Who Is Ellen - 51 - HD

At this point we have to scroll back a ways to find this convo. We have to stop and think about it. :) I can even see a good god arraging a few tests of truthfulness in successive games. but at the same time Rich is in an unusual position since he is doing field research. I almost said he was on an undercover assignment but his god didn't tell him to keep his mission a secret.

John Trauger

Sorry, forgot to check if there was a reply... We agree on everything, then. And I totally support your third paragraph. In an actual campaign, having this whitish lie be call out would definitely be interesting. Especially if he adds another or two: "I could accept one misstep, but you seem to have forgotten the virtue of truthfulness and must now accept the consequences of your act..."

Alexis Darbon

I agree that taking an attitude of "Won't tell you why so suck it" wouldn't work. The player can make it fly if he gives them someting positive they can hang their hats on. Something like, "While my reasons are my own, I still offer you a hand in friendship and a sword to bolster your cause. Will that suffice?" Another player could have presented flaws and human weaknesses, but Rich is doing a meme-paladin. Noble to the core, righteous as the day is long, etc. Rich does not have the emotional maturity to intentionally choose to invest a character with his issues. He's not secure enough to roleplay his inscuriities. :) I think there should be consequences for Rich's lie,especially given the sort of paladin his is playing. If nothing else it's too good a plot hook, at least for a long-running game. IMHO, Ellen *shouldn't* cause Rich any problems for lying in the first game. It would be too much like setting Rich up to fail. And I defintatly agreed that the paladin's god, even the sort of god a meme-paladin would have, should still cut the Paladin some slack for being human with human weaknesses. I think we're on mostly varations of the same page.

John Trauger

Well, Rich could have said nothing, but Larry's comment about "the paladin who wants to join the party for reasons" can be seen as a question nevertheless, that the paladin would feel obliged to answer too. He could have then said "I can't tell you why" or "None of your business", but... well, this is not necessarily the right move (the second is confrontational, the first could lead to paranoia). Moreover, especially with Rich's insecure nature, it can even be seen as an attack he needs to defend against, meaning it's a mistake by the player, not the PC, and the GM should take that into consideration to possibly try and find a way to spin it less negatively for the PC himself (towards his god). Heck, you could even say the paladin himself is insecure enough to have seen it as such and feel the need to answer. Not a perfect motive, I know, but a paladin is still a human and human weaknesses could be forgiven, especially by a GOOD god. All of this to say that, while I agree with you that there could be consequences, I still think it's not a clear-cut situation and that, depending on the god and the justification, the paladin could get away scot-free or with some small atonement quest to complete.

Alexis Darbon

I can buy that. It would be a great rationalization for why Rich's god let the lie slide. But I'd remind you, the lie isn't in a race just with telling the party the whole truth. There's also "saying nothing", which also isn't a lie, doesn't endanger the mission and is something the group could probably accept at face value expecting to learn what Rich's subplot is in due time.

John Trauger

You could also argue that telling the truth may in fact endanger the mission, as he doesn't know the group enough to predict their reaction (especially since the god themsef [themselves?] does not know what is happening here with Nanase's character). So the lie could be a way to protect the god's interests from any undue interference from a bunch of heathens and crooks. But you're also right that the way he handles the revelation he lied (with a promise of atonement, for example) could also change the final judgment of the deity.

Alexis Darbon

I actually agree in large part. "better a lie that ennobles us than 10,000 truths", that sort of thing. But in this situation the Paladin told a lie that he didn't have to tell (he could have refused to give a reason) and the lie gave no compensating benefit to the people he told it to. But even a law/good God doesn't have to be law/intolerant. How the Paladin handles it when his lie is exposed can redeem him. The God can choose to wait and see or perhaps manipulate circumstances to force the lie to the surface.

John Trauger

Well, I disagree. Depending on the deity, a white lie could be perfectly acceptable to make it possible for the paladin to reach his goal. True, most lawful good deities would not, but neutral good deities exist. And an argument could be made about a lawful good god being a little lest lawful than another one: a god of Justice may prohibit white lies, but a god of Healing may not care as long as they are told to protect those in need (for example: it won't hurt, or your daughter cannot stay here, or her health will deteriorate [especially as staying would expose her to assassination attempts, whereas the paladin cannot say so directly without risking an open conflict or betraying an oath of secrecy]), while still demanding their followers keep their word, don't break just laws, etc.

