the end you decide, you may change the rules if you wish to do so." THe rules are general guidelines, but every DM has the privilege of doing what's right for his table. The job of the DM is to entertain. The rules provide a framework for that, nothing more. |
| Just another user09-07-06, 04:01 PM | KB wrote it as a solution to the practical problem of conversing without stoning your audience. But if you treat it as a symbol, it presents these concepts to the players: 1) I can kill you at whim, merely by choosing to look at you without warning. 2) I don’t care that you are concerned for your life while speaking with you. 3) I lack the basic politeness to level the playing field during this conversation. That’s not a very diplomatic symbolic gesture. It would end any conversation before it began. If you want diplomacy, you have to be diplomatic. If you want war, then you ignore basic diplomacy. Yes, And exactly how those sentences would be different if you are dealing with a dragon, the daughters of Sora Kell, an high level wizard, Oalian or any other of a number of creature in Korvhaine and outside? or your player when dealing with i.e. mordain pretend that he is blinded, tied and put in a field of antimagic? Or when dealing with an high level figther (in his home, mind you) they pretend he is disarmed and chained to a wall because else he could decide to kill them? Try yo revert the reasoning, if you are a medusa in your own turf why you should accept to limit yourself wearing a veil to deal with some human? Why you should even accept to wear a veil, maybe they don't trust you? That is not exactly the better attitude to try start to start for a deal, isn't it? if some human come to your house and want to talk with you either they trust you enough that you don't turn them into statue (and don't give you a reason to do it) or they can wear a blindfold if they are so afraid. Borrowing a page from Nived, I’ll point out that as an alien creature, body language and facial expression for the medusae may not be the same as human, making it difficult to determine these things in the first place. That’s DM discretion stuff, so entirely implementation rather than interpretation. IIRC there are no penalties for sense motive checks where medusas are involved neither them have bonuses for bluff.. |
| Kreistor109-07-06, 04:30 PM | But you say that it's something the editing team should have removed, at least if they were as smart as you. Okay, I come across as arrogant. Guilty. ;) But I characterized is as a "small oversight". I hope you give me some credit for trying to sooth injured egos. Also, note I pointed at the editing team, not Hellcow. I know he isn't a ruleslawyer, so I would never blame him for something like this. I think a lot of people jumped on me because they thought I was attacking him. That's how I view this thread: people defending KB against Kreistor. It's a chance to play the hero. *I* as a DM wasn't even aware of until you brought it up. Now, that I think you should be concerned about. I'm not one to advocate adherence to the rules, but when you choose a different implementation, you should know that you changed something and why. That you don't know can lead to an argument at the table. A DM needs to know the basics of the monsters he introduces, even if he isn't a Ruleslawyer. You're saying that you didn't, and here you are jumping right into throwing the medusa into your campaign. For ME, a medusa having an "off switch" in its head isn't flavorful at all. I think we're viewing flavour from different perspectives. My only concern wiht flavour is how the players react to something, not how I react. If me players encounter a medusa that is looking directly into their eyes, staring deep into them, it comes across as the medusa mocking their weakness and presenting its power. My players would hear the visual "She is constantly looking into the corner of the room." and just shrug their shoulders. Even if you add, "One of the snakes is staring directly at you", it doesn't have that kick to it. Looking away from someone is an indicator of either fear or a self-esteem issue. From the player's perspective, it is an indicator of weakness. From the very beginning, my reason for arguing has been your statement that the editing team made a mistake in letting this reach us. Well, that's a small assumption. I have said elsewhere that it was the editing team's job to either fix it, or point out the deviation. It's okay to deviate. It's not okay to deviate without pointing out that you're deviating. |
| Kreistor109-07-06, 04:36 PM | if you are a medusa in your own turf why you should accept to limit yourself wearing a veil to deal with some human? Because the medusa has something to gain? That's the usual reason to negotiate. Why you should even accept to wear a veil, maybe they don't trust you? Of course they don't trust the medusa, and the medusa doesn't trust them. So the medusa wouldn't want weapons present, and neither would the humans. Of course, the humans view being turned into stone as a weapon... That is not exactly the better attitude to try start to start for a deal, isn't it? If you want someone to trust you, then demonstrate trust yourself. So, the medusa, if it wants to gain something, better start the negotiation with a veil, or she is presenting her own position as one that she requires her weapons, so she demonstrates her lack of faith. if some human come to your house and want to talk with you either they trust you enough that you don't turn them into statue (and don't give you a reason to do it) or they can wear a blindfold if they are so afraid. If a neighbour comes to my house, and I have a gun in my hand, I don't expect negotiations to proceed beyond him saying, "I'm going to run from you now." |
| Just another user09-07-06, 04:47 PM | Keistor, the problem is, The medusa is just wearing a veil, she could remove it at any moment, with a free or at worse a standard action. If those people can trust her to not remove the veil why can't they just trust her to not use her gaze upon them? And how medusas are different for any of a large number of monsters in Korvhaine and out of it? when your PC go to talk to Jalea ask for her to be blinded and tied because she could kill them with a spell on a whim? (because she could), when they go to talk with a wizard of accademy of Aundair they ask to talk in a antimagic zone because he could cast disintegrate on them on a whim? When they have a metting with the daughters of sora kell they should refuse because they could kill them? There is a lot of creatures in korvhaine that could kill the PCs on a whim, medusa are no exceptions and are no different. |
| Kreistor109-07-06, 04:51 PM | Yes, to a certain extent it is perception of threat, rather than actual threat. But, as with Law, perception of a threat is enough for the person on the receiving end to determine there is a threat. Not knowing that the threat is easy to enact or difficult to enact doesn't matter. The victim feels threatened, and that's all that matters from their perspective. |
| The Dreaming Duck09-07-06, 05:00 PM | That's how I view this thread: people defending KB against Kreistor. It's a chance to play the hero. Which to me simply comes off as more arrogance: you're the wounded martyr, trying to defend the pristine rules from blind KB-worshippers. Furthermore, it carries the underlying assumption that we are sheep, defending the idea not because it's good but because we want to be little Baker-puppies. So thanks for that. In point of fact this isn't about defending KB at all. It's about the question of what I want from Dragonshards. I would rather have a Dragonshard - which is, after all, an optional article - present interesting ideas that may deviate from the standard rules, instead of being limited by strict interpretation of the rules. KB can and does make mistakes. There are many Dragonshards I disagree with and don't use. But I'm glad to have been given the OPPORTUNITY to use them. And that's what I'm saying here. It's not about KB's ego, or yours. It's about the fact that I like this particular idea, and I'm glad that the editing team didn't decide to throw it out because it goes against one possible interpretation of the RAW. Now, that I think you should be concerned about. Fair enough. But if that's the case, shouldn't YOU be worried about it too? After all... Okay, so the Medusae can turn their Gaze off. Thanks for spotting that, DD: I didn't read to the end. ;) (Though, smug smiley aside, it is very decent of you to acknowledge when you've missed something, and certainly counterbalances the appearance of arrogance elsewhere.) A DM needs to know the basics of the monsters he introduces, even if he isn't a Ruleslawyer. You're saying that you didn't, and here you are jumping right into throwing the medusa into your campaign. Not at all. What I'm saying is that I know the basics of the monster... what I lacked was the minutiae, which it seems you did as well. And given that I was going to allow a medusa to render its gaze harmless (albeit by misdirection) and the rules do it fact allow it to do so, it seems I was even on the right track. ;) It's all about your group. I understand your point, I believe: that if I ran an encounter with a medusa, I allowed it to have allies, and it petrified an enemy without threatening an ally, and a player said "Hey, that's cheating"... the game could devolve into an argument, the players could be unhappy, and so on. They could justifiably feel that I cheated and broke the rules to their detriment. However, I know my players. They AREN'T the type to challenge DM rulings, and frankly, THEY don't care what the SRD says about gaze attacks. They are there for the STORY, not the rules. They know that a medusa has a deadly gaze. If I decided a medusa's gaze only worked when it actively designated a target and that it NEVER affected an ally, they would accept it... as long as I was consistent in my ruling, and didn't change it the next