Whatcha thinking about now?

[anunitu]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

Of course you do Duce,it is the state of your mind that always takes you to the darker edges of the mortal coil...(Damn,I could be an Guru talking like that)

[iris]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

I keep seeing that World Unites asa Church and read it as Wold United Ass Church. Every single time.

me too... and I'm ashamed to admit I giggle a bit every time.
Also. snow. there's actual snow outside!

[Juniper]

Thinking about the book I'm reading: "Insurgent" (the second book in the divergent series). And in always half mad at the main character and half sympathetic. I heard the third book just totally bombs the series.... But I'm probably still going to read it.

Sent from my mobile device using Forum Runner

[Gleb]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

I need to find a solution to my headaches....

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

How history repeats itself. I just read that Miley Cyrus is dating Patrick Schwartzenegger, and his mother, Maria Shriver, ( a Kennedy family member) doesn't approve. Jackie O. didn't like John-John dating Darryl Hannah, back in the day. So now we have Daryl Hannah Montana.

[anunitu]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

Your mind,she does wonder a bit kiddo...also young Patrick seems to be gonna lose a $50 million trust fund if he keeps seeing Miley...The money will last longer than the love affair son...take the money(From old and cynical dude)

[Noir]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

This wretched toothache that occurs every time I step into the cold. :dead:

[Corvus]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

I'm trying to consider if I can trick the party cleric into committing a heresy. His god is Mielikki so maybe have him accidentally set fire to a forest?
It's too bad he's not lawfully aligned. Lawful characters are so much better and easier to deal with. I wouldn't have to consider these possibilities if the entire party wasn't neutral/chaotic good and ooc threatening to kill me.

[MaskedOne]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

I'm trying to consider if I can trick the party cleric into committing a heresy. His god is Mielikki so maybe have him accidentally set fire to a forest?
It's too bad he's not lawfully aligned. Lawful characters are so much better and easier to deal with. I wouldn't have to consider these possibilities if the entire party wasn't neutral/chaotic good and ooc threatening to kill me.

Are you actively malevolent in line of sight of the party or something? Neutral/Chaotic good planning your death without really good reason is generally a statement against them. I haven't really looked at Meilikki's dogma (I vastly prefer Mystra or in my brighter and shinier moods Torm) but there are a couple sects where a cleric or paladin actually moving against you without just cause falls under

skip right to 1:29 and play from there.

[Corvus]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

Are you actively malevolent in line of sight of the party or something? Neutral/Chaotic good planning your death without really good reason is generally a statement against them. I haven't really looked at Meilikki's dogma (I vastly prefer Mystra or in my brighter and shinier moods Torm) but there are a couple sects where a cleric or paladin actually moving against you without just cause falls under

That's the thing. I have done literally nothing wrong besides being a bit pragmatic. I have suggested some morally ambiguous actions ooc (suggesting that the old party might've rendered the (evil) dragon (who was slated for slaying because of eating several villages) brain dead and farm it's blood for profit was probably the most evil) but my character is innocent of actually doing anything really evil except using zombies as a weapon. I'm lawful, do they not understand the restrictions that puts me under? I keep getting told my evilness will inhibit the party's quest but I really cannot understand how. If anything I think a willingness to do anything to achieve our goal isn't bad. Basically the only thing my character has actually done is animate a dead troll to run into some traps to make a safe passage for the party.

The ranger keeps insisting the cleric is required to kill evil on sight, though he says himself that applies only to CE and NE, LE can be worked with in the right circumstances. Mielikki is a goddess of the forest and nature. As far as I can tell she's not dedicated to doing anything but protecting the forest and upholding the proper order of nature, so the use of undead is an abomination to her but allowable so long as their terminated when their need is done.

I don't actually see an issue with the cleric if I'm careful. My character is totally selfish and willing to do anything he can justify, but he's neither stupid nor a terribly bad person. He's currently joined in on the quest because it's lucrative, so his interests coincide with the rest of the party. He won't hesitate to do evil if it is allowed by the law/his code of conduct but he wont do it if it doesn't benefit him. At the same time he might go out of his way to do a good deed if it's not too much trouble and there's no danger to himself. For example if a person had information he needed, he might falsify evidence to a crime to have them arrested then offer to bribe the guards if he gets what he needs, Or if an orphanage is on fire he might send zombies to rescue the children trapped inside.

