Togo's Planar Adventure set partly in Sigil (OOC)

[Toliudar]

To clarify: Godot's intention with the second Dominate Person was simply to stop the fight. Which is what she had in fact done. She doesn't have a huge range of spells with which to stop someone in this situation, and Dominate Person had in fact proven effective at doing that. I did not intend to in any way diminish Saffron's character or opinions, which are completely valid, just not shared by Godot. I apologize for my own role in escalating this, and hope that we can continue to play alongside each other.

I'll hold off posting IC until I better understand what the current situation is.

[GuesssWho]

I'm going with my character is saying that the situation is uncomfortable, unpleasant, depressing and would make me wish I had a drink if I really had to deal with it.

Luckily my character is Chaotic and wise enough to know that she doesn't need to do any such thing, because she isn't one of the idiots who cares about honor before reason.

[SPoD]

Originally Posted by Togo

However, I would make one suggestion - my feeling is that Saffron's difficulty mainly with the perception that, having dominated the guy once, and discovered that the action Godot wanted him to do would literally drive him to suicide, Godot is preparing to do the same again. I'm not sure if that's true, or if Godot simply wanted to restrain him, but I suspect that it is the idea of intentionally violating someone's will to the extent that they beg for death that's the critical factor here.

Yes, that's it exactly. The thing is that while the dominate may be used at this moment to stop the fight, it is not an instantaneous spell. It has a duration of one day per level. So there's every reason for the guy (and Saffron) to think that once he is under her thrall again, Godot might ask him to divulge his secrets. If he had made his saving throw, he would have been MORE likely to commit suicide than he was before. Further, once the spell ends, he may still want to kill himself rather than risk Godot taking control again (or if he did spill his secrets, out of shame). Godot can't keep him dominated forever, she's going to need to let him go at some point. At that point, he's probably going to die, either from suicide or by attacking us in frustration. So dominating him just prolongs the situation without resolving it and increases his mental anguish significantly in the meantime.

To Saffron, that was analogous to catching an animal in a trap and letting it twist and scream rather than ending it mercifully. I don't necessarily have a detailed code of honor for Saffron or anything, but anything that I can relate to being a good hunter, she's going to follow.

Originally Posted by Togo

That said, I suspect that some of the comments about distracting or holding up the thread are a little misleading. The problem, and stop me if I'm wrong, is not that the thread is slow, or the party is distracted, but rather that the point that violates people's principles is violating it in a long and drawn-out fashion? Making it that much harder to ignore?

Yeah, it's not that it was a real problem, it's just that we couldn't do anything else unless we were willing to sign off on whatever treatment other people chose. As it turned out, I didn't get to log on to the site until it was already headed in a direction that was uncomfortable, so when I jumped in I already knew that something was up. If I had logged on earlier, I probably would have been searching an alleyway or something when this all went down.

I wasn't actually upset about the time spent on the interrogation, I more just thought we were at the natural end its lifespan, and was willing to take one for the team in order to move to the next scene.

Originally Posted by Togo

If you guys intend to keep on taking prisoners, and that seems likely, agreeing what you can and can't do to them seems like a useful step. Agreeing to disagree isn't really a solution. I'm not sure having a player leave solves it either.

Like I said earlier, using dominate monster to get them to talk is acceptable to Saffron most of the time (though she may be more skittish about it now). She's not really cool with forcing them to do things that they would rather die than do, though, whether that's divulge secrets or something else. Most of the time, she won't know that what's being commanded went against their nature, though, unless they break free like this guy did. It was really a fluke set of circumstances, all things considered.

Originally Posted by Toliudar

I did not intend to in any way diminish Saffron's character or opinions, which are completely valid, just not shared by Godot. I apologize for my own role in escalating this, and hope that we can continue to play alongside each other.

Accepted, and I apologize as well for anything that you felt was inflammatory. I can be a total bitch sometimes, so it was probably my fault.

In particular, "agree to disagree" happens to be one of those trigger phrases for me, in that I think it's a sentiment that is ruining modern discourse by encouraging people to stop listening to one another, especially in ways that the board's rules forbidding political discussion won't allow me to discuss. So I probably got my panties in a bunch from that point forward, and that's not fair to you. I'm sorry for that.

I don't really want to leave, I like Saffron and Godot and everyone, so I guess unless anyone objects, I'll stick around. Though we really should have an IC conversation about this after its done, too.

Now I have to go take a pile of Constitution damage...

[Toliudar]

SPoD, I'm thrilled that you've decided to stay.

