This is the story:
My character is a human ranger, and my buddies and I have been robbing the rich nobles of the land to fight their tyrrany and taxation. Orcs ravage our lands while they ride in plush coaches drinking wine and being fed peeled grapes. We've made a particularly large score this outing, and the lads were appraising the value of the take.
So anyway, out of nowhere this elven chick comes walking through the woods toward us, taking immediate notice of our valuables. Now, you don't last as a rogue without some street smarts, and though this chick isn't armed as far as I can see, I know a thing or two about elves. They are naturally attuned to arcane magic, and even those who do not practice wizardry or sorcery can often channel the forces of Nature. Some are even monks. I don't know what this chick is about, but I am no sucker. She's either deranged, really dumb, or out for revenge. She starts babbling about orcs and sharing information, which doesn't help me decide which of the three she is.
The boys are getting twitchy, 'cuz their mommas didn't raise no fools either, and I can hear them knock arrows. I don't want any unnecessary violence on my concience, especially after the morning was off to such a good start, so I draw my weapon and approach her, trying to scare her off, saying, "It's a really bad idea for a girl to be walking alone in these woods."
She keeps coming at me.
"What's in that bag?"
She keeps coming at me.
Carl: "What the heck is a nice princess like this walking alone in the woods for?"
Jeff: "I don't like the looks of this. William, run her off."
Sure enough the elf transforms into a wolf right in front of me and lunges. As I am dodging to the side, I see a white-blue ball of fire pass not 10 feet from where I stood, giving me second degree burns just from the proximity. Jim catches the fireball in the chest and the rest of the lads cry out in agony briefly before expiring.
Everything went dark at that point, and I knew no more.
--
So, that's what happened. What would you have done differently in that situation to head off the elf or better protect your buddies? I think the DM screwed us.
that is all
See, your DM may well have railroaded you... or he may be using perfectly acceptable rules for a creature you've never seen before. You may have been screwed... or you may simply be on the road to a lucrative adventure.
As far as what I'd have done differently? As soon as she showed up, being the skittish rogue that I am, I'd have given her one chance to halt and identify herself then hammered her (and not necessarily in that order).
Vow of Poverty states that the player cannot OWN gold or items with a huge item value. The player can pick up a 5,000,000gp item, look at it, then hand it to the wizard and will not break the VoP feat.
The only other way for an Exhaulted feat to be removed other than breaking it, is for the player to undergo an alignment shift. If the player remains with the alignment of good, then the only way for it to be removed is for the player to break the vow itself. The Exhaulted Vows are not identical to the Paladin's Code.
If the situation that was described by you is accurate, then I would have to say that you got surprised by another character. If what was said is accuarte, then I would take that conversation to be a form of aggression. Therefore, self-defense.
On a side note, if I ever meet a person on a road, I always tell the GM that I would like to make a spot and listen check to see if there is anybody else traveling with her in close proximity. This is because there are only two reasons people would be traveling alone. One is to suprise others to get a quick attack, and the other is that the person does not need any person to help him. If the second is the case, you where going to die anyway. This would mean that the GM screwed you.
So, that's what happened. What would you have done differently in that situation to head off the elf or better protect your buddies? I think the DM screwed us.
If you want to state who showed aggression first, then it would be the "banditos." They unsheathed their swords and nocked their arrows towards the upcoming individual. That is the first sign of aggression in your statement.
Incorrect. A lone figure approaches and continues to no matter what. The simple act of walking into my camp (or gathering, if you prefer) unannounced and uninvited is aggressive enough. To continue towards me no matter what is presented, again without being asked to move into the group, is aggression as well. She was intruding upon them, not the other way around. Her simple act of approaching them uninvited started the aggression cycle. Her refusal to stop advancing after they made it perfectly clear they were unnerved by her presence escalated it. Are you saying they were wrong to take up arms against an intruder? Should they have just sat still and let her walk into their group to do gods knows what? She started it by entering the area and refusing to stop moving forward.
