So with the random murder of the entire badgerman patrol plus plans to commit ethnic cleansing (again) now that...
So with the random murder of the entire badgerman patrol plus plans to commit ethnic cleansing (again) now that negotiations have been utterly torpedoed, I'm starting to feel like we've shifted gears from being inspired by The Eyes of the Overworld to like King Leopold's Ghost or something. And while I can see the dark humor in the entire business, it's really not what I want to stay up late playing through.
I also think that's the plan of killing anyone that we meet new is going to come and bite us in the ass. Granted they most likly had hostile intent it was pretty impressive that all of them were taken down without killing them and then we had a bunch of no rule killing them which rightly will have posses off the survivors. I'm for whatever the party wants to do but I think that this is going a bit darker than fun with the random killing skinning eating.
ReplyDeleteI also think this is important to discuss
ReplyDeleteYeah, I feel you, and in addition to that the fourth-wally "We have no agency and we prefer pointless death" dialogues make the interaction with them (similar issue with the Norkers before) feel very grindy to me, where what on paper seems like a random encounter has to turn into a multi-week issue if we ever want to get to any site of interest
ReplyDeleteThat's indeed a bummer that it gave you the unhappies. Conversely, it really didn't bother me at all. For me, it's a combination of not assigning the situation enough reality for it to bother me, and definitely having the perception that those dudes were pretty high on the asshole index. To my sensibilities, when a bunch of guys (regardless of how they look) try their best to kill a friend of mine after trying to ambush us all, it's time for blood.
ReplyDeleteI mean, after we murdered their group save four, their not being inclined to negotiate or cooperate is pretty understandable.
ReplyDeletewell i mean it has little to do with the "realistic" situation of the imaginary badger men, it has to do with what's going on with us at the table
ReplyDeleteI was going to stay out of this as this is really a intra-party thing, but I wanted to clarify. So are you saying that some or all of that wipe em out response is because of frustration with how I ran the badger men or that from previous experience that it bogs down the overall adventure goal? cole long
ReplyDeleteHonest question, open to improvement as a GM.
Chris Kutalik neither, it's been my perception that there is usually no option other than wipe em out and that the metacommentary from the "30-300" type humanoids seems to back that up
ReplyDeleteand that then the process of wiping them out bogs down things for 2-3 sessions between visiting sites
ReplyDeletelike with the norkers before as i recall you had the leader of their patrol outright say something like "of course, we'll continue to betray and attack you until you kill us all"
ReplyDeleteI didn't mind the single-mindedness of the badgermen. To me it just feels like a counterpoint to the Blue Rangers or the Grotmen, who didn't try to kill us on sight and whom we ended up talking to and dealing with. I guess I like the dynamic range of the different situations.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I kind of wanted to just let those 4 go down to their warren, but I guess some of us felt they would just rally a bunch to come up and attack us?
Ah.. cole long , I took the "we'll continue to betray and attack you until you kill us all" as more just a tongue-in-cheek thing, and never really assumed that would be their genuine course of action. No idea of that was an accurate interpretation or not, but that was what I got from it.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am reading your replies wrong cole long but it sounds to me like you feel that the reason that you choose to do those things is because I am presenting situations that only have a single player course of action?
ReplyDeleteok, heres my thoughts. I like the interaction between the various factions and us in the wilderness. the badgers really where not a threat at the time as the wizards, had slept, webebed, sprayed them to submission. i think my issue was with the lets go to the trouble of tying them up and then just kill them before we had a chance at any real talking with the, ( i like Chris Kutalik voices alot and like the banter between groups in the parley phase.)
ReplyDeletei think the big thing to me was the lets skin them and eat them the next morning, it makes me wonder if we are trying to out monster the monsters. im pretty new to this game that has been going on for years, so i am not sure if this is whats considered normal at this point, it just seemed to almost cross a line. I think the game is great so dont get me wrong, i just wonder what happens later when the party is the one doing the bad stuff in the countryside and the countryside revolts.
i personal dont feel that the situation was just one choice, it could have gone many ways wich is the halmark of a good game. and i really dont mind if the random encounters turn out that we need to go rally the army and have a session of by this handy weapon.
please let me know if im off base and just overthinking, im not saying we shouldnt take the feral shore by the sword, because thats one way of doing things, i just think that we went too far with the badgers when they had already been taken out, we did after all spend several minitues discussing how much rope we had.