In the interest of actually articulating some of my reasoning here:

• Compulsion magic, by its very definition, forces the affected individual to do things that are against their nature. If they already wanted to do that thing, there would be no need for the spell. I've never seen the "against their nature" clause applied to something out of combat - usually, I've seen it applied in situations where you force the creature to attack a friend, or somesuch.
• In my opinion, it is not an evil act to use domination to prevent someone from killing - even if the killing is of themselves.
• I'd point out that the images of domination taking the form of mental torture, causing agony and somesuch, are interpretations, and not the rules. If Godot had, for instance, told him to be happy, he would RAW be happy. If I hear from Togo that using dominate person is excruciating for the person affected in this game, I'll ask for permission to swap out the spell.
• IRL, most suicidal people don't persist in being suicidal. I read a journal article that suggested that breaking up an individual's path toward self-destruction - chatting with someone while they're on the way to a bridge to jump, a telemarketer's call to someone laying out pills - drastically reduces the chance of them actually going through with the suicide. While it is of course arguable that the mercenary would be just as likely to want to die in an hour, a day, or a week, we don't KNOW that. It is only opinion.
• I see the use of dominate in this situation as taking the place of the usual activity with prisoners - tying, interrogating, intimidate or bluff checks, yadda yadda. All of which are of course depriving a prisoner of their ability to choose, and which may indeed cause both short and long-term anguish. I'd like a sense whether Saffron will object to that kind of treatment also, or if there is a preferred way of detaining a prisoner that she WOULD find acceptable.
• I think I got my back up when Godot's actions were labeled evil. I'm going to be trying very hard to actually have her be as 'good' a person as she can manage, and the idea that I may have failed miserably the first time out of the gate was distressing to me.

Thanks. I think that I'll probably have Godot go into shock and cry for a good long while, and give others more time in the spotlight.

[Togo]

Originally Posted by Toliudar

[*]I'd point out that the images of domination taking the form of mental torture, causing agony and somesuch, are interpretations, and not the rules. If Godot had, for instance, told him to be happy, he would RAW be happy. If I hear from Togo that using dominate person is excruciating for the person affected in this game, I'll ask for permission to swap out the spell.

Dominate person in and of itself doesn't cause anyone any pain. Doing things they wouldn't otherwise do may or may not be a harrowing experience, depending on what's asked of them.

By RAW, a dominated person follows the instructions given to them, literally and to the best of their ability. 'Be happy' is not really an instruction anyone can follow. Most people can't change how they feel about things.

Originally Posted by Toliudar

[*]I think I got my back up when Godot's actions were labeled evil. I'm going to be trying very hard to actually have her be as 'good' a person as she can manage, and the idea that I may have failed miserably the first time out of the gate was distressing to me.

I don't think you've crossed that line, but there was a risk of that. Interrogating prisoners is always a difficult situation, but in general doing bad stuff to them is a bad thing. You can make arguements for 'ticking bomb' scenarios, but I really can't see that applying in this case.

Of course Godot may have had no idea that what she was asking was that bad. (Certainly I doubt she anticipated it was bad enough that the guy would get an additional saving throw.) You've been, in a very real and literal sense, ambushed by an extreme case. To take a peek behind the curtain, these guys were deliberately written to be very dangerous, but very fragile, in several senses of the word.

[Toliudar]

Originally Posted by Togo

To take a peek behind the curtain, these guys were deliberately written to be very dangerous, but very fragile, in several senses of the word.

Mission accomplished, I'd say! Thanks for the clarification, Togo.

[SPoD]

[quote=Toliudar;11289572]

Originally Posted by Toliudar

[*]Compulsion magic, by its very definition, forces the affected individual to do things that are against their nature. If they already wanted to do that thing, there would be no need for the spell. I've never seen the "against their nature" clause applied to something out of combat - usually, I've seen it applied in situations where you force the creature to attack a friend, or somesuch.

Ah, well, that's a difference of experience, then. I've seen it used many times, usually in situations where the command was considered cruel or torturous. For one (mildly adult) example, click the spoiler:

Spoiler

I was once in a heavy BOVD/BOED-type game where my rogue's background was built around the fact that she had lost her husband and was willing to storm the afterlife to find him, to the point where I regularly rejected the IC advances of another character (played by my RL then-boyfriend) because I would only ever love my (NPC) husband. So when she got dominated by a vile thrallherd who regularly forced both men and women to perform "favors" for him, the DM allowed me to invoke the "against my nature" clause due to her previously-displayed fidelity. Needless to say, he was not able to engage in that particular pastime ever again.

