Goblin Hollow RPing

Postby Shyal_malkes on Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:58 am

ok, I'll do this in two times, local and GMT (mostly so I can doublecheck my work later if I get confused or something)

Local:
MW=usually online once or twice between 8:00AM and 5:00PM
TTh=online almost constantly between 8:30AM and 12:00 PM
F=online after 1:00PM until random (depending on my ride situation)
Sa=usually online once durring the day typically after 12:00PM (cartoons come first ya know)
Su=usually online once or twice after 1:00PM

GMT:
MW=usually online once or twice between 1:00PM and 10:00PM
TTh=online almost constantly between 1:30PM and 5:00 PM
F=online after 6:00PM until random (depending on my ride situation)
Sa=usually online once durring the day typically after 5:00PM (cartoons come first ya know)
Su=usually online once or twice after 6:00PM

I think I got it right, if not I know I got the local times down

my character I'm thinking maybe a halfelf sorcerer, yeah.
I still say the doctor did it....
User avatar
Shyal_malkes
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1804
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:12 am

Postby Kerry Skydancer on Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:57 pm

Hmm. I -still- don't see where you asked for times.

I'm limited to weekend evenings, or weekday evenings after 10 Eastern/3 am GMT. If that doesn't fit with the majority, don't try to force it on my account.

If the schedules fit... I didn't request a specific class for that cameo - in fact, I didn't even specify the comic for it. But Ralph pegged me. Rogue or mage is my usual preference. Details if the schedule fits.
Skydancer

Ignorance is not a point of view.
User avatar
Kerry Skydancer
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Bethlehem PA

Postby Madmoonie on Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:05 pm

Okay, I am slowly managing to piece a character together...One thing I would like to know more about is Menthorian's government, how it is built and who is in charge. And also how the Guard interactes with Trademasters. What I have got so far is a NG Mercenary who maybe or at sometime was involved with the Bluecastle Guard. Rogue-like qualities, fights in shadow, real cloak and dagger stuff. I can elaborate more when needed.
Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?' John 11: 25-26
----
Want a new avatar? Contact me and I can set you up with a new sig pic or avatar, totally FREE!
User avatar
Madmoonie
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 2215
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:05 pm
Location: Not a fuzzy clue.... (waves)

Postby Selden on Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:03 pm

So, if I've got this right...

capnregex wants to play a paladin,
fusion is looking for either ranger or a rogue (most likely, since he's using dirks) with a feat spent on Two Weapon Fighting,
Mjolnir is gunning for an eldritch knight (not necessarily with that prestige class),
shyal_malkes is taking a halfelven sorcerer,
Kerry Skydancer prefers rogue or arcane caster,
and Madmoonie sounds like he'd like either rogue or ranger.

To summarize; you've got a fair front line if the straight melee people are all in it, but two of the three (or three of the four, if Kerry takes melee rogue) aren't the sort who really want to stand and take hits when they could be manuevering for better positions, taking the enemy by surprise, that sort of thing. The paladin screws all chance of a stealth-based party, but Mjolnir and shyal would make that a bit of a problem anyway. One or two full-time casters with Mjolnir as backup seems plenty, and a group of seven wouldn't get far on a paladin's Lay On Hands. I'd better work on background for a warrior cleric from Korbrim. So, uh... I could use details on that deity's basic tenets, when his clergy pray and what his favored weapon is, please.
Selden
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:48 pm

Paladin Concern

Postby Capnregex on Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:18 pm

I'm a little concerned about this whole alignment thing.
I've been told I tend to think in black and white.. and I suppose it's true, but it makes more sense that way to me.

Just for the sake of clarification, Let's take a Rogue class for example.

Imagine for a moment two armies..

One army protecting a nation of free people and who's laws were for the most part good.

The other army, driven by their C.O. to hate the first and who's sole aim is to enslave and destroy the first.

Said Rogue is a member of the first army, and seeing an opertunity, sneaks into the enemy camp and assinates the C.O. in his sleep and sneaks back out again..

The other army wakes up to find their leader dead, and being a rather supersticious lot, believe it an act of god, ect and all run away.

The results being the rogue saved thousands of lives..

I would like to ask at this point, to help enlighten me, is what is the rogue's alignment?
Note: Rogue specifies alignment: Any in the SRD .
User avatar
Capnregex
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:50 am

Postby Madmoonie on Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:26 pm

See, that is what I thought my rogue would. A matter of methods not alignment. A cloak and dagger kind of guy, but who fights for the general good.
Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?' John 11: 25-26
----
Want a new avatar? Contact me and I can set you up with a new sig pic or avatar, totally FREE!
User avatar
Madmoonie
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 2215
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:05 pm
Location: Not a fuzzy clue.... (waves)

Postby Capnregex on Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:32 pm

Selden wrote:The paladin screws all chance of a stealth-based party

Muahah... :twisted: ( oh oops, did I say that? ) :D

That's not a problem, I play tin can up front and put myself between the caster and the foe..
The foe thinks.. Only one big shiny guy? this will be easy..
They attack, and then right after that, the sneaky fellows hit them from behind..

perfect..