Lazzaro is against the wanton slaying of any NPC already rendered quiescent - they are made of such useful organic matter (and making similar use of the dead still many tens of thousands of XP away).
ReplyDeleteLazzaro is pro the enslavement (literal, virtual, economic, whatever) of other sentients as alternative to their destruction, though that too can be a long process. The shorter route often through identifying local leaders and taking them hostage or using Charms on them. The longer through identification of mutual benefit / desired resource and negotiation / exploitation. The key to either is knowledge of local situations; perhaps the hiring of Humanoid Terrain experts is in order.
The very longest route, which I favor least, is capturing and converting individually (why build missions when you can kidnap Moctezuma?)
As far as the eating goes, that was just me as a player making a joke, since they were animal-men, and badgers are an animal that nobody ever eats, at least as far as I know. I mean.. ew, badger. I love animals, and I have a hard enough time dealing with the fact that I like to eat chickens and cows and pigs. :(
ReplyDeleteChris Kutalik i thought that we were being signaled : "these monsters are here to be fought; you'd be wasting your time trying anything else"
ReplyDeleteHmm fair enough. Probably in the Norkers case it was a bit of both tongue and cheek and that come to think of it. Well I will try harder in the future to create more open-ended situations. Thanks for the feedback it helps (as does any time people say "you know I don't really enjoy it when we do too much of X or Y.")
ReplyDeletethere's also the issue with some of the bands of 30-300 humanoids where dealing with them eats up a lot of table time relative to their impact in the game world. if we want to go to any interesting site on the opposite side of their territory, it easily chews up an hour or two and we don't usually play much more than 3 hours. (i think this is part of why, as much as any in-game reasons, that Robert Parker prioritizes setting up the forward bases so highly). and in order to set up forward bases, if like the Norkers they're implacably, fourth-wall-lampshadingly violent, they have to be "cleared" which is itself still a grind as i said and also just kind of depressing as Humza K points out
ReplyDeletethanks for being open to feedback Chris Kutalik
ReplyDeleteIn this case, at least, I'm not convinced we have to clear the badger warren to have access to the bridge and western valley. They use the bridge, clearly, but they don't post guards at it or anything. Also, from the warren's lower position topographically, I'm going to assume the pathway and bridge are hidden from their casual view.
ReplyDeleteAlso, from the warren's lower position topographically, I'm going to assume the pathway and bridge are hidden from their casual view. that is correct.
ReplyDeleteSomething that might speed things up on all ends is setting up one group as our proxy in the wilderness (Grotmen were kinda this before, but I assume the blue men will serve much more competently) that we may approach new groups on our borders with preexisting relationships, so as to modify from a position of "I've heard of you, but I don't trust you yet..." instead of "I need to decide Fight or Flee right now in a vacuum."
ReplyDelete1. Genocide: Sorry, Humza K, but for the 30-300 reasons that cole long pointed out I was making a joke about how our encounters turn out when meeting new groups: they are either humanoid monsters (like the Norkers, not really people, cannot be dealt with) or dudes we can potentially negotiate with. Given their placement on a route we needed secure, we certainly weren't going to avoid or ignore them.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking seriously, though, large-scale conquest is our goal in the FS and we will run into those who will not negotiate and stand in our way (such as in this situation, where they will harry us should we establish a regular route to the western portion of the FS). How would you have us deal with such situations?
2. Joke Violence: James Aulds we've been playing the bad guys for a long time, but regarding that particular situation: I had no intention of killing them off but Brad decided it would be fun to do so. Although inconvenient (since negotiations were no longer viable), I recognized that Brad was having fun and decided not to rain on his parade. Skinning them after was just making lemonade; sorry if it wasn't your brand of humor.
Robert Parker I didn't have any indication that these were guys we could not negotiate with. Yes, their first moves were wary and aggressive, but not too far off of what our moves in a similar situation would be. (And I think the presence of the wizard confirms that negotiations were a theoretical possibility.) If a group is intractable and refuses to join us, or at a minimum act peacefully, then going to a war stance seems reasonable. But even there, there's a difference between "we will fight you for this land" and "we will annihilate you as a people."
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is too liberal goody two shoes boring for other folks (or not in keeping with the campaign tone or whatever), and that is fine. I don't want to mess up anyone else's fun... but if we are committed to expanding the FS specifically through annihilating other groups then that's not quite my bag, and I can decide how I want to proceed.
Without commenting on the individual occurrence (which I obviously can't because I wasn't there), I can honestly say I'll come down on the side of negotiation most every time (if it seems possible). Killing individuals when expedient, profaning remains when humorous, and all manner of cheating, abuse, and intimidation, sure. But I've no interest in genocide for the sake of it. I would though also assert that I don't perceive much space between "we will fight you for this land" and "we will annihilate you as a people" - that would seem something of a moral fig leaf to me.
ReplyDeleteNo joke intended, I've thought of us as the overall "good guys" (in a collectivist, pro-humanity, pro-borderlands, anti-anticantons sort of way - though certainly not in D&D alignment) at least since Kezmarok.
Or yeah, what Robert said.
ReplyDeletei don't think we really need to calculate the exacting in-game moral weights of given actions though; that seems like a detour, doesn't it? isn't this about what players are finding unfun or depressing?
ReplyDeleteOkay, re-reading the thread, here's what I understand from this conversation:
ReplyDelete1. Humza K doesn't feel comfortable using force to expand our kingdom in a manner that he considers morally unjustifiable, and then he believes in only exerting enough force to 'win' a given conflict.
Direct references to colonization, genocide, and similar terms which would draw a parallel between ourselves and the dickbags of history should be avoided.
2. James Aulds is opposed to the skinning and eating of intelligent beings.
I can try to respect these wishes, but I fear (given that we're building a kingdom in a territory occupied by a number of tribes) that we will run into more situations that are going to make you uncomfortable, Humza K. Therefore, I'm going to have to ask you to clearly communicate when you feel we are 'crossing the line' and to provide alternatives that you find acceptable.
I will do my level best to accommodate myself to your playstyle. If I ultimately find those restrictions unacceptable I can always choose to withdraw from the game.
I also apologize about my harsh tone and ask that we go forward in a spirit of friendship, Humza K.
ReplyDeleteAt dinner, will respond later, but just wanted to say that no apology necessary Robert Parker; all is well.
ReplyDeleteCool.
ReplyDeleteHaving given this some thought, I fear that these issues may continue to plague us because:
A. The Hill Cantons is not a moral universe; unlike Star Wars and comic books, the vast majority of people act in a self-interested manner. We do not often find ourselves in situations where one side is clearly good and the other is clearly evil, meaning that we will often lack moral justifications for pursuing our goals (personal enrichment).
B. Our party is primarily comprised of characters that are unequivocally evil; among our regulars we can count Flashman, John Wayne Gacy, the Terminator, and Voldemort.
I don't have a solution, just pointing out an underlying tension between the desire to be moral actors in this game and the factors which contribute to the reality of the game.
First, im sorry Michael Moscrip i didnt realize that yall where joking, i thought it was more escalating. my apologies for that. and im sorry that i spoiled fun by bringing this up this morning.
ReplyDeletemy question therefore is, how much is too far if its a primarily evil campain. with the badgermen in particular, we had subduded them and secured them, i didnt understand why we needed to kill them next, when in doing so we now have created a situation where we are kinda stuck on a ledge with a hostile group on both sides and inbetween us and checking out mud meridian or getting back to the wizard.
second, and i just am really looking for clarification for the campain since i was unaware that it was that evil, yall really dont seem it most days, more oportunistic ambiguous. where would the lines be drawn for going too far. i understand the ideal is a colonization game but am curious if that also includes all the other heinouis things that has included throuought history. im not trying to be the moral police, i just want to game, explore, roll dice, swing swords and discover the world that is laid out in front of us. Robert Parker if you feel that i am bringing up things that make me too moral for the party let me know because i just dont think of the crew as the bad guys, just oppornutistic. i truly enjoy the game and the comraderie with yall, i just wanted us to discuss lines and where they where so that everyone feels ok. but like i said earlier i am new to yalls game and am really looking to get a better idea of what i need to know about where the party wants to go.
James Aulds Not at all, and when I say the party is evil I mean 'greedy fucks who will kill, rob, and swindle to in the pursuit of wealth and power'.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't believe there was any reason to kill the badgermen other than Brad thought it was funny and I didn't think fighting about it in-game would be better than giving him a pass and rolling with the punches. Were the consequences of his action that we would not be able to negotiate with the badgermen? Yes. Did I know that when they were killed? Yes. Was it a choice I would have made? No.
ReplyDeleteOk, I thought you meant "we are evil and that's how we roll". Greedy Fuchs who kill rob and swindle I see as just normal. But I do read the newspaper so perhaps I'm just desensitized to that kinda evil
ReplyDeleteAs far as the question of 'can we be colonizers without being oppressors' I think the answer is no, at least without discovering a place without any intelligent life to rule, or without Chris setting up a lot of 'just war' scenarios.
ReplyDeleteJames Aulds I guess I don't understand what you consider to be evil, then.
ReplyDelete"Devil's Rejects shit?"
ReplyDeleteI just consider a knock you down take your stuff group as more neutral opportunistic in d&d. And that's how I see a colonization game in a peace through superior firepower kinda way.
ReplyDeleteI think what I don't want to do is go into detail on the truly heinous things that go into it.
ReplyDeleteDevil's Rejects shit is a fine way to summarize it.
ReplyDeleteDid that come from you, cole long, or is that a quote? Because I think it primarily comprises murder/rape/torture/mutilating corpses as an end unto itself, rather than in service of the bottom line (for James) or for a morally justified cause (Humza). Am I understanding this correctly?
ReplyDeleteOK, back from dinner and friends and such.
ReplyDeleteRobert Parker , responding to a few of your points:
1. I totally recognize (and relish the fact) that the HC is not a moral universe and is, by and large, made up of scumbags and self-interested jerks - and that, similarly, the NN are generally horrible people. I'm not trying to get the group to rebrand as the Noble Nine or anything! Like I said in the intro, I'm fine with Cugel or Flashman shit (and enjoy a good chunk of it).
If, after we discuss things, I come to the conclusion that there are just things I'm going to dislike playing through as a fundamental part of the game, I can sit those sessions out, and that is not an issue. (See: kidnapping Manzy's wife.) I don't want to cause other folks to sit out when I'm the one having a difficulty on my side of the screen, especially when my playstyle is the one that's a bit at variance with the group's as a whole.
And it's not like there aren't sessions where everyone's goals coincide ("clear out Bad Rajetz" / "shank Lady Szara" / "explore this crazy ruined giant robot").
2. "Also, I don't believe there was any reason to kill the badgermen other than Brad thought it was funny and I didn't think fighting about it in-game would be better than giving him a pass and rolling with the punches." Makes sense; that's part of the reason why I didn't speak up more at the time. (Or in general...really, this seems to describe my reaction a lot of the time during our games. :P )
3. Anthony Picaro noted that "I would though also assert that I don't perceive much space between "we will fight you for this land" and "we will annihilate you as a people" - that would seem something of a moral fig leaf to me." Which is absolutely true! I was trying to articulate a first stab at a compromise position between a non-aggressive colonization effort and the party's stated objectives of conquest of the FS. It's a very thin fig leaf for sure, but there still seemed like a distinction to me.
4. Cutting down on the direct parallels between us and the dickbags of history would be great.
James Aulds - "sorry +Michael Moscrip i didnt realize that yall where joking" - No worries man :)
ReplyDeleteOn a semi-separate but related note, I will occasionally have Jack do horrible things as a personal indictment of some of the awful crap the Catholic church did, especially between the 12th to 17th centuries. It's intended to be in the form of satire, and it's hoped that it will be found at least somewhat amusing.
ReplyDeleteJack is only Catholic, but there is no world religion (except maybe Buddhism?) that hasn't done a bunch of awful crap at some point in its history.
If this satire is making anybody unhappy, just let me know.