OOC Chat

[Grognardsw]

Rubesca pours some of the wine from a copper pitcher into a cup and takes it to Biblo. She takes a seat by him. "You should eat something. I overheard Corun talking about the goblins that are being held prisoner here. There's a pretty good chance we could get them to help us in a fight against the rest of kobolds. Let them go at it and we can pick off the week goblins once the battle's over. There's every reason to believe they want revenge against the kobolds and would worry about them before worrying about us."

The clerics are getting very serious about seeing to it that everyone eats something before resuming any further activity. Dakara goes so far as to dig around in people's packs and shoving food at them if they are not already eating.

Corun and Rubesca both question the others on how they think they should proceed from here. Corun thinks its a good chance the goblins being held prisoner might actually serve some purpose to the party, but that would mean heading through the secret door to the south and facing off with at least two of the kobolds that escaped, if not more that might not yet have made an appearance. He also thinks questioning the goblins (if they're agreeable at the time) might get them more information than the kobold could give since they've lived here a lot longer.

With the party's collective perspectives from different points in the caves, and the kobold's information, do we know how many kobolds remain?

I think it unwise to trust goblins, which depending on their numbers could turn on us.

It seems the party didn't have trouble taking on kobolds thus far.

Are there any injured seriously enough the clerics could heal them?

[Zhym]

Sorry about the "private conversation" confusion. I thought it might be more fun if everyone could see the conversation, even if their characters couldn't hear them, instead of having all that plotting go on in PMs where only three of us can enjoy it. But it does make it hard to keep track of what can be heard by whom.

Of course, the real question, now that Llewellyn has learned that Jenn has connections up the...is extremely well connected, is how to get rid of her without killing her. If only for the sake of our rations.

[SlyFox]

Don't worry about it. You can definitely have private conversations where everyone can see, but put it in a spoiler and mention above it that it's a private convo. Anyone wanting to hear will have to make a roll first before going to the area. It's definitely easier and more fun to be able to have everything seen in the main thread.

[SlyFox]

Rubesca pours some of the wine from a copper pitcher into a cup and takes it to Biblo. She takes a seat by him. "You should eat something. I overheard Corun talking about the goblins that are being held prisoner here. There's a pretty good chance we could get them to help us in a fight against the rest of kobolds. Let them go at it and we can pick off the week goblins once the battle's over. There's every reason to believe they want revenge against the kobolds and would worry about them before worrying about us."

The clerics are getting very serious about seeing to it that everyone eats something before resuming any further activity. Dakara goes so far as to dig around in people's packs and shoving food at them if they are not already eating.

Corun and Rubesca both question the others on how they think they should proceed from here. Corun thinks its a good chance the goblins being held prisoner might actually serve some purpose to the party, but that would mean heading through the secret door to the south and facing off with at least two of the kobolds that escaped, if not more that might not yet have made an appearance. He also thinks questioning the goblins (if they're agreeable at the time) might get them more information than the kobold could give since they've lived here a lot longer.

With the party's collective perspectives from different points in the caves, and the kobold's information, do we know how many kobolds remain?

I think it unwise to trust goblins, which depending on their numbers could turn on us.

It seems the party didn't have trouble taking on kobolds thus far.

Are there any injured seriously enough the clerics could heal them?

Everyone should be back up to full or mostly full health.

[GreyWolfVT]

as full as the roller allows for

[AleBelly]

If the intent was a private conversation, I'm happy with Adel not hearing that conversation. Pls let me know, SlyFox and I'll edit my post accordingly.

[GreyWolfVT]

eh we got a decent amount of PC drama flowing lets continue

[SlyFox]

Pfft! No drama at all. Just a DM misunderstanding, but from now on rolls will have to be made. So as it stands, only Dakara overheard because she needed to overhear. She's all for doing away with the over consumption of food, though it doesn't look like that will happen with Jenn's connections.

[FronkyDondo]

*I* would argue that that is a VERY simplistic oversimplification of "Chaotic Neutral". Evil is evil - murder is evil. Having a woman murdered for the only offense of being irritating (at the fault of the player, no less) is Evil. No questions about it. "Yolo" and "Do whatever feels right" - I'll accept that - but there are societal limits. If you murder for profit (assassin) you are evil. If you have someone murdered using an assassin (an evil act itself) for "being irritating" - that's evil. You can split hairs, argue semantics all you want. Chaotic Neutral is NOT a free pass to do whatever you want. "But my character is Chaotic Neutral, so it's ok" - I call bullshit on that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

My two, curmudgeonly cents. Now get off my lawn!