Hey, just because full plate is noizy... :)
User avatar
Capnregex
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:50 am

Postby Mjolnir on Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:37 am

Selden wrote:Mjolnir is gunning for an eldritch knight (not necessarily with that prestige class),

Maybe, maybe not. A fighter/spellcaster could also be a straight-up cleric. I'm not sure yet. I'll have more info once his background's worked out.

- Mjolnir
Image
User avatar
Mjolnir
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:23 am
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Selden on Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:23 am

Which is why I said 'if' I've got this right. I can still make a cleric, possibly as a dedicated healer, if you decide to make one, or I could try for something spiffy like a barbarian lancer or a sorcerer striving to be accepted into an order of monks. (Though the latter seems just plain silly, really.) A straight monk could be helpful... though he plays to the party's strengths, when I usually try to cap the weaknesses. A druid's certainly feasible, too.

Alignment isn't about actions. It's about intent. Did this rogue assassinate the enemy leader 'for king and country?' Then yes, certainly he's good. Did he do it because he feared for the lives of his family if the war kept going? Probably neutral, since it was done for people he has good reason to care about and not really for the common man of the nation. Did he off the guy because he'd been drafted for the war's duration and it was really hampering his (il)legitimate business? Or perhaps because his talents were known to his side and he was offered a massive reward? The first is definitely the act of an evil rogue, and I'd argue that if the reward is his only motivation, that's evil too.
Selden
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:48 pm

Postby Shyal_malkes on Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:45 am

I'm thinking my sorcerer should be chaotic nutral, yeah. that sounds about right.
I still say the doctor did it....
User avatar
Shyal_malkes
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1804
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:12 am

Postby CasVeg on Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:31 am

Alright, some people seem to be leaning away from D&D. Also, I will be starting a dedicated official invitational thread Monday; so, others may want to join. [i]And[/i], I actually have several things that I'd like to try. Because of all this, I'm going to offer two campaign worlds, Knights of Blucastle (D&D) and Future Arcana (d20 Modern). On Monday, with Ralph's permission, I would also like to start a new RP thread for Twilight Offensive (set in the Questorverse). I won't stop anyone from joining a campaign; but, I would like to shunt a few people into the Modern campaign so I'm not working with seven or eight players at a time. (I'm also doing this because one or two characters that you've proposed won't fit in Knights of Bluecastle but would be great in Future Arcana. I will speak with you individually via PM.) I'll be available 2 AM - 2 PM Saturday UST (8 PM Friday - 8 AM Saturday EST) and 2 AM - 2 PM Monday UST (8 PM Sunday - 8 AM Monday). You can PM me or join me in a chat; I'll post instructions. If all goes well, I should have the first adventures set up by the 27th. (This is actually the same schedule I had originally intended.)

Incidentally, I might be making a few changes to the Sorcerer class before we start. Also, the way that familiars will work in my campaign will be slightly different. It will take me a couple of days to compile the material and write the adventures; so, please, be patient.


And, thank you, Selden, for your explaination of alignment.


P.S.: FYI, I had material for both settings before Madmoonie's original post; so, I'm not just pulling this out of the air.
CasVeg
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:06 am

Postby Selden on Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:46 am

Eh, I'm good for anything. I'll sign up for the D&D thread and possibly the Twilight Offensive one, but feel free to PM me if you need more people in the d20 Modern, too. (Life? What's that?)

A real in-depth discussion of alignment would explore concepts like torture and lying (and why some people argue that it can be used by good characters, while others can't) and how different belief systems make some good actions out to be evil or vice-versa (I'm told that one philosopher believed it was flat-out wrong to in any way obstruct someone else... even if what they wanted to do was blow up the dam and flood your city). Frankly, it would give me a headache to even try to consider all possible definitions and viewpoints. I just went with a few simple examples.
Selden
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: Paladin Concern

Postby Wanderwolf on Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:51 pm

capnregex wrote:I'm a little concerned about this whole alignment thing.
I've been told I tend to think in black and white.. and I suppose it's true, but it makes more sense that way to me.

Just for the sake of clarification, Let's take a Rogue class for example.

Imagine for a moment two armies..

One army protecting a nation of free people and who's laws were for the most part good.

The other army, driven by their C.O. to hate the first and who's sole aim is to enslave and destroy the first.

Said Rogue is a member of the first army, and seeing an opertunity, sneaks into the enemy camp and assinates the C.O. in his sleep and sneaks back out again..

The other army wakes up to find their leader dead, and being a rather supersticious lot, believe it an act of god, ect and all run away.