Alexis Darbon

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with a player asking for such a roll, but only as an insight to confirm their suspicions. The PLAYER may be wary of what the other PC is doing/saying, but their character may be oblivious or, on the contrary, identify signs that prove there is something shifty, even though they wouldn't get the details. Just a "yes, they definitely appear to be lying, but you're not sure about what, though". After all, sometimes, when watching a movie, our meta-knowledge of how scenarios are written may allow us insights into the minds of the on-screen characters. The same goes for RPGs, and an insight roll would make it possible to determiner whether this meta-knowledge is translated into actual in-game suspicion, and so how our characters should act from that point. And the funny part is that, with a critical failure, the GM can either enforce a full blind trust or plant the seeds for full-on paranoia in the PC...

Alexis Darbon

If you want medieval covers of metal songs, there is a channel dedicating quite a few videos to it: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrwIwCT7vXtJIm3nZiwD7cQ (unfortunately, only as instrumentals) There is even Toxicity here too, but with the full instrumental array (Prof Sai's video only had the lute)

Alexis Darbon

Not what I had in mind, but I am finding some new music from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BhUPFwAFQo&ab_channel=DespotzRecords

Prof Sai

Rich leaned on his character's sterling noble Paladin like qualities to ask why he'd associate with the rest of the group. The sense I get is, this is a classic Paladin. 5e need not apply. The deity might roll with it rather than instantly defrocking Rich's paladin to give him a chance at redeption (and finishing his mission). I think Rich realizes he's making a mistake, but he painted himself into a mental corner by resolving to be contrary and disruptive. That meant he couldn't play it straight and either tell the party everything or pass his motives off with "my reasons are my own"

John Trauger

Actually no he doesn't. Not anymore. By saying "why would my Paladin join this group?" he punted that part of his backstory to Ellen. And she caught the ball and ran it back for a TD.

John Trauger

Helping his deity could be seen as overcoming a great evil. Also, he gets to define what his deity actually said.

Crissa Kentavr

Depends on his alignment I guess? not all paladins are lawful good, after all.

David Howe

Great point. I think it’s worse than that, though; he blasphemed, falsely representing his deity (in a way that feels quite unnecessary - he could have just said that his deity directed him to join without explaining why). Unless Paladins are no longer required to be lawful in this system, that would seem a significant action.

Sacha Davis

@KC: They also didn't have metal strings, but I think that guy had five of them. A lute only has four strings and I believe there's been at least one tech advance that helps keep the instrument in tune longer. All of that said, who's to say that ones AD&D world hasn't seen some of those advances? It's a fantasy world, not a historical world. As such, I imagined that the lute did, in fact, have magically-pulled metal strings so that it could plausibly hold up to having metal songs played on it, and magically-held perfect pitch. Also, a magically produced harmonizing accompaniment, because if you're going to go magic, you might as well go all the way, right?

Some Ed

The Noble Paladin just told a lie. Interesting. That won't ever come back to haunt him. It may become the retroactive truth even.

John Trauger

I honestly didn't recognize the song like that. Maybe needs a second guitar player to work?

Prof Sai

I personally like the Critical Role standard of rolling insight or persuasion on another player character, which is "Only if the other party consents to it." Although that I think works best if the players know each other and are on friendly terms, so for a group of strangers I would personally implement a more "No rolling checks on other players" rule. Edit: the reason why I think it's fine amongst friends, and why it sometimes crops up, is that sometimes players do have something in their backstory that might make them shifty and/or act against the rest of the group. Like perhaps one of them is secretly a fiend working for the BBEG disguised as a human, or a party member's secretly working for the Assassin's Guild or something. Or a more innocent roleplaying example is when a player is playing a character who's more withdrawn (like the classic angsty rogue), but the player wants the other players to crack open their character's cold exterior to find out what their deliciously tragic backstory is. But in doing so players might prefer to do it through the traditional dice rolls because in the end we all love throwing dice. But again, all these examples IMO really work best for a group that's okay with this kind of stuff

KC

It'd probably sound something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy5lXaXIQiA Not quite the the metal that we're used to without electric guitars but still probably more intense than most medieval settings would be normally used to

KC

I almost exclusively played AD&D 2nd ed. We didn't do this at all before I got to college. In college, with a different mix of players, it was used a fair amount, but usually not by most of the players in the group. Except for the game we had where everyone had previously played at least one game of Paranoia together. We decided before that game started, AD&D rules, but Paranoia mindset, with every PC having a backstory that put them in conflict with other players while *most* of them also desired the official goal of the group and all the note passing. Note that players rolling dice for any little thing or nothing at all isn't necessarily a Paranoia thing, but it's an element of game play that can enhance the mood. That game didn't actually go anywhere. It felt fun but was a lot of work, especially for the GM. We did one session, everybody spoke of it fondly, at least to my face, but I never managed to find the time to do it again when other people had time and nobody complained. So I don't really know for sure what the players really thought of it.

Some Ed

I'm currently playing a (non-D&D) character who is both greedy and cowardly, and have been known to roll a die to determine which gets the better of her.

Mark

And of course everyone in medieval times were terrified of the mongols because of this: https://youtu.be/jM8dCGIm6yc?t=55

Prof Sai

Orkestra Obsolete plays techno with 1930's instruments. I wonder if anyone has actually tried to do metal with medieval instruments? In that period they really hated discord and had a low tolerance for musical tension. But horns and drums did exist.

Prof Sai

Well, it surprised me, but I suspect this is a function of edition. I mostly play AD&D (1 and 2E) where it would not be normal to roll (leastways not at the tables I’ve played at). But I took it at face value that these sorts of rolls are more typical in later editions, which seem to favour skill checks far more. (Not a criticism, just seemingly a difference.)

Sacha Davis

When I was playing as a stealth GM assistant, I did a lot of rolls to determine my behavior, especially if the other players were asking for my advice. I mean, it's pretty easy to not blab about secrets that you know. But to act as though you truly don't know them? That said, I usually didn't announce what those rolls were for, instead saying something like "I was just fidgeting with my dice" if someone asked. Though, for this particular situation, I totally would've made the same statement that George made. Playing a character who *also* knew is a different matter. That's relatively easy. But making sure my character *acts naturally* on things when I've seen the campaign map, I acted as a sounding board for the plot, and I loaned the GM about a quarter of the NPCs they were using. The party enters a room that contains the exit to the big bad's escape route. You know exactly where the secret door is. The party leader declares that the each party member will search a wall, and starts out asking which wall you search. If the group of players had just met at a con, sure, whatever. But if these are people who know you, any logically chosen selection could potentially tell them something. So it's the last appropriate die roll. They can try to 4D chess that one, but what they get is probably going to be just as random as the die roll had been. Or, if one wants to make it clear your choice is random, do an on demand roll right then.

Some Ed

Maybe it's because I've played a lot of Palladium games, but if something only has a 20% chance of succeeding, I try to roll under 20. It's the same margin of error either way, but it removes an unnecessary extra step. Like if something had 58% chance of happening, would you try to roll above 42? It just doesn't make sense to me.

wargrunt42

Yup. I've certainly had characters who were easily tempted into making bad decisions, and I didn't want them to be always doing that, so there were times when I'd roll to help me decide. Usually it was either a 50-50 thing or a "don't roll a critical failure" roll.

Brooks Moses

For characters that's a pretty standard thing... especially if the two characters don't know one another. Or if they do, but one is known to be a bit... shifty. In D&D 5e it would be George's Insight roll vs Rich's Deception roll or Persuasion roll depending on if he's lying or hiding his reasons (Deceptions) or actively trying to convince them of his reasons and telling at least most of the truth (Persuasion). Granted, it's more common to roll to see if you believe a NPC but still... Alternatively, you might roll a d100 if you have in mind what the odds of your character believing it are. Or the odds of you as a player believing it. You might device that there is only a 20% chance, for example, and roll to see if you go over 80.

AstroChaos

It partially depends on who's doing the roll. George doing that isn't something I have a problem with because... well, I half-expect the rest of the panel. I don't think George is going to take it as a serious thing. If Rich did the same starting line, I'd be a little more concerned and wanting to make sure he wasn't taking the roll too seriously.

Or Insight in 5e. Alternatively, you can do a deception (bluff) check for the one being not believable.

Violet Moon

Even if no skill is involved, it's totally reasonable to roll a die to see how your character is feeling if you're not sure yourself! Happens all the time in some groups I've played in

Relia

You can totally make sense motive checks... that's what you roll when one is suspicious of another character's bluff.

wargrunt42