41 Responses to 698 – White Smoke Mountain • 66

  1. Bunker didn’t notice the teary eyes?
    Nor the “your asking me to do something bad…-with you?-”


    bad mental image BAD

  2. martin needs to ditch the hat, and since when he isn’t the smartest one in the group? didn’t bunker basically accuse martin of not being smart enough to solve the puzzles?

  3. Heh. Well, they are talking out-of-character, which brings up an interesting thought:

    Can an evil player play a lawful good character?

    (Yes, I know it’s silly to apply a D&D-style alignment system outside D&D.) 😛

    • The alignment system doesn’t even work well in the game. It’s not so much silly to try and apply it to non-game usages as it is unworkable.

    • I like to think that all Lawful Good characters are Evil. Only evil people follow rules to tyranical levels.

      Go Chaos!

      • Yea, go Chaos! Blood for the Blood God!

        LG, or any kind of Lawful, doesn’t mean unthinking, unquestionable devotion to the law, only the bare minimum of paying respect to it. It goes “up” from there up to what you described.

        And there are all kinds of laws, as much as there are kingdoms/cities/communities, so which one do you follow and when? It’s not like a LG paladin would start stabbing people in the back on the first Sunday of each fortnight while chanting “Blessed be Banjo the Clown!” just because he happens to wander into the Totally Peaceful People’s Republic of Orald and it happens to be in the codex, right after “Thou shalt not equate North Korea to TPPRO, we’re totally peaceful after all”.

        Damn, those dictators sure are having a great time…

      • I like to play with alignments, but only because I think they’re amusing and kinda stupid. I would NEVER penalize a player for an alignment infraction.

        • It depends on the infraction, but I might. The one that always gets me is the player who believes “true neutral” means that the druid has to change sides multiple times during a battle in order to maintain balance.

          • If a character consistently acts in a manner that’s pretty far from his stated alignment, I might ask him to change it… but that’s all. I suppose that could cause an issue with a deity in the case of a paladin or cleric, but there’s no reason it has to.

            • As I see it, divine-oriented char’s are probably the only ones that need to align themselves and their deeds with their deities. There’s a reason why the deity grants its pawn those little miracles, so if the pawn strays from the recommended path there’s no reason for the deity to continue granting them powers.
              I guess they can change to the worship of another deity, but otherwise they’ll be stuck without their divine powers.
              Besides, you know how jealous and stuffy those gods are, it’s more likely you’d be struck by lightning if you promise them worship but go against their wishes.

            • I.ve always felt that all dieties shopuld be described as “chaotic neutral”. They benefit from, and will thus reward the worship of any being, regardless of that being’s alignment. This means we must view their behavior as essentially chaotic. We ought class their behavior as neutral on the good-evil axis since we don’t possess their understanding of consequences.

              • I think most deities also want you to be compatible in mind and heart as well as in deeds.
                Say one evil guy kills another evil guy who just happened to be a big enemy of some goody-two-shoes faith, would the deity or the worshipers like the killer just because he slew an enemy?
                An enemy of an enemy is not always a friend, and while some straying from the path would usually not result in total power shut-down etc(also depending on how strict the deity is), as all mortals are imperfect and “sin” a bit, anything big should result in some kind of negative reaction.

                The guideline should be “staying in character”- it’s not about the strict alignment written on your sheet, it’s about what you are as a whole.
                It could be “little” things that I guess people would let slide, like if you say your char’ is stern and cold but you end up being the center of revelries, which should perhaps get at least a remark from the DM, or bigger things like a goody-paladin slaying some beggar because he really annoyed him*.
                BTW, that’s a kick-ass quest line.

                Maybe alignments should be looked on more as anchors, anchoring char’s around them and not letting stray too far off.
                A good char’ is still capable of more “neutral” activity on a daily basis, but is more inclined to be good in most situations, and would have to be provoked hard enough to do evil.
                A neutral one would usually be neutral of course, but are capable of going equally into good/evil territory, but usually only mildly so, not to the extremes.
                And the evil char’ just doesn’t care about doing evil things, but would usually not be a cartoon-ish villain or be evil to everything around them(unless they’re mad of course), but more neutral.
                Richard the warlock from LFG is an example of a crazy, homicidal evil to the extreme(and we love him for it), and not your typical evil char’.

                *In Oblivion’s Knight’s of The Nine DLC pack there’s just such a case where the offending knight was wearing part of the “The Nine”**-created Divine Crusader armor and consequently it dropped of him and got stuck in place so no one could use it until they proved they were goody-goody enough.
                **The main gods*** in the TES series.
                ***Actually they were eight back when they made the armor, Talos ascended later according to what you learn there.

                • I have to say that Richard is hands down my all time favorite character from any media of all time. He has the best visual design of a necromancer I’ve ever seen, is so over the top and cracks me up every time. Orald, do you remember when he went fishing using himself as bait? “I once caught a fish this big.” I laughed for weeks over that one. I gotta figure out how to create links one of these days.

  4. Okay, yeah. o_o I think Martin is beyond crushing on Bunker, and is well into ‘pining for’-territory. Interesting. I wonder how bad this thing will turn out if Martin gets it into his hindbrain that this means he and Bunker are getting closer to one another because of this.

  5. Let’s see…how would I change the module? Assuming this DM is only reading each encounter as the party comes to it (As would seem to be the case, since he clearly didn’t read it ahead of time) – how about putting a teleporter room that can transport the party to any other classic AD&D module?

    POOF! Against the giants. POOF! Expedition to the barrier peaks. POOF! Descent to the undercity. POOF! Queen of the Demonweb pits. POOF! Ravenloft

    (Only a masochist would want to go to ‘Tomb of horrors”)