Ironically, that character was on such bad terms with her allies that I'm sure the DM wouldn't have let me invoke it if he had ordered me to just fight them instead!

So I probably took the fact that the DM was invoking it here to represent a near-pathological fear of accidentally betraying his allies, sort of like if you've ever seen a video where they are trying to cure arachnaphobes by bringing spiders into the room.

At any rate, assume that only things bad enough to trigger the "against their nature" reroll outside of combat would actually upset Saffron, and frankly, she won't know that it's happening unless they succeed and say something, like this guy did.

Originally Posted by Toliudar

[*]I'd point out that the images of domination taking the form of mental torture, causing agony and somesuch, are interpretations, and not the rules. If Godot had, for instance, told him to be happy, he would RAW be happy. If I hear from Togo that using dominate person is excruciating for the person affected in this game, I'll ask for permission to swap out the spell.

I would agree with Togo that by the rules, emotion control is not within the realm of Dominate Person. That's what spells like Good Hope and Crushing Despair do. Although I also agree that 99% of all subjects will not feel utter anguish toward it, either.

Originally Posted by Toliudar

[*]IRL, most suicidal people don't persist in being suicidal. I read a journal article that suggested that breaking up an individual's path toward self-destruction - chatting with someone while they're on the way to a bridge to jump, a telemarketer's call to someone laying out pills - drastically reduces the chance of them actually going through with the suicide. While it is of course arguable that the mercenary would be just as likely to want to die in an hour, a day, or a week, we don't KNOW that. It is only opinion.

I did not know that. Good to know for the future.

Originally Posted by Toliudar

[*]I see the use of dominate in this situation as taking the place of the usual activity with prisoners - tying, interrogating, intimidate or bluff checks, yadda yadda. All of which are of course depriving a prisoner of their ability to choose, and which may indeed cause both short and long-term anguish. I'd like a sense whether Saffron will object to that kind of treatment also, or if there is a preferred way of detaining a prisoner that she WOULD find acceptable.

This is a tricky point, because I think ultimately, Saffron hasn't really ever needed to interrogate at all. She's normally a hunter, sort of a woodlands assassin for the good guys: stalk, kill, go get next mission. So she probably doesn't have a clear idea of what to do, either. But I would think, like I said, MOST of the time, dominate is going to be OK, just as most of the time, tying up and intimidating/bluffing/diplomacy is going to be just peachy. As long as the actual act of tying up doesn't cause injury (i.e. a crippling hemp allergy ), it should be fine.

[quote=Toliudar;11289572]

Originally Posted by Toliudar

[*]I think I got my back up when Godot's actions were labeled evil. I'm going to be trying very hard to actually have her be as 'good' a person as she can manage, and the idea that I may have failed miserably the first time out of the gate was distressing to me.

I understand, and I'm sorry if I upset you.

[Obrysii]

Sorry I have not posted. Been very busy with work. I am not sure what to add IC though.

[Togo]

Originally Posted by SPoD

So I probably took the fact that the DM was invoking it here to represent a near-pathological fear of accidentally betraying his allies, sort of like if you've ever seen a video where they are trying to cure arachnaphobes by bringing spiders into the room.

Pretty much. There's really no ambiguity that it was against his nature, and if you take a good hard look at his equipment, you may well be able guess why.

[Togo]

My last post sort of implies that people are going to follow Kalinor to the compound, because that seemed like the next logical course of action, and I'm trying to keep things moving. If you'd rather stay in the square, or do something else, by all means post that.

[SPoD]

I'm sorry, I have unexpected family obligations today, tomorrow, and possibly Friday. You can continue without me and assume the Saffron follows along quietly. Sorry I didn't post earlier.

[Cespenar]

Looking at the sheets, I believe THEchanger has the only character capable of providing clerical aid to Saffron. He seems to be missing for some time, though.

[Obrysii]

If we procure a Wand of Cure Light Wounds or similar, Androse can easily use it to heal.

[Cespenar]

Rhion has a wand of CLW and can use it, but it's really the Con damage that counts.

[Obrysii]

I have lots of ranks in UMD, so any kind of cleric wand will be easy to use.

[Togo]

A lesser fire crystal can be attached to any weapon that has a +1 bonus or better. It gives that weapon the flaming quality (+1d6 fire damage per hit). One crystal per weapon.

Details of this and all the other items are in the DMG or Magic Item Compendium.

[Obrysii]

Sorry I have not been posting. I honestly feel a bit lost, and combine that my room (not the outside) temperature is in the mid 90s with a hectic work schedule, and I haven't been able to do anything justice.