[That will be my interpretation in our game, Slyfox - I would have the character change their alignment to Neutral evil after one or two more offenses - fyi]

[FronkyDondo]

*I* would argue that that is a VERY simplistic oversimplification of "Chaotic Neutral". Evil is evil - murder is evil. Having a woman murdered for the only offense of being irritating (at the fault of the player, no less) is Evil. No questions about it. "Yolo" and "Do whatever feels right" - I'll accept that - but there are societal limits. If you murder for profit (assassin) you are evil. If you have someone murdered using an assassin (an evil act itself) for "being irritating" - that's evil. You can split hairs, argue semantics all you want. Chaotic Neutral is NOT a free pass to do whatever you want. "But my character is Chaotic Neutral, so it's ok" - I call bullshit on that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

My two, curmudgeonly cents. Now get off my lawn!

[That will be my interpretation in our game, Slyfox - I would have the character change their alignment to Neutral evil after one or two more offenses - fyi]

Don't get me wrong - I love playing evil characters, I love having them in parties - but in my opinion the Chaotic Neutral card is abused.

[Dizlexus]

I think you bring too much of your personal morality into the issue.

1st, one must establish as a fact, that murder is an act of evil. Our culture says so. But by NO means is this a universal human ethic. Tribal societies are a good example. What was the ethic in the iron age? What was the ethic in plains Indian war, where a warrior might kill to steal horses, then be the greatest hero of HIS tribe? etc . . . . Many examples in the human experience where murder is not perceived as an act of evil.

So, to understand CN, one must exit one's own cultural morality. Then! One avoids over simplification.

Yes, CN is a bit of a free pass on morality -- it is selfishness, pure and simple. Selfishness is the source of many questionable moral things.

I always apreciate Bill's take on these matters, chime on in, Bill.

[Dizlexus]

let me add, that I agree -- if a CN character always committed murder, the GM should consider an alignment issue.

But a murder or two or 3 -- what's the big deal? really?

[Dizlexus]

Fronky, can I share your PM here?
Fronky wrote:

I hear what you're saying - but I still maintain that having someone murdered in these circumstances is evil - pure and simple. I mean, if we're going to argue about the whole "what's good in one society may not be good in another, yada yada..." that's what I mean about semantics - EITHER do away with alignment altogether (not opposed to that!), or use what would pass for a basic litmus test - if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck - you get my drift.
I just don't like everyone defaulting their characters to a "inviolate" alignment - "can't punish my character DM because he's chaotic neutral and can do anything" - I just don't buy it.
And yes, I've perused Chaotic Neutral definitions on the internet, but my opinion (just that, an opinion) is that CN *is* selfish as you describe, but more "I reject authority, but don't favor the 'good' Jerry Falwells of the world OR the 'evil' Osama Bin Laden of the world - more like an anarchist. I don't think of anarchists as evil or murderers. Like I said, just my 2 cents/opinion.

[SlyFox]

Considering her size, wouldn't that count as three murders at one time?

[FronkyDondo]

let me add, that I agree -- if a CN character always committed murder, the GM should consider an alignment issue.

But a murder or two or 3 -- what's the big deal? really?

I *think* you're being tongue-in-cheek here. I hope so. "a murder or two or three- what's the big deal?" classic!

I'm not upset - I love banter/dialogue back and forth. But I do have a strong opinion on this - never realized I did until today

My point is: it can be just one "murder" - especially in this situation: A guy seduces a woman, but only to steal her of her jewelry at that, then gets irritated because she won't go away, decides to put a contract out on her?! Yikes!

[FronkyDondo]

Fronky, can I share your PM here?

Yes - sorry - was posting as you were posting.

[Dizlexus]

let me add, that I agree -- if a CN character always committed murder, the GM should consider an alignment issue.

But a murder or two or 3 -- what's the big deal? really?

I *think* you're being tongue-in-cheek here. I hope so. "a murder or two or three- what's the big deal?" classic!

I'm not upset - I love banter/dialogue back and forth. But I do have a strong opinion on this - never realized I did until today

My point is: it can be just one "murder" - especially in this situation: A guy seduces a woman, but only to steal her of her jewelry at that, then gets irritated because she won't go away, decides to put a contract out on her?! Yikes!

I'm not being tongue in cheek, I'm expressing my understanding of the alignment. In a flip way . . .

These arguments are the beating heart of role playing! We don't have to agree.

Che Guevara killed allot. Was he evil?

[FronkyDondo]

Che Guevara killed allot. Was he evil?

We were talking murder, not killing - big difference. If you are a freedom fighter, and your only recourse was to kill (for the greater good of society - note the intent), that's one thing.

But if Che killed babies, or if he seduced a portly dancer with the intent to steal from her, but then when she wouldn't go away, hired someone to murder her, I would have a very different opinion.

[FronkyDondo]

I gotta run for now - but we can continue our lively discussion later. But we should stay in OOC so we don't disrupt the flow of the game

[Dizlexus]

Che Guevara killed allot. Was he evil?

We were talking murder, not killing - big difference. If you are a freedom fighter, and your only recourse was to kill (for the greater good of society - note the intent), that's one thing.

But if Che killed babies, or if he seduced a portly dancer with the intent to steal from her, but then when she wouldn't go away, hired someone to murder her, I would have a very different opinion.

I admit, bad analogy.