The results being the rogue saved thousands of lives..

I would like to ask at this point, to help enlighten me, is what is the rogue's alignment?
Note: Rogue specifies alignment: Any in the SRD .


Easy one. The first army is Lawful Good, as most good-aligned armies are. (An organized fighting force is almost never chaotic... well, okay, a competent organized fighting force.) "War has been declared, and combat operations will begin at dawn."

The second army is Lawful Evil by default, strictly by the behavior of the C.O. "I am your lawful leader, and you shall follow me or suffer a thousand torments before AND after death!"

The rogue is therefore Chaotic Good. "I know everyone's looking forward to this whole 'glorious battle' thing I've heard so much about. I understand, really. But I'd just as soon get this over with, spare the bloodshed, and go home. So you can take the Rules of War, add some pipeweed, and use appropriately." (If he was Chaotic Evil, he'd be making off with his own side's pay chest; if Chaotic Neutral, he wouldn't be there at all. And since he's ignoring the Rules of War, he can't very well be Lawful.)

The second army, minus the leader, is Chaotic Evil. "There's a whole bunch of enemies out there, and I know all my companions will watch my back just like I'd watch theirs... so I'm going home."

The simple version of the alignments:

Lawful Good: I shall obey the law, as long as the law serves the greater good.
Neutral Good: I shall serve the greater good, whether lawfully or not.
Chaotic Good: Who cares about the law? Freedom and the greater good!

Lawful Neutral: I shall serve the law.
Neutral Neutral: I shall serve the ends I believe in, law or no law.
Chaotic Neutral: I shall serve my own whims, and to blazes with the law!

Lawful Evil: Law is good... as long as it serves my ends.
Neutral Evil: Law and freedom are both my tools.
Chaotic Evil: Who cares about law? All for me!

Yours wolfishly,

The alignment-checking,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby Selden on Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:32 am

I'm sorry, but I really can't agree with that. War is not glorious, and it's hard to find anybody who honestly thinks it's a gentleman's game to be played according to this set of rules. War is interdiction of supply lines. It's the razing of fields and towns you don't think you can hold for long so the enemy doesn't benefit from them. It's the sending of commando units to destroy critical enemy positions (and even paladins are sent on that sort of mission). There is nothing inherently lawful in just forming a skirmish line on the battlefield, and there's nothing inherently chaotic in killing off the enemy CO. Especially if you're part of a group sent to harass the enemy however possible, which seems more likely than the front lines for a rogue.

You also assume the rogue's motivations. Even a chaotic evil would stick with his army if he doesn't think it's worth the risks and burned bridges to break into the treasury (or the armory, or the CO's tent to copy down his plans and sell them to the enemy CO) and run, and being chaotic neutral doesn't mean that you can't be willing to fight to protect what's yours. Endure the annoyance of army life or try to fight an entire horde on your own... hmm.
Selden
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:48 pm

Postby Wanderwolf on Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:39 pm

Selden wrote:I'm sorry, but I really can't agree with that. War is not glorious, and it's hard to find anybody who honestly thinks it's a gentleman's game to be played according to this set of rules. War is interdiction of supply lines. It's the razing of fields and towns you don't think you can hold for long so the enemy doesn't benefit from them. It's the sending of commando units to destroy critical enemy positions (and even paladins are sent on that sort of mission). There is nothing inherently lawful in just forming a skirmish line on the battlefield, and there's nothing inherently chaotic in killing off the enemy CO. Especially if you're part of a group sent to harass the enemy however possible, which seems more likely than the front lines for a rogue.


Well, keep in mind the medieval setting. For the nobility, war was a game... the worst thing that usually happened to them was being held "captive" in the other side's castle until their home territory scraped up the ransom. Take a look at King Richard the Lion-Hearted and his captivity in Geneva for an example; the absolute worst that could happen was "durance vile", which amounts to doing a little work "appropriate to your station" while you sit around.

Of course, things were different for the peasantry. No ransom means no prisoners, especially since they were effectively property. Likewise, the peasants couldn't keep prisoners... they couldn't feed them. Mind you, that wasn't a problem until the peasants had to battle the knights...

This was part of why Agincourt was so unusual for its day: The English shot the horses and killed the prisoners. This amounts to dumping a large chunk of potential profit for immediate necessity.

Selden wrote:You also assume the rogue's motivations. Even a chaotic evil would stick with his army if he doesn't think it's worth the risks and burned bridges to break into the treasury (or the armory, or the CO's tent to copy down his plans and sell them to the enemy CO) and run, and being chaotic neutral doesn't mean that you can't be willing to fight to protect what's yours. Endure the annoyance of army life or try to fight an entire horde on your own... hmm.