time we played. I might be a TERRIBLE DM if I was running for you and your players, and I'm the first to admit it. But for my group, my knowledge of the basics is certainly satisfactory. I think we're viewing flavour from different perspectives... My players would hear the visual "She is constantly looking into the corner of the room." and just shrug their shoulders. We are looking at things differently. The point is, I'd look down when speaking to the player (not simply tell him "she's looking down"), and I'd let the House Tharashk PC make a knowledge check to realize that "The fact that she's lowering her eyes is a sign of respect - she's acknowledging your superior position." This, in turn, would be information the PC might be able to use to his advantage in his negotiation. At my table, conversation is often more important than combat, and details like that ARE important. The fact that it's a medusa is on its own enough to scare them. The fact that someone with the right background and knowledge can actually deduce something about her attitude from her behavior is what I consider flavor. And I find the meeting-the-gaze-with-eyes-closed to be scarier (and thus, more flavorful) than meeting-the-gaze-with-open-eyes-but-nothing-happens. With eyes closed, it DOES say "If I opened my eyes, you'd be dead." If the eyes are open, my PCs will be saying "That's really weird. I thought medusas had a petrifying gaze. Why is nothing happening?" At which point I could say "Well, the rules say she can deactivate it..." but again, that's going to lack resonance for them. They know she has a deadly gaze. Closing the eyes or looking away keeps it as a threat that follows the rules they expect. Looking right at them with nothing happening is just puzzling, because it's based on a rule they don't know. |
| Lafarallin09-07-06, 05:04 PM | You know the funny thing? When I run an adventure I almost never look in a Monster Manual. I basically figure around how many hit points something will have, what ac, and only look if I can't figure out a special power or defense. I basically wing it using the monster manual as a guideline. If the players are having too easy of a time with something that should be much more challenging (lucky rolls, etc..) I make it tougher on the fly or add a little something. So I must really suck as a DM in some of your views. Often I don't even roll dice if it is storyline related!! I know! I suck! |
| The Dreaming Duck09-07-06, 05:06 PM | If a neighbour comes to my house, and I have a gun in my hand, I don't expect negotiations to proceed beyond him saying, "I'm going to run from you now." Of course, this is a world in which ANYONE could be a sorcerer, wizard, warlock, or other class capable of producing effects far worse than any gun with no obvious weapons whatsoever. More important, the article actually provides an answer to this issue: eyeblinders. These ARE the socially accepted way for a medusa to interact with humans, and I would expect a medusa ambassador engaged in formal negotiatons to wear eyeblinders. The whole business of directing the gaze is primarily a matter of culture within medusa society. With that said, even if a medusa is wearing eyeblinders, I'd expect it to direct its eyes as it would based on attidude, because that's social as well as convenient; in either case, it's using its serpents for sight, so it doesn't matter if it's wearing the eyeblinders or not. But the article DOES include a clear mechanism for medusas to employ when they wish to put people they are negotiating with at ease... and one with a little more weight than a veil. But don't mind me, I'm just a sheep trying to be a hero by defending KB. ;) |
| Kreistor109-07-06, 05:36 PM | you're the wounded martyr, trying to defend the pristine rules from blind KB-worshippers. Interesting observation, but this hasn't been about the rules since the first couple posts. (At the very least, my own position was validated by KB, so I was done there, if others hadn't failed to notice his post.) Most of this is about the implications of a change, often socially. What are the implications of a Medusa not wearing a veil when interacting? How can it happen, when would it not happen? Those are implementation, not rules. It's about opinion concering human reactions to alien threats. it is very decent of you to acknowledge when you've missed something, and certainly counterbalances the appearance of arrogance elsewhere.) I have no issues with my ego, and that is the most common mistake most people make about me. I can admit my own mistakes, apologize, and move on. So you'll notice that I am very careful in my wording when I brought up that arrogance thing. I don't think of myself as arrogant: I only know that others accuse me of that trait; thus, I have the appearance of arrogance. No one can accurately judge their own outward appearance: you don't have an external perspective of yourself, so that if someone points out that I'm arrogant, uness I can determine it is a malicious insult, then I have to admit that I give that appearance. Usually, I find the accusers are people that never bother noticing that I admit mistakes, constantly check and recheck my sources, and do my best to be accurate. Basically, I may come across as a know-it-all, but really, I merely try to make sure I know what I know, and as much as I possibly can. I might be a TERRIBLE DM if I was running for you and your players I suspect you'd change your ways in response to your players requirements. If the eyes are open, my PCs will be saying "That's really weird. I thought medusas had a petrifying gaze. Why is nothing happening?" At which point I could say "Well, the rules say she can deactivate it..." Well, now, I think you're missing an opportunity. You're into acting as the monster where possible -- I mean you describe yourself speaking with your head down as if you're the medusa. Have you ever talked to someone and stared into their eyes intently, without looking away? It puts people off, makes them uncomfortable, even as it tells them that the only thing you're thinking about is them. It is an effective tool. How do I know? Heh, I do it unintentionally. I used to be a "look-awayer" when I was very young, and I happened across something that said eye-contact makes people realize you think they're important. I guess I went overboard. Now I do it to much, and people squirm. When I think medusa, I think "Make people squirm..." not "respect". I don't think I want to give medusas entirely human desires and emotions. I like the predator superiority plays for them over herbivore herd respectful interaction. Predators understand the need to sheathe their claws. Your looking away does indicate a predator's submissive reaction, but it disallows the predator's binocular vision focusing on prey. Anyway, huge digression, sorry. Now, see, this is one of those "reality" discussions to which there is no correct answer. It's all opinion. I love opinion, so I'm not saying we should drop it, just don't take anything personally. Reality is perception so different perceptions result in different realities. |
| Kreistor109-07-06, 05:37 PM | So I must really suck as a DM in some of your views. Our views don't matter. Only your players' views matter. |
| Kreistor109-07-06, 05:47 PM | With that said, even if a medusa is wearing eyeblinders, I'd expect it to direct its eyes as it would based on attidude, because that's social as well as convenient; in either case, it's using its serpents for sight, so it doesn't matter if it's wearing the eyeblinders or not. But the article DOES include a clear mechanism for medusas to employ when they wish to put people they are negotiating with at ease... and one with a little more weight than a veil. Okay, I agree with that, but I believe it indicates this is only outside Droaam. A medusa can not be happy with such a device in place. I can't imagine the medusa choosing to wear it on her own turf. The veil should be enough when you're visiting the medusa. I'd see the negotiations to start negotiations proceeding something like... "And, dear Lord X d'Tharashk, do understand that the eyeblinders I was recently forced to wear while visiting you in Sharn are heavy, painful, and I shall not wear one in my own gardens. You will have to accept that I will wear only the veil, or you must abandon your attempts to mine the silver ore recently discovered near my demesne. Of course, you choose to abandon your bid, I have been informed that a certain interest from the other side of Breland is prepared to pay handsomely for the mineral rights. You are my preferred client, of course, since your House has a proven track record in Droaam while the gnomes do not, but business is business, after all." |
| The Dreaming Duck09-07-06, 06:02 PM | IHave you ever talked to someone and stared into their eyes intently, without looking away? Certainly. As noted, I consider acting as the NPC an important part of the roleplaying experience, and as you say, this is an effective tool. However, also as you say... It puts people off, makes them uncomfortable... Which comes back to the fact that if the medusa IS acting as an ambassador, it's exactly the wrong thing to do. It may or may not be human... but the average medusa actually has a higher Intelligence and Wisdom than a human, and a CONSIDERABLY higher Charisma. Put these three together, and I would consider a medusa to be a creature that is highly aware of the impressions it makes on others. If it WANTS to intimidate, it will do so; if not, it will be aware of the effect its gaze will have on others. If, on the other hand, it is trying to placate the person it is negotiating with, it will be good at this as well. Furthermore, when it comes to directly meeting the gaze, the point to me is that with my players, if I meet their gaze with eyes open, they will again be puzzled... that it will actually break them out of the scene, because unless I pause to explain "Oh, by the way, the medusa may have turned its gaze off", they'll assume that me meeting their gaze isn't the action of the medusa, because they'd expect it to be deadly. If I meet their gaze with eyes closed, it IS an alien and unusual thing to do - they aren't used to talking to someone who looks at them without looking at them - and they know that IF I open my eyes, the gaze is there. Anyway, huge digression, sorry. Not at all, I'd say it's as interesting or more so than some of the other arguments. However, you discuss the medusa as having predatory superiority issues, and direction of gaze is critical there. Now, if you go with the idea that a medusa can shut its gaze off, that's all well and good. If you instead assume that it can't - that the mechanical ability to shut it off means "close your eyes but still be able to see" or something like that, than the idea of medusas having staring contests all the time seems like a sure-fire evolutionary dead-end, because a staring contest between two medusas will quickly end up with one of them being dead (the medusa's kiss being something you need a fairly high-level and trained medusa to perform). I have a very hard time imagining a culture of intelligent creatures with such a deadly power not developing customs to prevent such actions. It's not that they wouldn't deal with predator-prey issues... but I don't think they'd do it through staring contests, because these would be too quick and too deadly. Again, if you say shut off the gaze means they just think "off!" and it's off, that's fine - but that's not an interpretation I'd ever have considered before this thread, and the fact that the RAW suggest it as a possibility doesn't make me any more likely to do so. I'd rather stick with the view I've always had - that the gaze is always deadly - and have them deal with it through veils, blinders, or averting their gaze than to give them such an easy out. Now, see, this is one of those "reality" discussions to which there is no correct answer. Absolutely. |
| Just another user09-07-06, 06:04 PM | Okay, I can accept that. However... SRD The gazing creature can do nothing except veil its eyes or turn off its gaze attack in order to protect allies. there is no provision for the gazing creature to not look at its allies to avoid the gaze hitting them. about that, the SRD mention "rounds". Now, usually when the SRD mention rounds is because it is talking about combat, it is not unreasonable to say that combat is normally so concitated that a medusa can't safely attack a enemy with his gaze while keeping her allies safe from it (note that by the raw monsters don't have facing because it is assumed that creatures involved in combat are turning and twisting and looking all around them constantly so all the creatures that surround the medusa should save against petrification, not only those that are in front of her, because technically she don't have one, (a front, that is). So, yes, in combat even medusa's allies should not be safe from her gaze, out of combat things are different, tho, else you would have some redicolous situations "the medusa seems unaware of your presence, she is looking in the direction opposite to where you are, but because D&D creatures don't have facing you must still roll against her petrifing gaze" ;) |
| Just another user09-07-06, 06:30 PM | Okay, I agree with that, but I believe it indicates this is only outside Droaam. A medusa can not be happy with such a device in place. I can't imagine the medusa choosing to wear it on her own turf. The veil should be enough when you're visiting the medusa. I'd see the negotiations to start negotiations proceeding something like... "And, dear Lord X d'Tharashk, do understand that the eyeblinders I was recently forced to wear while visiting you in Sharn are heavy, painful, and I shall not wear one in my own gardens. You will have to accept that I will wear only the veil, or you must abandon your attempts to mine the silver ore recently discovered near my demesne. Of course, you choose to abandon your bid, I have been informed that a certain interest from the other side of Breland is prepared to pay handsomely for the mineral rights. You are my preferred client, of course, since your House has a proven track record in Droaam while the gnomes do not, but business is business, after all." and you keep changing register, why she just don't say, "i will not wear any stupid veil in my home, if you don't trust me enough to not petrify you after I gave you my word that I won't, then I don't see what is the point of this discussion in the first place. Maybe other houses will be less paranoid than you with their business associate" |
| The Dreaming Duck09-07-06, 07:04 PM | "i will not wear any stupid veil in my home..." Which is essentially my thought. I have no trouble with the idea of a veil. In fact, in his novel, HELLCOW has the medusa the PCs meet wearing a hood to conceal his face (and having just checked, he actually suggests there that they may be able to see through their serpents). As said earlier, this isn't about Hellcow's opinions, but the point is that even HE acknowledges that a medusa might cover its face to make others comfortable. However, if you're in Cazhaak Draal, I would expect medusas to feel that they can do whatever they want. If they are TRYING to make you comfortable, they'll do whatever they deem appropriate - again, they're not stupid. If they aren't, then they may face you with no veil, and you'll need to deal with it. Essentially, we are dealing with two forms of the same thing. There's little practical difference between Hellcow's "You can close your eyes and see through the serpents" and the "You can just turn the gaze off"... other than that HC's version lets them see while blindfolded or otherwise forcibly blinded (admittedly, a nifty advantage in some circumstances, though a hood would still do the trick). Whichever version you use, when walking around Cazhaak Draal, you can see medusas with no veils or blinders, who could at a moment's notice open their eyes or activate their gaze. And I like that image, as oppose to saying that wherever they go they wear veils all the time. If they're trying to make someone comfortable, I feel they'll do whatever the situation calls for. But when they are dealing with their own kind - others who understand exactly how the ability works, and the consequences of its use - I think you could have social customs that can allow for bare-faced interaction. As as a random side tangent on the predatory instincts thread, the medusa has both Intimidate and Diplomacy listed as class skills, but the specialty of the typical medusa is Bluff. This implies a cultural bias towards cunning interaction and deception. Not sure WHAT this means, but still, the fact that the listed skills are primarily Charisma-based social skills does point towards medusas as social creatures. |
| Syltorian09-08-06, 05:54 AM | and you keep changing register, why she just don't say, "i will not wear any stupid veil in my home, if you don't trust me enough to not petrify you after I gave you my word that I won't, then I don't see what is the point of this discussion in the first place. Maybe other houses will be less paranoid than you with their business associate" Exactly. Which was my point about the examples I gave above: Tharashk prospectors, Karrn diplomats, and so forth. All these people are, while not necessarily desperate, petitioners. You don't start off a discussion where you want something by putting conditions to the meeting. That would be construed as a calculated insult: they come to your home and dare to behave as if they were superior to you? But another point. Since medusas in Eberron are not instrinsically evil, there is the possibility of having a rogue medusa who has fled Droaam, because she does not want to represent the Daughters of Sora Kell. Imagine now that this medusa becomes a friend of the PCs. A trusted ally. Do you require your other party-members and loyal NPCs to peacebind their weapons, hand over their spell-component pouches and holy symbols before you talk? Does the shifter have to wear a muzzle? Yet you still need a way of preventing the medusa from killing you; in this case, by closing her eyes when she is talking to you. To me, that seems much more flavourful than her having to wear a veil. And as has been mentioned above, a large part of the Dragonshard is about how Medusas interact with each other, in their own society where they are the norm and humanoids the exception. Veils can be pretty annoying. You don't want to have your eyes covered all the time. So the medusas had to come up with some way of living their every-day lives in their own communities without wearing shutters. If they are outside of that community, they'll have to wear veils, because humanoids don't understand or trust their ways. But when in Cazhaak Draal, do as the Cazhaak-Draalans do. The PCs there have to face up to the fact that they are the outsiders. If they don't trust the medusas, they should try and procure some protection against petrification for themselves. So it is more likely - to me - that the Karrnathi diplomats and Tharashk envoys I mentioned above will be outfitted with such protections rather than risk offending the medusas by telling them to their faces (or above or below or to the side of their faces) that they do not trust their intentions. Even wearing protections could be construed as an insult, as it still reveals distrust; but at least there is not the effronterie of asking the medusas to cover their eyes in their own society. |