EDIT: Re-reading my post it is also clear that the first instance of aggression is explained in my first sentence- her persistant approach.
Hi! I'd like the opinion of everyone who has read the "I am not exalted, anymore?" thread.
This is the story:
My character is a human ranger, and my buddies and I have been robbing the rich nobles of the land to fight their tyrrany and taxation. Orcs ravage our lands while they ride in plush coaches drinking wine and being fed peeled grapes. We've made a particularly large score this outing, and the lads were appraising the value of the take.
So anyway, out of nowhere this elven chick comes walking through the woods toward us, taking immediate notice of our valuables. Now, you don't last as a rogue without some street smarts, and though this chick isn't armed as far as I can see, I know a thing or two about elves. They are naturally attuned to arcane magic, and even those who do not practice wizardry or sorcery can often channel the forces of Nature. Some are even monks. I don't know what this chick is about, but I am no sucker. She's either deranged, really dumb, or out for revenge. She starts babbling about orcs and sharing information, which doesn't help me decide which of the three she is.
The boys are getting twitchy, 'cuz their mommas didn't raise no fools either, and I can hear them knock arrows. I don't want any unnecessary violence on my concience, especially after the morning was off to such a good start, so I draw my weapon and approach her, trying to scare her off, saying, "It's a really bad idea for a girl to be walking alone in these woods."
She keeps coming at me.
"What's in that bag?"
She keeps coming at me.
Carl: "What the heck is a nice princess like this walking alone in the woods for?"
Jeff: "I don't like the looks of this. William, run her off."
Sure enough the elf transforms into a wolf right in front of me and lunges. As I am dodging to the side, I see a white-blue ball of fire pass not 10 feet from where I stood, giving me second degree burns just from the proximity. Jim catches the fireball in the chest and the rest of the lads cry out in agony briefly before expiring.
Everything went dark at that point, and I knew no more.
--
So, that's what happened. What would you have done differently in that situation to head off the elf or better protect your buddies? I think the DM screwed us.
Well, what about being a little clearer, like saying: "Stop there! What are you doing here?" or "Who are you." instead of oblique references to her being a girl walking all alone in the woods would have been nice ... Anyway, I think it the whole situation was poorly roleplayed by both sides.
So, that's what happened. What would you have done differently in that situation to head off the elf or better protect your buddies? I think the DM screwed us.
I'd have said something along the lines of "Please stay where you are and tell us what you want!" instead of trying to scare her off (which, as has already been noted, quite probably doesn't work against people brave enough to venture into the forest all alone)...
My opinion would be based on the character opinion. Good / Bad is really just a figure of personal opinion. Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor and was considered good. Robbing is an evil act, however this is a judgement of "the end justifies the means." This can be used for a majority of the superheros we have today as well. Batman is good, however vilgilantes are considered evil according to law.
Vow of Poverty states that the player cannot OWN gold or items with a huge item value. The player can pick up a 5,000,000gp item, look at it, then hand it to the wizard and will not break the VoP feat.
The only other way for an Exhaulted feat to be removed other than breaking it, is for the player to undergo an alignment shift. If the player remains with the alignment of good, then the only way for it to be removed is for the player to break the vow itself. The Exhaulted Vows are not identical to the Paladin's Code.
If the situation that was described by you is accurate, then I would have to say that you got surprised by another character. If what was said is accuarte, then I would take that conversation to be a form of aggression. Therefore, self-defense.
On a side note, if I ever meet a person on a road, I always tell the GM that I would like to make a spot and listen check to see if there is anybody else traveling with her in close proximity. This is because there are only two reasons people would be traveling alone. One is to suprise others to get a quick attack, and the other is that the person does not need any person to help him. If the second is the case, you where going to die anyway. This would mean that the GM screwed you.
That is not true. She has to take her share and give it away. She can't give it to the group only the needed or the like.
Hi! I'd like the opinion of everyone who has read the "I am not exalted, anymore?" thread.