[GuesssWho]

Well, my weapon is already icy. Adding fire would mean that things immune to one kind of damage would get the opposite!

[THEChanger]

So, I must offer appologizes for my lateness. It was my understanding that there would be Wifi at BU, where I am spending the month of July. However, my laptop apparently is not sufficiently advanced to connect to their network. But, I've figured out an Ethernet cable, so now I have interwebz, and can rejoin the insanity!

[GuesssWho]

So if no one objects, I'm getting gloves, bracers, cloak and crystal. Scratch one each of those off the list.

[SPoD]

Just an update to inform everyone in this game (and all my games) that I will continue to be away from the boards all this week. Feel free to convert my character to NPC status until I return. Sorry for the extended absence, I will read everything that's happened when I get back.

For when I get back: The only treasure Saffron is interested in from the list might be the Reins of Ascension, if only because I don't know what they do. What book are they in?

[GuesssWho]

By the sound of it they make your horse fly.

[Ifni]

The Reins are in the MIC. They let your mount jump or fly for short periods: I don't think Gylda will benefit much from them, but could be wrong (don't have the book on hand right now).

If we have spare bracers left, Umbriel might grab a pair, just because Str 5 is kinda vulnerable, and she doesn't have anything in that slot. Anyone else who actually uses Str should have higher priority, though.

A question for all of you, actually: do any of you have active spells or items that would block the detection effect of Arcane Sight? If you do, please let me know, else I'm going to assume I know the highest spell level everyone has available to cast, and whether it's arcane or divine (since I get this for free from Arcane Sight if I look at you for six seconds ) For reference, Umbriel does not have any protections up against Arcane Sight, if anyone else casts it.

Also, just one thing I wanted to mention: since we've been traveling and chatting for several days at least, I'm happy for you to assume your PCs have a rough idea of Umbriel's spells and abilities, if you want to use that knowledge IC. However, barring some serious mind-control mojo, Umbriel doesn't talk to anyone about where she came from or her full name, she's been trained not to think about it as a precaution against random people scanning with Detect Thoughts (so please, despite the name on the character sheet, please don't ever call her Blackfrost! ) She'll willingly tell you that she worships Wee Jas, she's a seeker after lost knowledge and delver through the ruins of ancient libraries, and she's never been to Sigil and is interested in exploring the Greatest City in the Multiverse. This is all the truth, although a DC 12ish Sense Motive check will reveal that of course there are things she's not saying.

[Togo]

Apologies for the lack of updates... Real life is being a pain. I should have a post in at least by tomorrow evening.

[Toliudar]

Originally Posted by Ifni

A question for all of you, actually: do any of you have active spells or items that would block the detection effect of Arcane Sight? If you do, please let me know, else I'm going to assume I know the highest spell level everyone has available to cast, and whether it's arcane or divine (since I get this for free from Arcane Sight if I look at you for six seconds ) For reference, Umbriel does not have any protections up against Arcane Sight, if anyone else casts it.

Godot's pretty much an open book, and can cast up to 7th level arcane spells.

[Cespenar]

Pretty much the same with Rhion, except his mad skills reach up to a whopping 3rd level divine spells.

[Obrysii]

I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that Androse glows with transmutation magic, since he is using a Supernatural effect to achieve his human likeness.

With wands, he can cast any spell up to 4th level. He may be able to use staves, but I'm not sure, as he hasn't acquired his first caster level yet (he will at level 20).

[Autopsibiofeeder]

Derk is a 13th level sorcerer and has no means to hide it. He is too proud of his heritage and too much of a show-off.

[Togo]

Hokay, two points. Neither are diretly relevent to the present scene.

First, a technical point. Sigil has co-terminous ethereal and astral planes. What that means in practice, is that yes, you can teleport, and yes, you can go ethereal and blink, and so on. You can also have ghosts, telepathy, etc.

However these planes are co-terminoius, which means they don't extend anywhere or go anywhere beyond Sigil itself. You can't teleport into or out of Sigil, and there aren't any places to go etherally or astrally that aren't also physical locations.

Apologies if that point wasn't clear. I wasn't clear on it myself at the start, but I think this is the best solution to the fact that there are numerous technical problems with a physical reality that doesn't have this. Please let me know if you think otherwise.



Secondly, one or two people have said they're getting a bit lost on the plot, and I can see how that would happen, particularly if this isn't your only game. I'll be writing up a summary of what's happened and the main characters so far over the next day or so, but if there are any specific points you want me to clarify, please let know, either here or by PM.

[Obrysii]

I will admit I'm getting lost - not due to other games, but due to the fact real life likes to get in the way too much!