Chaotic Evil typically doesn't care about alliances: The strongest or fittest leads, and all the others are spear carriers (and let's not discuss where they're carrying the spears). Law has nothing to do with their actions, by definition. What, they're going to send a detachment after him just before the battle starts?

As for Chaotic Neutral, he wouldn't be there because he'd figure the smart thing to do is live somewhere else. Freedom above all else, remember?

I stand by my definitions, but YMMV.

Yours truly,

The pretty-sure-he's-right,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby Selden on Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:59 pm

If we're actually talking about a middle ages land war in Germany, then yes, war was considered a game. But Medieval reality rarely enters the picture in D&D-style scenarios; note that this was never stated to be a skirmish between two lords. This is one army trying to defend against another army that has orders to enslave or destroy them to the man, not T.H. White's King Arthur vs. King Lot, with young Gawain confidently asserting that war is a fun game just so long as you get to kill a lot of the stupid commoners. We just have Army A vs. Army B. You've acknowledged this yourself; by your definitions the armies are lawful good and lawful evil, while the ones pushed on by a small array of the nobility were predominantly neutrals who didn't have much say in the matter or knowledge about it. They were ordered to do it by men who could have them executed, so they did it.

Chaotic Evil doesn't care about alliances. I'm in perfect agreement with you on that. What CEs do care about is opportunity cost. If you've got a nice smuggling business set up and draw thousands of gold a year for knocking vagrants over the head and shipping them out to slavers, you're clearly not going to consider it worthwhile to take whatever's handy and run. A Chaotic Evil could very easily choose to run, but only if he feels it's worth doing so. Even if there isn't much at home worth sticking around for, there's still the matter of feasibility; if he doesn't know how to forage effectively in a war-torn land, and knows that he couldn't manage to slip off and retreat to a safe distance just as the battle starts, he might go and assassinate the enemy CO because it seems the least risky to him.

As for the Chaotic Neutrals, you have to remember that somebody can be all about personal freedom without being a complete anarchist or having no loyalty to anybody or anything. The scenario is one army guarding a kingdom of free people. Not serfs, peasants or any of the other names for people whose lives are devoted to tilling their lord's lands most of the day and managing their own to keep from starving. Sure, there are laws, but there's also safety and convenience in numbers. There's also that pesky little problem that if you move every time some jerk with an army comes around, you're effectively letting them dictate where you live. Isn't it your right to choose to stay if you want to? Were you born in this town, and don't feel like moving away from all that's familiar to you? Perhaps you have friends or even a small garden plot that you don't want to leave behind?

Alignments aren't meant to be absolutes. Every action is modified by them, but they aren't the only modifiers by any means. You have to consider who they are, who they're known as, and how much effort they've put into getting there. Parentage, work affiliations, guild memberships, love interests, plans, desires, ultimate goals... they can all affect how somebody is going to act in a situation. If you assume everything is going to hinge on that one variable, you're not just setting yourself up for a series of painful misjudgements; you're also crippling the complexity of the game, which is one of the things that's enjoyable about it.
Selden
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:48 pm

Postby Wanderwolf on Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:37 pm

<snip>

Personally, I feel we both have good points, and that a lot of it is our subjective feelings on the alignment system. Heh... I'd probably have more of an opinion if I didn't have a combat monster running my party. :D Admittedly, things have been a bit smoother since another player finally admitted he can't play paladins... he's much better at barbarians.

Basically, I admit you have many good points, though I still believe I'm right as well. (For some people, cognitive dissonance is an exception. For me, it's the only thing keeping my ego alive. :wink: )

Let's face it, the alignment system was never entirely realistic, so disagreements like this are always going to happen. Shall we agree to disagree?

Yours truly,

The unwilling-to-battle-further,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby Selden on Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:25 am

Yeah, to each his own, I guess... I've never liked to see people taking simple, universal views of anything because I like the complex games that always make you wonder if you're fighting for the right side and for the right reasons. Most people seem to hate that, especially since switching sides from the ruler you've decided is corrupt to the small group of rebels he wanted you to destroy 'for (unspecified or made up) crimes against the populace' generally means a much harder fight with much worse reward. I promise I'll leave the speeches about alignment out of the campaigns.
Selden
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:48 pm

Postby Madmoonie on Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:53 pm

Well, whatever format we use, it really has to be on the forums. My schedule is just too.....ficke to use schedule chat sessions right now.
Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?' John 11: 25-26
----
Want a new avatar? Contact me and I can set you up with a new sig pic or avatar, totally FREE!
User avatar
Madmoonie
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 2215
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:05 pm
Location: Not a fuzzy clue.... (waves)

Postby Selden on Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:25 am

Has anybody been hearing anything about this? I know that CasVeg was PMing last weekend because he accidently sent one to me asking if I'd ever played D&D.
Selden
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:48 pm

PreviousNext

 

Return to Under the Lemon Tree



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron