Welcome to Talking Time's third iteration! If you would like to register for an account, or have already registered but have not yet been confirmed, please read the following:
Once you have completed these steps, Moderation Staff will be able to get your account approved.
#211
|
|||
|
|||
I'm sorry that I don't know what variety of sled you are talking about, as well as having to inform you that records are not the same thing as cds.
I'm quite enjoying this LP so far! |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Option 2. It's possible that whatever she's up to, she might actually be in distress, and it seems like every time we poke our nose into other people's business, we've gotten some kind of reward out of it, so we don't want to just walk away even though we know her story is bullshit. So this seems like the best way to handle things.
|
#213
|
|||
|
|||
It's a sledge! Took me a long time too.
|
#214
|
|||
|
|||
I got a junky online web thing to create it which is why it's terrible. I wasn't about to sit there and build one myself.
FYI: Option 1 (Evil) = 9 votes Option 2 (Chaotic) = 12 votes Option 3 (Neutral) = 13 votes MoneyCityManiac can totally pick and choose here what wins if he wants. Was this his plan all along!? |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
I hope not! I'm shutting voting down to work on the next update!
Option 3: Walk away, wins! New vote weights (if you're not listed, your weight = 0!) Austin's new vote weight: 2 votes Cort's new vote weight: 2 votes Dawnswalker's new vote weight: 2 votes Destil's new vote weight: 2 votes Falselogic's new vote weight: 5 votes Gerad's new vote weight: 2 votes JFink's new vote weight: 3 votes Kalir's new vote weight: 2 votes Knurek's new vote weight: 3 votes Loki's new vote weight: 2 votes Mogri's new vote weight: 4 votes MoneyCityManiac's new vote weight: 5 votes Mr Sensible's new vote weight: 3 votes Olli T's new vote weight: 2 votes Taeryn's new vote weight: 4 votes |
#216
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
#217
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Last edited by Eddie; 04-21-2013 at 06:29 PM. |
#218
|
||||
|
||||
Last edited by Eddie; 04-28-2013 at 12:36 PM. |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
2 1 1 3 2 4
|
#220
|
|||
|
|||
We can't possibly be a real Dustie, can we? After all, Death is no release for us; quite the opposite, in fact. If 2E's cosmology were the real world, we are the ur-example of violating the second law of thermodynamics, which is really what the Dustmen's philosophy centers around in the end. Bleakers too, to some extent. And (MUCH MORE SPOILY, DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T BEATEN THE GAME) I know I'm wrong.
So: time to take (fun) advantage of the situation! For Sidequest A we want to 2. sign as many as possible, because being immortal is awesome. For Sidequest B, we want to 1. get rid of that stupid contract, because life is precious for those who do not have an infinite number. For Sidequest C we of course 1. refuse to kill the Dustman, for obvious and aforementioned reasons. For Sidequest D we 2. answer them gently; truth is power in this multiverse--boy, is it!--and we'd feel bad about deceiving someone in the twilight of their life. On the other hand, the berk asking us for information on Sidequest E is young enough to learn the folly of their ways, so let's slap the sarcasm on thick and 2. TOTES believe in the Dustman crazy, ayup ayup. I don't think my choice for the last one matters, since my vote weight is 1, but if it does we should definitely keep the person on 3. Sidequest C from killing themselves. A death contract is potentially avoidable in the future; the finality of death itself is not. Last edited by Phil; 04-21-2013 at 05:24 PM. Reason: Proper spoiler tag. |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
2 1 4 3 3 5
A revolving door contract with the Dustman is kinda hilarious (and they'll catch on soon enough when we keep showing up). It's generally considered good manners to allow people the proper death rites. Anyone who wants to commit suicide and doesn't have the guts to do it themselves needs more help than we could provide, but we can have a try at giving him a lesson anyway. It'd be nice to cheer up a little old lady if we can do so, which seems odd that she wants life advice from us but why not. The Dustmen philosophy is a bit of a drag though, and anyway we're too interested in learning things right now to be able to say that searching for true death is our greatest priority. But it looks like most Clueless end up joining one Faction or another, and I'd really rather not join the Dustmen, so that's down as the most important choice. |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
A) Option 1.
B) Option 1 C) Option 1. D) Option 2. E) Option 3. F) Option 3. Last edited by Albatoss; 04-22-2013 at 12:34 PM. |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
I see no harm in signing one contract. If we've died a few times already and the dustmen still have yet to notice, then why not?
Of course, what happens to your body after your death is still at least somewhat your business: you don't want people digging through your trash, after all. If they want to go undo their contract, then why not help them? Honestly don't really care if they pay us or not. A dude wanting us to kill him, and willing to pay us if we do... hm. That's a tough one, but I wouldn't quite feel right killing someone without good reason, and "I'll pay you to do it" isn't good enough reason... but it is good enough to teach him a lesson about doing stupid stuff like that. So yeah, scare him straight and keep the money. With the elderly woman asking questions about death and the Dustmen philosophy... honesty is the best policy. I can see why people would want to be gentle with her, but dancing around the heavy issue of death, immortality and Dustman nonsense aside, isn't particularly helpful. Speaking of Dustman nonsense... yeah it's flat nonsense. I'm not too keen on metaphysics in general, but looking for a True Death, to the point of eschewing the journey along the way... nope. You have failed. Go to a dungeon. However, it is nonsense that is affecting people's lives, so of those five questions, the fourth seems more important. |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
2
1 1 2 3 5 |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
As a note: I realized I didn't put a "neutral" option in the fourth question (the one where a lady's faith in her philosophy is tested), which left options that may be antithetical to the cutters here who lean chaotic and/or evil.
If you've already voted and want to change your answer, please post again; I will be unlikely to see that you've edited a post. |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
2, 1, 5, 3, 2, 5
|
#227
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I agree that the PCs shouldn't be fighting Skall, yet the Factol's manifesto gave him stats and combat tactics. If they didn't want PCs to be able to ever best him in combat, why not just do what they did with the Lady of Pain, and simply not stat him? Additionally, while Skall is powerful, he is not a power. Yet, numerous powers and beings more powerful than Skall have been properly stated in and outside of 4e. If one can best the gods themselves, why not a powerful Lich? I didn't create a stat block for him in order for someone to create a bunch of PCs and kill him. I created a stat block in order to spur the imagination. But to your point: if the PCs are trying to fight Skall, then something has gone horribly wrong in your game. |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
Well, not to mention that fighting a greater lich in the middle of the negative energy plane is kind of a horrifically terrible idea.
|
#230
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I would argue, though, that the PCs shouldn't be fighting any of the factols. (Well, okay, maybe Karan, if it's raining, and also Thursday, and he forgot to brush his teeth that morning.) They are not adventure bosses. It's a function of the setting, really. Even the monster supplements have quite a lot of "this is what these monsters are like, but the PCs shouldn't really be fighting them, per se". Solving problems with combat is against the spirit of the game, and I think Torment conveys that wonderfully. (You're conveying it wonderfully too, by the way.) |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
I don't disagree with you Brick! I think the stats were printed for two reasons:
1) it helps establish the "pecking order" persay. It's one thing to be told that this guy is powerful, it's another to be able to tangibly see how powerful. 2) sometimes the story the DM wishes to tell does involve doing something as stupid as fighting a ridiculously powerful Lich. And yes, that might indeed break the spirit of the setting, but ultimately it's the individual game and players that should come first. If the DM allows (or desires) the players to seriously challenge Skall, who am I to say no? For those who don't have a copy of the Factol's Manifesto, there's a reasonable 4e substitute. It mimics most of his fearsome traits: his icy touch, his innate fear power that drives away low-level PCs, and his powerful magic. The one thing I regret not adding is his ability to animate corpses by simply touching them. Regardless, this is kind of derailing; if anyone has any further comments, PM them to me, and if I get some good points, I'll add them into a future post on running a 4e Planescape game! |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
A) 2
B) 2 C) 4 D) 4 E) 3 F) 5 I must say I don't really like the Dustmen faction. I want to see them suffer. I want to see them being reborn again and again. I want Skall's head mounted above my fireplace. |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
A) You have the option to sign a death contract - earning 50 copper - despite being in an immortal body. Do you...
3) Refuse to sign these contracts; you would be cheating them to sign one (more lawful) B) A person has signed a death contract, and now regrets doing so. Do you... 3) Refuse to get involved; the person made their decision, and now they must live - and die - because of it (neutral) C) A Dustmen states he wishes to die, and asks you to kill him. He offers you money to do so. Do you... 3) Kill yourself to show him the "power" of death - you're immortal after all (neutral) D) An elderly Dustman woman expresses doubts her devotion to the Dustman in the twilight of her life. She asks several questions to you. Do you: 1) Answer them truthfully (more lawful) E) Someone asks you if you believe in the Dustmen philosophy. What do you tell him? 3) I don't believe in their philosophy (neutral) F) Which of the above choices is most important to you? 5) E: whether I "believe" in the Dustmen philosophy or not |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
Current tallies:
1. Sign a Death Contract? = Total # of Votes Option 1, Sign One (Neutral) = 3 votes Option 2, Sign Multiple (Chaotic) = 6 votes Option 3, Sign None (Lawful) = 2 votes 2. Help break a Death Contract? = Total # of Votes Option 1, Yes (Good) = 7 votes Option 2, Yes... for money (Evil) = 2 votes Option 3, No (Neutral) = 2 votes 3. Help a man commit Suicide; he will pay = Total # of Votes Option 1, Refuse (Good) = 4 votes Option 2, No, and Return Money (Lawful) = 0 votes Option 3, Scare him by killing yourself in front of him (Neutral) = 2 votes Option 4, No... but Keep the Money (Chaotic) = 3 votes Option 5, Free Money! (Chaotic Evil) = 2 votes 4. Help Dustmen through Test of Faith = Total # of Votes Option 1, Answer Questions Truthfully (Lawful) = 4* votes Option 2, Answer Questions Gently (Good) = 3 votes Option 3, Lie, but for Her Own Good (Chaotic Good) = 4* votes Option 4, Sidestep any questions (Neutral) = 2 votes 5. The Dustmen Philosophy = Total # of Votes Option 1, I could believe in it (Lawful) = 0 votes Option 2, of *course* I "believe" what the Dusties do (Chaotic) = 4* votes Option 3, I do not believe in it (Neutral) = 11**** votes (each "*" after a vote total indicates that extra weight is being applied). |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
2,2,5,4,2,1
|
#236
|
|||
|
|||
*a2*, b3, c1, d1, e3
|
#237
|
|||
|
|||
A) You have the option to sign a death contract - earning 50 copper - despite being in an immortal body. Do you...
3) Refuse to sign these contracts; you would be cheating them to sign one (more lawful) On the off chance that we DO die at some point, I'd rather not have a signed contract telling the Dusties to reanimate my corpse. B) A person has signed a death contract, and now regrets doing so. Do you... 3) Refuse to get involved; the person made their decision, and now they must live - and die - because of it (neutral) If you're willing to pay to have your contract revoked, you should be talking to the Dustmen. C) A Dustmen states he wishes to die, and asks you to kill him. He offers you money to do so. Do you... 5) He wants to die, and he's willing to pay for it? Great! (more evil and chaotic) If he really wants to die in a place like Sigil, I doubt it will take him long to find a way even if we refuse, so might as well do the dead and get the cash. D) An elderly Dustman woman expresses doubts her devotion to the Dustman in the twilight of her life. She asks several questions to you. Do you: 1) Answer them truthfully (more lawful) Maybe simple truth will calm her doubts where philosophy has failed. E) Someone asks you if you believe in the Dustmen philosophy. What do you tell him? 3) I don't believe in their philosophy (neutral) I'm with Morte. The less time spent with dusties, the better. F) Which of the above choices is most important to you? 5) E: whether I "believe" in the Dustmen philosophy or not I think it is important that we form some strong opinions on what we believe or don't believe. |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
A-1
b-1 c-1 d-2 e-3 f-5 |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
I was originally disappointed in this game, because I had imagined it being like Chrono Trigger, where Sigil was some kind of hub and you traveled to various planes to experience adventures. I got over it as the game progressed, but that's still an adventure I'd like to see. Unless I'm misremembering, I think that Crypt was the last "fun with portals" for a while.
Quote:
Also I'll go with 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 5 |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I think the change to 4e's cosmology comes from a recognition that: a) The 2e Planescape is very complicated. It's not the kind of setting you can really bring new players into easily; b) 4e had done away with alignment nearly all together, so the traditional "outer planes" would be pretty incompatible; and c) Fully fleshing out the Planescape universe would require a lot of resources. There was a time when TSR had no problem releasing three-dozen supplements for a world like Planescape; such ambition stopped well before 4e. So, rather than keeping Planescape whole hog, I think they made the decision to create something that - while less ambitious - doesn't leave gaping holes that can only be filled with a new Campaign Setting plus a dozen supplements. The "Planes" in 4e is described like this: You have the "mortal world" (i.e. a Prime World), which has two settings which overlap with it: the Shadowfell, and the Feywild (these are largely 4e inventions). Then you have the "Planes Above" - The Astral Sea - and the "Planes Below" - the Elemental Chaos. Sigil stands outside both of them, although no longer tethered to a particular plane. I'm not well versed to describe all the differences, but you'd find pieces from the 2e cosmology inserted into each. As an example, you'll find analogues Carceri, Baator, and Mount Celestia in the Astral Sea, while you'll find the Abyss and The City of Brass in the Elemental Chaos. The factions still exist in Sigil (although it's unclear whether the events of the "Faction War" even occurred in this narrative), and Sigil functions pretty much as it always has. Compare it to the 2e cosmology which has 17 outer planes, 18 inner planes, the astral sea, and a few other surprises. That's a lot of stuff. Is the cosmology bad? No. It's functional, tells the DM what (s)he needs to know, and let's them have a cool adventure in the Planes. Does it sacrifice the cool flavour of the original setting? Yes, but... to truly create a true sequel to the 2e setting would have required a lot more resources than they could probably justify. It was a compromise, and one that I know some players enjoy. It would have been impossible to please the old guard by retreading Planescape, so they decided to create something new with some familiar elements. I think it was probably the correct choice, despite how much I love the 2e setting. |