| Kreistor109-08-06, 11:47 AM | because a staring contest between two medusas will quickly end up with one of them being dead Not exactly. A creature is immune to gaze attacks of others of its kind unless otherwise noted. rather stick with the view I've always had - that the gaze is always deadly I believe that's consistent with the Greek myth, but I'm not going to check on it. Medusa was cursed (by Hera, IIRC) into the snake headed form, and her gaze was always deadly so that she couldn't look upon anyone. Being able to turn it off is a blessing. and have them deal with it through veils, blinders, or averting their gaze than to give them such an easy out. Well, as I've said, I find the off-switch useful as a threat to the PC's. and you keep changing register, why she just don't say, "i will not wear any stupid veil in my home, if you don't trust me enough to not petrify you after I gave you my word that I won't, then I don't see what is the point of this discussion in the first place. Maybe other houses will be less paranoid than you with their business associate" I changed register because as a Diplomat, she should be using the language of a Diplomat. Speaking as you do reveals she is a weak negotiator -- such severe and base language would end any possibility of civilized negotiations. If you're going to politic you better be politic. "Know yourself and know your enemy and you will never lose a battle." So saith Sun Tzu, and it is as applicable to business as it is to warfare. By revealing her baseness, she gives the enemy knowledge of herself without gaining equivalent knowledge in return. The enemy can use that to their own advantage. Using your kind of language in business ensures that your clients will only be the worst sort. If you want civilized business associates, then you need to be civilized yourself. Uncivil business dealings ensure you are cutting yourself off from the richest people in the world, and they're the ones most likely to give you the best deals, since they can afford to make lower profits from the deal. Diplomacy is diplomacy -- not crude insult. No one wants to work with someone like the person that said what you just did. Ironically, North Korea does periodically say such things: how much respect does the West have for NK when it pulls that sort of thing? Not very much. All these people are, while not necessarily desperate, petitioners. The medusa is a petitioner as well -- that's something you're overlooking. This seller has a requirement to make money, too. She could be more desperate to sell than the buyers are to buy: she has instructions from the Hags, which may include "Get this mine operational ASAP!" That makes her a petitioner in your sense, though she's petitioning for buyers. If she is revealed to be desperate for money, she'll take a lower bid. Your "petitioners" will press their own issues in such a way as to feel for that kind of desperation. You're considering only the case where the seller doesn't need the money. That's actually extremely rare, especially in this case. The Hags are building an enormous city. That takes cash, and lots of it, and the "petitioners" will know of Droaam's cash requirements. You don't start off a discussion where you want something by putting conditions to the meeting. Uh... I hate saying you're wrong, but... I suggest you check out current negotiations to begin negotiations between various regional powers and North Korea over its nuclear program. There are many negotiations involved in determining the site and format of such a meeting. Before the UN got involved with Iran, it was France, Germany, and Russia doing the same thing with Iran. The same thing happens in business. Discussions between parties interested in developing venture will negotiatiate a business meeting. You need to determine Location (City, building), the number of participants, and the format of the discussion at the very least (who will chair and so on). So, no, you do have to negotiate the details of the meeting before the meeting occurs. In an age of Magic, the presence of magical effects (is either side allowed to wear Charisma and skill boosting items or effects from spells would be a vital one) is deal breaking. I see that Cloak of Charisma, but I don't have one, and I'm walking out of the meeting before I can be "convinced" to sign a deal I wouldn't normally want. Seriously, there are a lot of things that have to be decided before a meeting. So it is more likely - to me - that the Karrnathi diplomats and Tharashk envoys I mentioned above will be outfitted with such protections rather than risk offending the medusas by telling them to their faces That would be seen as an insult -- it's like wearing a bullet proof vest over your suit to a business meeting: it demonstrates that you believe the other side may kill you intentionally. The correct diplomatic solution is to breach the subject before the meeting, and decide who will wear what, so that everyone knows what to expect when the meeting takes place. Such things are already part of diplomatic negotiations. |
| The Dreaming Duck09-08-06, 01:09 PM | A creature is immune to gaze attacks of others of its kind unless otherwise noted. That obviously makes a considerable difference. *shrug* Hellcow clearly thinks they can petrify one another, and while that may be another oversight on the part of the editing team, I really like the image of medusas using petrification as a form of magical cryogenics - petrifying the sick until they can be healed. Likewise, the description of medusa sculptors seeing life in stone. From a hard, mechanical standpoint, it may be a mistake - but it gives the creatures depth, which is what *I* want from these articles. And while it may have been a mistake, the editing team apparently thought it was an interesting enough idea to leave in either. I'm NOT trying to defend Hellcow from you: by the rules, you are right and he is wrong. However, I personally find his "otherwise noted" houserule to be an interesting approach. To me, the issue is that you're saying "The rules are being bent, complications are being added, and that's a mistake." In my opinion, suggestions are being made which can be ignored... and they are suggestions which personally in my opinion - and mine alone - make the creature more interesting and increase the chances that I will use it. This article has failed to meet your needs. Others have failed to meet my needs. Even Hellcow can't win 'em all. However, I quite like this one and will use it. Yes, it contradicts the SRD description of gaze attacks - but taking this quote in particular, if you USE the article, it's clearly a "unless otherwise mentioned" situation. Being able to turn it off is a blessing. Which is EXACTLY why I don't like it. Like I said, prior to this thread, the idea that it was possible would never have occured to me, because the Medusa of legend certainly couldn't turn HER gaze off. My players would never expect it, so it would simply confuse them. And I just don't think it makes an interesting scene. From a mechanical standpoint, the only differences between letting the medusa turn its gaze on and off and forcing it to close its eyes and look through snakes are that observers can tell when its eyes are closed and that Hellcow assigned a penalty to Spot and Search in these situations. If at any given time a medusa may have its gaze on and I just can't tell? Maybe that's scary for you. For me, it simply detracts from the mystique of the creature, and makes it more like a superhero. Closed eyes are a threat to players: it's simply the case that they know whether the threat is active or held at bay. You know your players, and if the pure mystery will work better for them, great. With my group, I'd rather have the "You're safe now... but do you dare meet my gaze when I could open my eyes at any time?" than a Russian roulette "I may or may not have my gaze on, there's one way to find out." I am curious about one thing, Kreistor1... what Dragonshards have you liked? Do you normally use the web articles at all, or do you generally hold to the books? Your earlier statement about not wanting to have to remember exceptions seems to suggest a prefered adherence to printed material, whereas to me the entire point of Dragonshards is to provide information and insights that aren't in the books. Are there articles you have enjoyed or used in your campaign? |
| Syltorian09-08-06, 01:12 PM | Discussions with North Korea and Iran happen (as far as I am aware) on neutral territory. You mention preliminary discussions about the site of the meeting. I agree with you that, if a medusa envoy is asked to attend a meeting in a neutral space (or any place not her home town), she would do well to wear a veil. She is leaving her own culture, after all, and needs to do her part of diplomacy, as you rightly say. However, if you are sending a representative into Droaam, the situation might be different. You will be surrounded by medusas (assuming you do not spent your time locking yourself up in whatever counts as an embassy or other safe-house there). I admit I have no idea how many medusas live in their town, but you can hardly sent a message first, asking that the entire population wear veils for the time of your visit. Of course, if you chose to visit the medusas at home instead of working out a neutral ground, you might be desperate already. |
| DragonWatcher09-08-06, 01:17 PM | Thinking about this further, while I do love the optional material printed in the Dragonshard, I must say that those who are arguing that their players would not expect the medusa's gaze able to be "turned off" also have a point that resonates with me. Honestly, were I running a PC in someone else's campaign, my PC would never know whether the medusa in question was wearing a veil, blinders, or just averting its eyes, because MY character would be focusing his eyes intently on the floor about an inch-and-a-half in front of the medusa's big toes... and nothing short of it charging would make him look an inch higher. ;) |
| maollelujah09-08-06, 01:29 PM | I changed register because as a Diplomat, she should be using the language of a Diplomat. Speaking as you do reveals she is a weak negotiator -- such severe and base language would end any possibility of civilized negotiations. If you're going to politic you better be politic. This is a non-issue. Just take what he said and put it in a diplomatic way. It wouldn't end the possibility of civilized negotiations, in the past throwing diplomats into dungeons and even killing them, hasn't put a stop to civilized negotiations. If you are in the position of power, then you can do a lot. If you want someone to trust you, then demonstrate trust yourself. So, the medusa, if it wants to gain something, better start the negotiation with a veil, or she is presenting her own position as one that she requires her weapons, so she demonstrates her lack of faith. I don't see this point. Does she make all the magic users in the party be gagged, manacled and veiled? The monk chained to a chair with giant pillows on his hands? Plus, If you take the time to come visit her to 'talk' then you are pretty much at her mercy. Her allies will be there, if she wanted to do away with you, she will. I suggest you check out current negotiations to begin negotiations between various regional powers and North Korea over its nuclear program. There are many negotiations involved in determining the site and format of such a meeting. Before the UN got involved with Iran, it was France, Germany, and Russia doing the same thing with Iran. If you are using modern diplomatic wrangling as the basis for your medieval fantasy game's diplomacy, then your example is spot on. But diplomats of the Kingdom of Kush wanting access to Italian marble doesn't come to Rome with a list of demands. They might expect safe passage, but they aren't going to tell the Emperor that we won't have any weapons, so neither can you guard. The medusa is a petitioner as well -- that's something you're overlooking. This seller has a requirement to make money, too. She could be more desperate to sell than the buyers are to buy: she has instructions from the Hags, which may include "Get this mine operational ASAP!" That makes her a petitioner in your sense, though she's petitioning for buyers. If she is revealed to be desperate for money, she'll take a lower bid. Your "petitioners" will press their own issues in such a way as to feel for that kind of desperation. You're considering only the case where the seller doesn't need the money. That's actually extremely rare, especially in this case. The Hags are building an enormous city. That takes cash, and lots of it, and the "petitioners" will know of Droaam's cash requirements. Maybe the seller needs the money, maybe the seller doesn't, but she will still try to conduct business at from a position of strength and unless she is totally desperate she won't humiliate herself by wearing a veil, which is how I think a medusa would take this request. "So you insult my integrity before negotiations even start." If you plan to negotiate with a medusa then don't try to make her a human. Plus I like the thought of having the opposing negotiators squirm. "The creatures eyes are of a pale-ish complexion, but occasionally you notice a hint of color sparkle through that sends a tingling sensation through your body, which leaves you with the feeling she is keeping her power from effecting you." I don't see the Hags really needing money. They have time on their side, and have all the labor and stone they need. |
| Kreistor109-08-06, 01:32 PM | However, if you are sending a representative into Droaam, the situation might be different. Why would the Houses agree to such a method of approaching the topic? You're viewing these women as Queens to be supplicated, not ambassadors and diplomats. That's not how business works. The medusa has something to sell and there are people wiht money to spend in order to create the business venture. If the medusa had that money, she wouldn't need the various busniess concerns, would she? So, she is already in a "hat in hand" situation. She has a silver lode that she can't mine, so she needs someone else to do it for her. At best, she wants the extra income. In any case, the people interested in mining the ore will know that, and won't see the comparitive situation as desperate. If you're not desperate, you don't risk your life for the company. I admit I have no idea how many medusas live in their town, but you can hardly sent a message first, asking that the entire population wear veils for the time of your visit. Actually, this puts the medusae in a situation where they can't just look into a corner, so they have to wear a veil or accidentally stone people on the street. That "ally" portion of the Gaze rules kick in. So, even with that ability to look to the side, they're only changing who gets stoned, not preventing themselves from stoning someone. So, either they have that off-switch, or they wear veils to walk down the street casually. (If that didn't make sense, basically, if they look to the side when walking on the street, they are looking at the people on that side of the street.) Of course, if you chose to visit the medusas at home instead of working out a neutral ground, you might be desperate already. That's why people negotiate the location of meetings. The medusa wants the meeting not in Sharn. The potential miners want the location not on the medusa's home turf. Depending on who is the better negotiator, the location will be somewhere in between. Look at it from the House Tharashk position: if the Medusa will not budge from her own home city, then the Medusa doesn't care if the mine opens, and so she will have a very secure bargaining position, and you may not want this deal at all, since she won't come down far on the deal. (ie. if she's that strong, let someone else waste their time and effort on the deal, since you'll not make much money anyway.) If she doesn't reject Sharn, then she is desperate, so you will be able to negotiate her down on the deal. (Ie. She needs the mine and the money it makes, so she will take less money for the deal.) Business negotiations even for the meeting location can be vital indicators of the type of deal you're going to wind up with. These are early indicators of the kind of deal you can wind up with, so businesses do want to have them. How these negotiations go can indicate that you should get out of the deal. |
| Kreistor109-08-06, 01:48 PM | This is a non-issue. Just take what he said and put it in a diplomatic way. Mao, he asked me why I changed my tone (register). He wanted to know. I don't see this point. Does she make all the magic users in the party be gagged, manacled and veiled? The monk chained to a chair with giant pillows on his hands? Monks as part of a House's negotiation team? Magic users capable of casting Enchantments? As a businessman, you show up with a glorified thug and someone capable of screwing with my mind and I'm done negotiating with you. If you take the time to come visit her to 'talk' then you are pretty much at her mercy. Her allies will be there, if she wanted to do away with you, she will. Again, the base assumption here is that the medusa is operating as a Queen, not a diplomat. She has her superiors and her orders. If she has to get the money flowing from that silver mine, then she can't play hardball this way. If she does, the Hag will replace her. Maybe skin her, too. If you are using modern diplomatic wrangling as the basis for your medieval fantasy game's diplomacy, then your example is spot on. No, you're using one model (supplicants to Kings) as your only method of example. Diplomacy is as old as man. The art of negotiation goes back as far as recorded history. But diplomats of the Kingdom of Kush wanting access to Italian marble doesn't come to Rome with a list of demands. Italian merchants searching for buyers for their marble don't go to Kush like that, either. I don't see the Hags really needing money. They have time on their side, and have all the labor and stone they need. That depends on your own implementation of the DoSK and their goals. They may be short timers or long timers: that is up to individual DM's. What we do know is that the Hags are building a city, and that takes enormous sums of money. And then, after that, there is the various medusae themselves. They ware going to be jockeying for position, looking to gain the favour of the DoSK. Bribes take money. Intrigue takes money. Maybe the Hags don't need money, but the medusa can be greedy, ambitious, or just plain hedonistic. |
| maollelujah09-08-06, 03:13 PM | That's not how business works. The medusa has something to sell and there are people wiht money to spend in order to create the business venture. If the medusa had that money, she wouldn't need the various busniess concerns, would she? So, she is already in a "hat in hand" situation. She has a silver lode that she can't mine, so she needs someone else to do it for her. At best, she wants the extra income. In any case, the people interested in mining the ore will know that, and won't see the comparitive situation as desperate. If you're not desperate, you don't risk your life for the company. This is not necessarily true. It might be just easier to have someone else do it. Or she might want to sell the rights, but in no need to do so. While I don't disagree with your take if the medusa is desperate, but you do seem to be laying all the cards at the feet of those with the money. If there is silver to be mined and it is a feasible endeavor, simple greed will have a host of suitors making travelling plans to Droaam. The same is true for negotiation sites. There are numerous reasons other why a house negotiation team might travel to visit the medusa that has nothing to do with its desperation. It could've just been at the Great Crag finishing dealings with an Ogre Magi and the medusa is just down the street or a couple hills away... Monks as part of a House's negotiation team? Magic users capable of casting Enchantments? As a businessman, you show up with a glorified thug and someone capable of screwing with my mind and I'm done negotiating with you. With Sense Motive and Diplomacy as class skills I don't see why a Monk can't be part of a negotiation team. A Bard makes a great negotiator too. I am sure a house's negotiation team isn't just experts and commoners. That depends on your own implementation of the DoSK and their goals. They may be short timers or long timers: that is up to individual DM's. What we do know is that the Hags are building a city, and that takes enormous sums of money. Of course it is up to the DM. The Hags may need or may not need money. As for building a city, since the Hags are building it themselves and have no lack of either experts, labor or materials, the cost would be greatly reduced and could lessen their need for money. It all depends on the situation the DM decides upon. |
| davethebrave37109-08-06, 03:21 PM | So yes, this is a house rule (albeit one published in a WotC article) that technically goes against the SRD description of gaze attacks. It's up to you to decide whether you'd rather follow the RAW or to take this approach. Actually, as I read it, the SRD is talking about when someone who would be affected is looking away. To me, that would imply that there is an open space to put the gazer's eye movements, since the SRD only covers the gazee's. |
| Azazyll09-08-06, 03:28 PM | [edit] seems the link is working again. An excellent article, and very inspiring. |
| operations09-08-06, 03:36 PM | So, after reading this, my mind got to working. 'Monsters' in Eberron are often against the D&D sterotypes (like Hobgoblins working as warriors-for-hire), and they frequently adopt human(oid) ways to fit into the world with less threat to themselves. I could see some Medusae working in larger population centers across Khorvaire, using their gaze to preserve the sick, wounded, or important people (thinking Dragonmarked nobles) until they are either needed, or care for their illnes is available. They could be an economic power in their own right, and increase the stability of Droaam. Just ideas. |
| Kreistor109-08-06, 04:34 PM | While I don't disagree with your take if the medusa is desperate, but you do seem to be laying all the cards at the feet of those with the money. If there is silver to be mined and it is a feasible endeavor, simple greed will have a host of suitors making travelling plans to Droaam. Mining is not free money. It takes hard work to pull anything out of the ground, and profit is slow to accumulate. Negotiating something like a mine in Droaam requires a lot of guarantees and agreements. Who does the mining (local or foreigners), how quickly can the mine be developed (law of diminishing returns means you can't just scoop it all up quickly and make the most money), guarrantees for protection of the miners, and that's just off the top of my head. No, there won't be a Host of suitors, unless the medusa is beginning by guaranteeing a particular level of profit. Greed only works as a motive if the venture is determined to be profitable. Opening a mine is a long negotiation. The miners will want to test the quality of the vein, establish how difficult it is to mine, and so on. No one rushes into something, especially if it's as risky as a mine surrounded by trolls and ogres. With Sense Motive and Diplomacy as class skills I don't see why a Monk can't be part of a negotiation team. A Bard makes a great negotiator too. I am sure a house's negotiation team isn't just experts and commoners. You're missing the point. If someone is a monk and comes to a negotiation looking the part, the negotiation is over. If he looks like everyone else, then he can't be identified as a monk, and so he does not give the appearance of being dangerous. Same with a Bard. Look like a Bard, and questions will be asked about what he's doing. If he breaks out in song, people are going to assume the worst and end negotiations. If they are just coming as people with high levels of skill, that's no threat, but they are acting like Experts, though they may have other skills. The medusa, unfortunately, is always singing, always casting, always hitting. (Especially if you choose that she can't turn it off.) That level of threat is on a different scale. There are numerous reasons other why a house negotiation team might travel to visit the medusa that has nothing to do with its desperation. It could've just been at the Great Crag finishing dealings with an Ogre Magi and the medusa is just down the street or a couple hills away... Visiting potential clients is always a good idea. It's not a good idea to put off people that you want to consider you to be a good business partner. Good business partners facilitate the comfort of people that can make them money. Not wearing the veil is disrespectful, and you will find anothr medusa that does entertain the visitors with a veil on gets higher consideration by those business concerns. |
| maollelujah09-08-06, 05:49 PM | Mining is not free money. It takes hard work to pull anything out of the ground, and profit is slow to accumulate. Negotiating something like a mine in Droaam requires a lot of guarantees and agreements. Who does the mining (local or foreigners), how quickly can the mine be developed (law of diminishing returns means you can't just scoop it all up quickly and make the most money), guarrantees for protection of the miners, and that's just off the top of my head. No, there won't be a Host of suitors, unless the medusa is beginning by guaranteeing a particular level of profit. Greed only works as a motive if the venture is determined to be profitable. Opening a mine is a long negotiation. The miners will want to test the quality of the vein, establish how difficult it is to mine, and so on. No one rushes into something, especially if it's as risky as a mine surrounded by trolls and ogres. Everything is hard work. The wool trade, lumber trade, animal husbandry etc... are all not easy lines of business. But digging precious metals is free money. You might have to work to get it, but once you get it, you have your return. Other endeavors once you get the product it still needs to be sold. Precious metals, no such troubles. The rule of diminising return works for any business venture. Security would indeed be an issue, but there are more than one force in Droaam that can give some guarantee of security. If the Hags are the ones behind the mine, I assume you would get pretty good security. You're missing the point. If someone is a monk and comes to a negotiation looking the part, the negotiation is over. If he looks like everyone else, then he can't be identified as a monk, and so he does not give the appearance of being dangerous. Same with a Bard. Look like a Bard, and questions will be asked about what he's doing. If he breaks out in song, people are going to assume the worst and end negotiations. That is just silly. That's almost like saying if the guy looks like he graduated from Harvard, I'm not going to do business with him. Business is built on mutual trust, not mutual fears. I trust you aren't going to do anything bad and you trust I am not. (I am not saying that one doesn't look for guarantees and trustworthiness.) The medusa, unfortunately, is always singing, always casting, always hitting. (Especially if you choose that she can't turn it off.) That level of threat is on a different scale. Yes she is always singing, casting and swinging, but she always doesn't hit. Visiting potential clients is always a good idea. It's not a good idea to put off people that you want to consider you to be a good business partner. Good business partners facilitate the comfort of people that can make them money. Not wearing the veil is disrespectful, and you will find anothr medusa that does entertain the visitors with a veil on gets higher consideration by those business concerns. The road leads both ways. The visitors that don't humiliate the medusa by demanding she wear a veil will receive more favorable treatment by all medusae than the ones that do, because nobody wants to be humiliate or treated as a monster. Plus if you are worried about her turning you to stone, then wear a blind yourself. |
| davethebrave37109-08-06, 06:13 PM | Plus if you are worried about her turning you to stone, then wear a blind yourself. Or the Blindfold of True Darkness from p. 130 of the Arms and Equipment Guide. 60 foot blindsight anyone? |
| The Dreaming Duck09-08-06, 07:47 PM | If someone is a monk and comes to a negotiation looking the part, the negotiation is over. Hmm. I see where you're coming from, but it's not a view I share. As noted, monks can be skilled diplomats, and if a monk represents an influential order, I would expect him to present himself in his regalia. I wouldn't expect people to say "Oh my goodness... you possess the power to hurt me with your fist. GET OUT! Send some commoner or expert in your place!" I think (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that in a world where wizards, monks, and medusas exist, people will consider being a monk like walking around pointing a gun at people. In my opinion, in a world where monks, medusas, and bards exist - and have for thousands of years - people will recognize that they possess inherent abilities and be more comfortable with them. There's an excellent chance that a Zil negotiator is a bard. That MAY mean that he possesses the ability to mess with me magically, and if we're talking about a serious issue - like a treaty negotiation or a trial (as noted in S:CoT), I'd expect there to people around using detect magic to make sure nothing untoward happens. Likewise, if I'm a diplomat, I'll probably have guards there to protect me from the monk, if for some strange reason he decides to go ballistic. But if the representative of Zilargo is a bard or the representative of Adar is a monk, I would personally assume that this is part of their customs and that I should respect it and trust that they AREN'T going to suddenly punch me or cast a spell - not turn on my heel and stride out of the room, or demand to speak to another representative. Magic is everywhere in Eberron. Sorcerers, bards, psions, clerics - they are all out there, and many of them ARE excellent choices for diplomats. You can choose to say "All diplomats are mundane experts, because to do otherwise would be a terrible threat"; I'll go with the delegation being prepared to detect or counter magic, because magic is part of life. You send your bard, I'll send my telepath, and neither of us will use our powers. It's true that Adar has the option of not sending a monk or telepath, while a medusa can't stop being a medusa. But in my opinion, the monks of Adar AREN'T just thugs who use their powers to kill people; they develop their skills as part of their spiritual discipline. To turn away an Adaran ambassador because he happens to know Kung Fu - and has chosen NOT to hide that fact, when he easily could have - seems like a terrible way to do business with a nation where such a tradition is common among the governing body. |
| Just another user09-08-06, 07:57 PM | With Sense Motive and Diplomacy as class skills I don't see why a Monk can't be part of a negotiation team. A Bard makes a great negotiator too. I am sure a house's negotiation team isn't just experts and commoners. Expecially if this team is made, even partly, of PCs. |
| Kreistor109-09-06, 02:24 PM | I wouldn't expect people to say "Oh my goodness... you possess the power to hurt me with your fist. GET OUT! Send some commoner or expert in your place!" I think (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that in a world where wizards, monks, and medusas exist, people will consider being a monk like walking around pointing a gun at people. Not quite... when I enter a business meeting, I don't say, "That guy over there is a Bard, etc." I might notice if someone is an Engineer or an Accountant. If someone walks into a business meeting wearing a Gi, I have to ask, "Excuse me, but why is a martial artist, clearly a combatant, doing at a negotiation?" He's wearing clothes that suggest that he is there to fight. If the response is that he has good business skills, my response is, "Then why is he not wearing business clothes? We're not here to fight." Coming ready to fight means you intend to fight. At a business meeting, you shouldn't have to explain anyone's presence beyond, "This is the VP Accounting, VP Operations, and VP Engineering. I am VP Sales, and this is my assistant." Just having skills isn't enough. You have to fill a role. As a support engineer, I may not say much in a meeting, but I am there with my expertise. Just having skills isn't enough. You need to be able to explain why that person is there. What role is the monk filling? Salesman? Finance? Ops? Eng? Marketing? If he fills one of those roles, why isn't he wearing the equivalent of a business suit? If you go to a business metting you wear business clothes, not garb for fighting people. Class is not determined by visually looking at someone. Yes, that monk may be VP Sales, but coming as a monk and not VP Sales raises questions that you don't want to have to answer. Any oddness raises the suspicions of the customer, vendor, or partner. Salesmen loathe anything that interferes with the core purpose of the meeting. Anything can break a deal, so they demand the minimum number of issues be present. Our Sales force can veto clothing, hair styles, or anything else they feel will misrepresent the company to the customer. That's not a new invention: business has been business for millenia. Clothing is chosen to present an attitude forever, and an individual that doesn't play on the team doesn't come. You may think individual expression should be allowed in these cases, but it is not. You represent the company in a meeting, so your clothing does far more than reflect your attitudes, it reflects the attitude of your company. They have a say. I really shake my head at the modern habit of rebellious kids to pierce, tattoo, or otherwise permanently alter their bodies. Business is not interested in presenting that kind of image to their customers, except in very limited cases. Those people are cutting themselves off from places of business that in 10 years they may have determined they would really enjoy! They won't know, ever, because they made a decision in their youth that forever restricts them from a side of this world they really only know from a media (often leftist) perspective. You never know: you might actually like selling. How your outward image is judged has nothing to do with your own view of how you should be viewed. You do not get to argue your case until after first impressions (the most vital impression) are set in stone. You don't get to choose that the German who knows that piercings are common in the dangerous German skinhead community has decided that he doesn't want to work with a company that would hire that type of person. Too late: you just lost the deal for your company. Salesmen are the commanders in deals. They are the front line, and they decide who they take and don't. Look the part -- conservative, bland, basic -- and you can't screw their deal for them. You can't fight the perceptions of others. Your world view does not matter when those initial and unavoidable judgements are made. It is human nature, and right or wrong, you have to live with that impression. Appearances are critical! Deals are not made with people that scar their body to look intentionally untrustworthy. Anyway, I got way off on a rant, but it actually is on point. Looking like a dangerous monk results in broken deals. Look like a business man, and no one will know you're a monk until the situation goes nuclear. The issue of "should the monk be forced to wear locked gauntlets" was never raised, since there wasn't a monk at the table, just a man in a business suit like the rest. |
| Kreistor109-09-06, 02:35 PM | I would personally assume that this is part of their customs and that I should respect it and trust This is something mentioned above, but felt it needed to be separated. Your world view doesn't matter. It's the other person's world view that matters. They judge you, and your tolerance is irrelevant to that judgement. You cannot enter a discussion with a foreign power when you lack personal knowledge of their attitudes basing your attire and actions based on your own belief system. Case in point: in Japan, it is customary to offer your business card in two hands (bowing somewhat) to someone else. In North America and Europe, business cards are just casually tossed around. Present that card to a Japanese businessman in the wrong way, and you lose the deal. This was hard for me (probably an ego issue): I never could do it, so I wasn't allowed into meetings with Japanese clients. My attitude simply did not matter, it was the client's attitude that matters. But that runs both ways. A Japanese businessman would do well to learn a strong handshake for dealing with Americans. That little detail can break a deal, giving an impression of weakness. Handshakes are vital to the North American psyche. In these two cases, it doesn't matter whose home turf you are on. That Japanese business man will gain further respect if a Texan presents the card properly in Texas, and the American in Tokyo will feel the same response to a strong handshake. That first impression is made before you can find out what the correct response is. |
| Kreistor109-09-06, 02:55 PM | The road leads both ways. The visitors that don't humiliate the medusa by demanding she wear a veil will receive more favorable treatment by all medusae than the ones that do, because nobody wants to be humiliate or treated as a monster. Actually, societies where instant death is a threat become the most polite and careful in the world. Case in point: feudal Japan developed bowing and respectful displays to excess. that ancient history of samurai capable of killing civilians (and each other) lead to near grovelling as the status quo. You're making a huge leap deciding the veil is humiliating. The medusae have no choice but to wear those while walking the public streets. (As previously mentioned, when there are people everywhere, there are no corners to look at.) By removing the ability to turn that gaze off, they have no choice but to veil themselves. So, no, I deny that they could find the veil humiliating: it has to become an integral part of their existence, if they can't turn the gaze off. (Ironically, my choice to stay to the RAW means my medusae can walk down their streets unveiled, and masters of all they survey.) Plus if you are worried about her turning you to stone, then wear a blind yourself. Veils don't blind you: the medusa demanding her visitors come in blind is far more disrespectful. And besides that, the medusa can still see through her snakes. I really think you guys are missing the basic point of KB's post. Medusas are diplomats. You're focusing on this one little detail and overlooking their purpose. Diplomats smooth tensions, they don't increase them. Being diplomatic has nothing to do with being pigheaded and stubborn (unless you're trying to start a war, in which case it doesn't really matter): diplomacy is negotiation and compromise. Your medusae, by viewing these things so severely, have a complete lack of empathy and understanding for those that could fall victim to their gaze. To negotiate, you must understand the position of those you are speaking to, and work to develop an understanding of their perspective. Being a threat to the negotiation team you are speaking to can result in them digging in their heals at a position further from where you desire them to be. Relax those you deal with and they will be more responsive, and take a less aggressive stance, too. Basically, as a diplomat, the old adage to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is even more appropriate. Treat others disrespectfully, and they will treat you disrespectfully. Treat them with empathy and understanding, and you will be dealt with in the same way. Diplomats that lack basic respect for others aren't diplomats, they are only propogandists and poor ones at even that. |
| The Dreaming Duck09-09-06, 03:01 PM | If someone walks into a business meeting wearing a Gi, I have to ask, "Excuse me, but why is a martial artist, clearly a combatant, doing at a negotiation?" He's wearing clothes that suggest that he is there to fight. Wrong. Take another look at MY point. "If a monk represents an influential order, I would expect him to present himself in his regalia." This monk is the Venerable Kalatash of Adar. Yes, it is true, as part of his devotion to the Path of Light, he has studied sheshan talarash dasyannah. But he is not a "combatant." He is a holy man widely respected for his wisdom and mental discipline. For you to say "What is he doing here? He has combat tarining! Get him out!" or better yet "Shackle his wrists! Chain his ankles together!" is ludicrous. The sheshan arts are described as being extremely common among the kalashtar of Adar, even those who don't become full monks. THEY do not see this as making someone a combatant: they see it as a form of mental discipline. The Venerable Kalatash isn't going to set aside his ceremonial robes and wear a business suit so he doesn't scare you with the possibility that he might be able to punch you very hard, because it would be ludicrous FOR him to punch you very hard. Besides which, if you know the kalashtar of Adar, you may know they're martial artists, and if that just scares the bejesus out of you, bring some guards! Again, it seems to me that you are trying to force people to ignore what exists in the world. Monks and wizards are out there, but they have no place in a negotiation with NORMAL people. But in my mind, the whole point of Eberron is exploring what it would mean if the D&D classes and magic WERE real. You're saying "No one would want a bard in the negotiating room." I'm saying "You bring your bard; I'll bring my telepath. We'll both bring detect magic amulets to make sure the other person isn't cheating. And if you do cheat, I'm ready for you." Bards, monks, and wizards aren't outlawed in the courtrooms of Sharn. But a magewright stands by with a pendant of mystic warning, and the Blackened Book can always be called in if there is trouble. A bard is going to be an excellent barrister - but if he uses his magic, he will be expelled and punished. People don't say "As you possess the ability to use magic you're not even allowed in this room" - they say "Whether or not you can use magic, be aware that using magic to influence these proceedings is against the law and will result in punishment." |
| The Dreaming Duck09-09-06, 03:05 PM | The medusae have no choice but to wear those while walking the public streets. Um, actually they can simply close their eyes and see through their serpents. As I said before, mechanically this is identical to just letting them turn their gaze "off", except that people can tell when it's off and they suffer a slight penalty to Spot and Search. |
| ArcTan09-09-06, 04:13 PM | SRD TypesSubtypesAbilities Actually, no, the passive form of gaze attacks do not require eye contact between the source and the target. The creature with the gaze attack must make certain its eyes are not visible to potential victims it does not want to affect, not just "not meet the gaze of a person with whom it is conversing". The eyes must not be visible at all, since the medusa does not need to specifically look at anyone for it to work. invisibility is not a defense against Gaze attacks. Not meeting a creature's gaze would prevent the active form of its gaze only (as described above), not the passive form described at the top. Just a small oversight on the editing team's part. No biggie. So they wear a veil. Problem solved. You know, when they said "look at your eyes" I always assumed they meant "look straight into your pupils", i.e. meet your gaze. Otherwise it'd be more like Frightful Countenance. A gaze attack means *gazing*, i.e. looking at you. You can passively look at someone -- allow them to enter your field of view -- or actively look at them, but if you *don't see them* you're not gazing at them. Ruleslawyering like this only makes RP less interesting without actually changing the *important* part of the rules, how the rules work in combat. I always fudge rules outside of combat because they weren't really designed for any non-combat situation. |
| ArcTan09-09-06, 04:16 PM | Cripes, I have enough of my own exceptions: I don't need my own and KB's too! Manipulating standard creatures is not a good idea. In three months, who is seriously going to remember at the game table that KB decided to change medusa gaze attacks? You'd be better off redesigning this form of the medusa as a subspecies so that it doesn't source from the PHB. No one will remember it, because it's *not important in combat*, and only a crazy person would try to take the combat-oriented, almost flavor-free entries in the MM and try to use those as the basis for roleplaying. That's the point of the Dragonshards in the first place. Unless you have some really important bit of flavor that requires your interpretation of the MM mechanics to work, and unless you think changing this bit of fluff makes the medusa work different mechanically in combat, you really can just *ignore* that sentence from the MM and simply use the Dragonshard, which most people do with this sort of thing anyway. |
| ArcTan09-09-06, 04:20 PM | No one is attacking the statement of what the rules say. But where is it written that rules have to be rigid and unmoveable and have strict interpretations? Can someone point that out to me? What sourcebook says this EXACTLY? DMG actually says the opposite. Rule Zero. |
| ArcTan09-09-06, 04:26 PM | Now, that I think you should be concerned about. I'm not one to advocate adherence to the rules, but when you choose a different implementation, you should know that you changed something and why. That you don't know can lead to an argument at the table. A DM needs to know the basics of the monsters he introduces, even if he isn't a Ruleslawyer. You're saying that you didn't, and here you are jumping right into throwing the medusa into your campaign. Actually, he doesn't. Because all information about how monsters work should come from the DM, and the DM's word goes in a campaign. Players who start arguing with the DM based on the text of the MM are metagaming, and that should be discouraged. If *I* decide that medusas don't have a gaze attack at all in my campaign, it's completely within my rights to do so, and as long as I make this fact *clear* to my players when I use them, they really have no basis to complain -- Rule Zero trumps all other rules, and the DM's decisions *have* to be final no matter what the reasons for them (if, for instance, I just *never found out* that medusas had a gaze attack, that still means that medusas in my campaign have no gaze attack). My players would hear the visual "She is constantly looking into the corner of the room." and just shrug their shoulders. Even if you add, "One of the snakes is staring directly at you", it doesn't have that kick to it. Looking away from someone is an indicator of either fear or a self-esteem issue. From the player's perspective, it is an indicator of weakness. Er, or if they know anything about the mythology or if you let drop any hints about what the medusa is and does, it could mean "I'm so dangerous that *just* looking at you could kill you". Looking down, as KB said, usually looks like deference. Peering up above someone's head, by contrast, usually looks like you're either arrogantly ignoring them or else simply deranged. Either way it's unnerving. It's all in how you present it -- no single gesture *has* to mean anything. If someone keeps on looking away from me behind my head while I'm talking it could mean they're intimidated by me, or they simply find me too disgusting and beneath them for me to hold their interest. It's all in context. And yes, I do think the idea of gaze attacks you can simply "turn off" feels a bit too convenient for me to like it. Well, that's a small assumption. I have said elsewhere that it was the editing team's job to either fix it, or point out the deviation. It's okay to deviate. It's not okay to deviate without pointing out that you're deviating. I don't even think it was well established that there was something to deviate from in the first place. The RAW are *unclear* on this point, and you've purposely taken the strongest possible interpretation of it. "Looking at their eyes" to mean looking at their eyes, the physical organs, rather than looking at the spot they're looking at *with* their eyes, which is how you would use it colloquially. When someone tells you to "look them in the eye" they mean to meet their gaze, not stare at their eyeballs while they look at a point several feet away. |
| ydirbut09-10-06, 01:06 PM | If only Droaam had some sort of alliance with the dragonmarked house that controls mining.;) |
| gaerfindel09-10-06, 06:42 PM | There seems to be a bit o' controversy regarding whether a DM should have an NPC medusa veiled or simply averting his gaze when parleying with the PCs. IMHO that depends on where the encounter takes place. In Malleon's Gate district, Kasslak keeps his face covered under the hood of his cloak and uses his snakes in order to see. To my mind, this is simple politeness on his part. The Sharn Watch is nervous enough knowing that it's a medusa who keeps the peace in Lower Dura; no need to antagonize them further by not covering up. In Cazhaak Draal, however, nobody expects the Queen of Stone to veil herself. Her servents, perhaps; Her Statuesque Majesty would not. She'd be looking over the tops of the PCs' heads. Not so that they'd notice, being prostrate on the groud--whether in supplication or in fear...well that's up to them! As to the ruling on whether you simply have to briefly see the "whites of his eyes" (personally I think a medusa's eyes are black with red irises) or if the medusa must meet your gaze, in the name of flavourful gameplay, I favour the latter. But that's just me. (Remember, to be petrified by the original Greek gorgons, all one needed to do was accidentally catch a glimpse of one of them, even from the back.) |