The majority of the other characters are disgusted by him but recognize that his methods work and are willing to cooperate for mutual success (the bard practically loves him, she finds it hilarious). It's the dang ooc ranger who insists a character who's alignment is closer to evil (I'm technically neutral right now but honestly evil is probably going to happen when I start bribing people and manipulating information in the city government) must be totally villainous and so the good cleric is under an obligation to smite them. Since the DM has noted it's possible for that eventuality to occur IF I basically stop paying attention to the goal of the party, and because the ooc ranger keeps arguing with me about clerical duties and alignment in general I thought a contingency plan wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm intending my character to be a Noble Demon or Nominal Hero type guy.

As is the Cleric and ranger are two of the three characters in the party who can match my strength. The cleric has the strong backing of his god, so I can expect to be smited with some DM favoring if I actually engage combat, which I don't want to do. On the other hand if the ranger is to be believed the cleric will randomly attack me when my alignment finally hits evil, making me defend myself and having said god smite me. Since I'm lawful I'm considering making some loophole heavy contract with the cleric, who will swear by his god, where I will always uphold the party goal to the best of my abilities (not sure if he'd agree to that, I probably need less obvious wording). Therefore if he breaks the contract and attacks me, he's committed a heresy, and the contract itself will get the ranger off my back.

Additionally I'm irritated because I don't need to keep making alignment checks, I am acting like I say I would. Not like the chaotic good princess who wanted to let half the party freeze to death. Yet, I, the only non-good, keep getting the shaft because I don't try to pretend he's good, even ooc.

[MaskedOne]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

I'll look up Meilikki's dogma tomorrow. I have access to it somewhere but the ranger is off the mark and the DM should be planning to rein this in before it goes stupid. There are 3 basic responses to major in party strife

1) everyone knows and is willing to deal with it going in (some people like it)

2) The DM and players set rules on how far things will go and those rules are enforced.

3) "Welcome to Cluster_____. Population: Your gaming group"

[Corvus]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

I'm probably going to have a chat with the DM to clarify. The characters themselves get along okay, aside from some veiled threats which I assume are normal. I'm expecting at least one character to fall from CG to CN (the DM forbid CN/CE alignment which is another reason I don't get why they went CG since it would be easy to fall into a forbidden alignment and draw the DM's wrath) It's arguing with people ooc that's my issue and I'm honestly exasperated with how one dimensional some people think of alignment as. It's simplified compared to real life, yeah but it's not all divided into heros and puppy kickers.

We've kinda got arrangement 1 between our sun elf princess party member and .. well everyone else. Stuck up snob who's a decent sorceress and too wealthy to let escape (ironically she is terrified of my character). Either way I'm having tons of fun but I wish the ranger would calm his nuts, even the cleric isn't as high strung.

Do you think my idea for insurance against the cleric would work? I want to create some kind of arrangement where him attacking me for anything less than randomly murdering innocents constitutes some kind of hugely negative consequence for him. I'm not asking for an unreasonable arrangement, I just want to be sure I'm not killed in my sleep and to put the ranger a bit more at ease regarding my dedication.

[Willow]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

I saw the mouse again. I named him Bob. I now know Bob's nightly route from the basement wall up through the closet and to the dining room.

I wonder how smart Bob is.

[MaskedOne]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

I think the only insurance that should be necessary against the cleric is that if he attacks unjustly (my standards, not the idiot ranger's) then he automatically loses favor with Meilikki. Binding oaths aren't necessary for that to be in play. Meilikki is a good Power, attempting the dishonorable murder of a comrade (regardless of what a detect evil spell says) should immediately lose all spells and powers granted by her. It may be necessary to formalize it in-game because I'm not sure your group understands the alignment system but a good alignment is more than fighting evil. You actually have to be good. Telling a good Power "but he was Evil, my detection spell told me so" to justify cold blooded murder doesn't work. Trying it results in a fallen cleric and the mother of all atonement quests if Meilikki is in a good mood. It results in a fallen cleric mystically branded as a traitor priest if she or one of her stronger servants are in a particularly bad mood. I should note rangers in Toril can fall just like a cleric and the exact same rule applies.

Shrug, my ranting aside, a mystical contract may be in character, may shut up the ranger and may formalize the stakes so it could be a good plan. I just have issues because at least one member of your group apparently doesn't understand the alignment system.

[Medusa]

Re: What Are You Thinking About?

I finished watching all 3 The Hobbit movies. And I was quite happy and entertained while watching them. But now that it's over..I feel the main gist of the quest was left unresolved etc. And that pretty much everyone portrayed in the movie were horrible people. The elves were cold, the dwarves greedy, you watch the wizards knowing who is gonna go bad. And the humans were pretty crappy and petty too. Only the orcs seemed to have true belief of heart as to what they were doing. And that's saying quite a lot. The hobbit. He was cool.