This is the story:
My character is a human ranger, and my buddies and I have been robbing the rich nobles of the land to fight their tyrrany and taxation. Orcs ravage our lands while they ride in plush coaches drinking wine and being fed peeled grapes. We've made a particularly large score this outing, and the lads were appraising the value of the take.
So anyway, out of nowhere this elven chick comes walking through the woods toward us, taking immediate notice of our valuables. Now, you don't last as a rogue without some street smarts, and though this chick isn't armed as far as I can see, I know a thing or two about elves. They are naturally attuned to arcane magic, and even those who do not practice wizardry or sorcery can often channel the forces of Nature. Some are even monks. I don't know what this chick is about, but I am no sucker. She's either deranged, really dumb, or out for revenge. She starts babbling about orcs and sharing information, which doesn't help me decide which of the three she is.
The boys are getting twitchy, 'cuz their mommas didn't raise no fools either, and I can hear them knock arrows. I don't want any unnecessary violence on my concience, especially after the morning was off to such a good start, so I draw my weapon and approach her, trying to scare her off, saying, "It's a really bad idea for a girl to be walking alone in these woods."
She keeps coming at me.
"What's in that bag?"
She keeps coming at me.
Carl: "What the heck is a nice princess like this walking alone in the woods for?"
Jeff: "I don't like the looks of this. William, run her off."
Sure enough the elf transforms into a wolf right in front of me and lunges. As I am dodging to the side, I see a white-blue ball of fire pass not 10 feet from where I stood, giving me second degree burns just from the proximity. Jim catches the fireball in the chest and the rest of the lads cry out in agony briefly before expiring.
Everything went dark at that point, and I knew no more.
--
So, that's what happened. What would you have done differently in that situation to head off the elf or better protect your buddies? I think the DM screwed us.
I think you were looking for a fight and was trying and planning rob and **** her. shame on you.;)
:lightbulb :lightbulbI'd have said something along the lines of "Please stay where you are and tell us what you want!" instead of trying to scare her off (which, as has already been noted, quite probably doesn't work against people brave enough to venture into the forest all alone)...
Shouldn't they have rolled oposing checks on that anyway.
If trolling is the same thing as providing an alternative viewpoint, then yes .. I was trolling.
An alternative viewpoint which, in your example, cannot be either confirmed or disproven to be the correct alternate viewpoint unless the Druid's DM gets on these forums. For all we know, the bandits slaughtered a group of traders about a half-mile away, and were dividing the ill-gotten loot between themselves.
I also noticed you seemed to "forget" the diplomacy check made by the Druid with the bandits. How...convenient.
On a side note: I'm not sure you needed a separate thread to demonstrate a juxtaposition? What were your motivations for beginning a new thread to respond to a thread? I'm confident humiliating the OP of the thread "I am not exalted, anymore?" would not have been one of your motivators.
On a side note: I'm not sure you needed a separate thread to demonstrate a juxtaposition? What were your motivations for beginning a new thread to respond to a thread? I'm confident humiliating the OP of the thread "I am not exalted, anymore?" would not have been one of your motivators.
+1 (with the intended sarcasm)
I also noticed you seemed to "forget" the diplomacy check made by the Druid with the bandits. How...convenient.
Aye. Another indication that the OP wasn't interested in "providing another viewpoint".
Not really.
Sorry.
For all we know, the bandits slaughtered a group of traders about a half-mile away, and were dividing the ill-gotten loot between themselves.
And this affects the scenario how exactly? The druid only knows that they are 5 men admiring valuables. They could have just slaughtered a band of orcs, or raided a dungeon. Loot is a vague term. "Ill-gotten" is your own addition.
I also noticed you seemed to "forget" the diplomacy check made by the Druid with the bandits. How...convenient.
Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. A rushed Diplomacy check can be made as a full-round action, but you take a -10 penalty on the check.
Diplomacy is a contest between two people. The druid's player claimed that his character succeeded, but what does that mean? Even if the druid made an excellent diplomatic speech very quickly and every member of the 'group of men' failed to see through her lies, her subsequent actions of advancing on them nullified her diplomacy with a hostile act.
Even if the druid made an excellent diplomatic speech very quickly and every member of the 'group of men' failed to see through her lies, her subsequent actions of advancing on them nullified her diplomacy with a hostile act.
I don't know about you, but if I was being approached by a beautiful unarmed woman talking peacefully, I wouldn't see this as a hostile act.
Also, I find it interesting that you present her diplomacy speech as lies, being as in the 'Exalted' thread, the poster makes it clear she didn't want to fight.
I don't know about you, but if I was being approached by a beautiful unarmed woman talking peacefully, I wouldn't see this as a hostile act.
You also do not live in a world where a woman can shift into a wolf or pinch a bat turd to make a gigantic fireball appear. They were in the middle of nowhere dividing loot when a stranger invaded their gathering. She continued to advance after they made it clear she was not wanted. Sounds hostile to me.
Also, I find it interesting that you present her diplomacy speech as lies, being as in the 'Exalted' thread, the poster makes it clear she didn't want to fight.
I agree with you, here. It's presumptuous to call the check lies. But, if she didn't want to fight why continue to advance? Why attack instead of running? She may have said she didn't want to fight, but her actions tell a very different story.
And this affects the scenario how exactly? The druid only knows that they are 5 men admiring valuables. They could have just slaughtered a band of orcs, or raided a dungeon. Loot is a vague term. "Ill-gotten" is your own addition.
Since you decided that you were justified to portray them as righteous bandits of Chaotic Good-ness, and as neither of us has any idea what their backstory was, I felt justified in portraying them as murdering bandits of Lawful/Neutral Evil-ness. If you have any reason why you MUST BE right and I MUST BE wrong, then I would be glad to hear them.
Diplomacy is a contest between two people. The druid's player claimed that his character succeeded, but what does that mean? Even if the druid made an excellent diplomatic speech very quickly and every member of the 'group of men' failed to see through her lies, her subsequent actions of advancing on them nullified her diplomacy with a hostile act.
If them DM added that -10 for rushed diplomacy, it was, likely, by his own choice, not the player's. I inferred she intended to make a full-length diplomacy check, and, if the DM decided to make it hurried with the -10 penalty, that is railroading at it's very worst.
Since you decided that you were justified to portray them as righteous bandits of Chaotic Good-ness, and as neither of us has any idea what their backstory was, I feel justified in portraying them as murdering bandits of Lawful/Neutral Evil-ness. If you have any reason why you MUST BE right and I MUST BE wrong, then I would be glad to hear them.
If them DM added that -10 for rushed diplomacy, it was, likely, by his own choice, not the player's. I inferred she intended to make a full-length diplomacy check, and, if the DM decided to make it hurried with the -10 penalty, that is railroading at it's very worst.
And again .. this affects the scenario how exactly?
Who they are and what they've done is not something she knows. She can speculate that they are bad men, and bad men they may be. They may also be good men. They could be adventurers returning from a dungeon or slaughtering orcs, as I previously suggested. But she chose to confront and assault them because she is a bully. If she truly, truly feared for her life and virtue, she would have turned right around at the first sign of hostility, or at a minimum stopped approaching before she reached the range of the archers.
But she didn't. She didn't fear these men one lick. And now they are crispy victims of her own evil actions.
And again .. this affects the scenario how exactly?
Who they are and what they've done is not something she knows. She can speculate that they are bad men, and bad men they may be. They may also be good men. They could be adventurers returning from a dungeon or slaughtering orcs, as I previously suggested. But she chose to confront and assault them because she is a bully. If she truly, truly feared for her life and virtue, she would have turned right around at the first sign of hostility, or at a minimum stopped approaching before she reached the range of the archers.
I believe we all agree that the actions were not the exact best way to handle the scenario, but they were far from being enough to bring their exalted nature into question. They were Neutral actions at worst. Not Evil. Unless we have been lied to, I ask you, please justify how they are Evil. If you feel that Exalted characters must either wait until they are attacked before fighting or run away if they feel like they could be attacked, thats...well...I don't have a non-offensive ending to that sentance so I'll leave it like that. If all Exalted adventurers were forced to act like that, how many would get past the first room in the first dungeon they ever explored? My guess: Only those who are willing to lose their exalted status.
I would also like to point out that this is not a Lawful Good character they're playing, it's a Neutral Good character. They are Exalted, yes, but I would like to remind EVERYONE that the BoED is STRONGLY Lawful Stupid. Anything contained within is to be taken with a grain of salt. ESPECIALLY the parts on alignment.
As I have said before, I believe the Druid handled the encounter poorly. Her actions were not Exalted, but neither were they Evil. A Neutral act, IMO, should not be enough to bring question to your Exalted status. If it did, there could be no Exalted characters...after all, breathing is a Neutral action. Heck, you could even argue (poorly) that it is Lawful Evil. You selfishly preserve your own life by taking air that could be better used by drowning poor, hungry, hurt children. :P
But she didn't. She didn't fear these men one lick. And now they are crispy victims of her own evil actions.
Once again, justify how they are Evil. Not Neutral, EVIL.
Now, I would like to propose a scenario to YOU. Let us replace the bandits with ogres. Would you still think the Druid's actions were Evil? If not, why?
Edit: P.S.-As for affecting the scenario: If it didn't affect the scenario, why did you take the time to explain how the bandits were stealing from the rich to give to the poor? Answer: It garners more sympathy to the bandits than they would have if it weren't mentioned, just like my idea that they might have been murderers would garner them less sympathy.
I would like to say, once again, we do not know what the bandits' backgrounds were, so noone should go and try to impress their scenario upon the audience unless thay have some good evidence for it. You have none. Neither do I. How about we stop arguing about who the bandits were and argue about what happened. After all, as you say, it doesn't matter who they were.
Double Edit: P.P.S.-You still haven't addressed why you chose not to include the diplomacy check.
What else would you have liked said about it?
I disregarded the diplomacy check because it was meaningless. The druid player claimed he succeeded on a diplomacy check, but it had no effect. I mentioned that the druid was babbling about orcs and sharing information .. because to the group of men it was just some person talking nonsense.
What else would you have liked said about it?
I would like if you had mentioned that it was not just nonsense, but was actually a diplomacy check. However, you wouldn't be able to say that without revealing that this was just you trying to make a point in one thread by making another thread which tried to make NPC's into PC's. (Which, of course, doesn't work because of reasons like skill checks which PC's use on NPC's but NPC's don't use on PC's.) (Also, we don't know the diplomacy check was meaningless. Maybe the bandits were originally hostile and it raised them to unfriendly. :P)
I believe that the entire community would have liked it better if you had argued this in the appropriate thread instead of wasting space creating another one. This thread should never have been made, it should have been a post in the appropriate thread or locked immediately upon the thread's creation. However, while such a thread is up, I would like to you address the other points I made in this thread. For example: Give a reason that the actions were Evil. EVIL. You have called them Evil, please justify it.
I would also like to you answer my question about if you would still think the actions evil if the bandits were ogres instead.
I would also like to know what are your parameters for a character being exalted, aside from giving the benefit of the doubt to 4 rogues until they are Sneak Attacked during the surprise round.
Etc., etc.
P.S.- In the future, when addressing points in each of my posts, please address in an all-or-nothing fashion, instead of just nitpicking. Thank you.
INFLUENCING NPC ATTITUDES
Use the table below to determine the effectiveness of Diplomacy checks (or Charisma checks) made to influence the attitude of a nonplayer character, or wild empathy checks made to influence the attitude of an animal or magical beast.
Initial Attitude ————— New Attitude (DC to achieve)—————
Hostile Unfriendly Indifferent Friendly Helpful
Hostile Less than 20 20 25 35 50
Unfriendly Less than 5 5 15 25 40
Indifferent — Less than 1 1 15 30
Friendly — — Less than 1 1 20
Helpful — — — Less than 1 1
Attitude Means Possible Actions
Hostile Will take risks to hurt you Attack, interfere, berate, flee
Unfriendly Wishes you ill Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult
Indifferent Doesn’t much care Socially expected interaction
Friendly Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aid
She was try to make them like her better with her skill check. and he was trying this
Table: Example Opposed Checks
Task Skill (Key Ability) Opposing Skill (Key Ability)
Con someone Bluff (Cha) Sense Motive (Wis)
Pretend to be someone else Disguise (Cha) Spot (Wis)
Create a false map Forgery (Int) Forgery (Int)
Hide from someone Hide (Dex) Spot (Wis)
Make a bully back down Intimidate (Cha) Special1
Sneak up on someone Move Silently (Dex) Listen (Wis)
Steal a coin pouch Sleight of Hand (Dex) Spot (Wis)
Tie a prisoner securely Use Rope (Dex) Escape Artist (Dex)
1 An Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s level check, not a skill check. See the Intimidate skill description for more information.
INTIMIDATE (CHA)
Check: You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6
I would like if you had mentioned that it was not just nonsense, but was actually a diplomacy check. However, you wouldn't be able to say that without revealing that this was just you trying to make a point in one thread by making another thread which tried to make NPC's into PC's. (Which, of course, doesn't work because of reasons like skill checks which PC's use on NPC's but NPC's don't use on PC's.) (Also, we don't know the diplomacy check was meaningless. Maybe the bandits were originally hostile and it raised them to unfriendly. :P)
I believe that the entire community would have liked it better if you had argued this in the appropriate thread instead of wasting space creating another one. This thread should never have been made, it should have been a post in the appropriate thread or locked immediately upon the thread's creation. However, while such a thread is up, I would like to you address the other points I made in this thread. For example: Give a reason that the actions were Evil. EVIL. You have called them Evil, please justify it.
I would also like to you answer my question about if you would still think the actions evil if the bandits were ogres instead.
I would also like to know what are your parameters for a character being exalted, aside from giving the benefit of the doubt to 4 rogues until they are Sneak Attacked during the surprise round.
I would agree with what has been posted. I was highly offended by this thread because it was a rather insulting way to disagree with someone who seemed IMO to have been poorly treated by their DM. I would like to know why you think that exalted players must sacrafice PCs because they must always wait until weapons are fired, not drawn, not threatened with, used with the intent to harm or kill.
Take this junk to the actual relavent thread. It ain't funny, it isn't smart. It is rude and it is also a very poor way to make a point.
I disregarded the diplomacy check because it was meaningless.
Why didn't you disregard the fireball because it was meaningless?
Both are valid actions ruleswise - disregarding them means breaking the rules.
And why PVP should not be allowed.
It makes you into a judge, deciding a case between both sides, both wanting to win, when only one can., and most of the calls are easy, but some aren't.
This is exactly why I don't allow such PPVP stuff in my games.
While I think that this shows the POV of the "Bandits" I still think both sides were wrong.
She's either deranged, really dumb, or out for revenge.
Is definitely not the only interpretation. Lost in the woods? seeking information?
Because your group didn't consider that, they died.
Roll new characters, as if she was an NPC, and it was any other encounter.
You don't like the rulings, vote with your feet.
Only one person here is the DM, and it's their game, not ours, so all of this can only be commentary.
If the Druid and her companion are sufficiently freaked out to fire upon you, they so did. If your guys would have fired first, you'd have at least done some damage...that's how combat goes.
To me, right and wrong don't matter so much as how it gamed out. We all know what happened, so...
Run it over 6 times and see how to do it better next time, and roll new characters, I say.