AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I was wondering if there is a way to know if... "It was you who summoned a wraith, you bastard!". It's quite common someone summon a wraith, making it to follow you from a distance and, when you across the forest for example, you pretender it's not yours (sometimes making the wraith to say something to scare them or to deliver a message). My point is: how can someone assume it's yours ICly? That happened to me in the forest and before I could conclude my RP, I got thousand druids on my foot.

Unless the summon follows you somewhat closely and you're the only recent addition to the group standing idly around before the wraith came up AND you look like you might be able to summon such a thing.. I'd say it's probably metagame to assume it.

With the amount of necromancers and such that the forest deals with... if a wraith comes up to you, or follows you around and people see it, common sense is that you are or deal with necromancers so expect to be treated as such. However if you are convincing in "running away" from the wraith, screaming your head of and what not, then people may not think its yours.

Let me say it like this:

A fellow in black robe, skull mask, red-glowing staff and going "bwahahaa, I like eating babies for lunch!" has a wraith appearing in front of him, or coming from behind a tree etc... What do you think a perfectly sane, normal person would think first after witnessing such?

It's not like goodies or just anti-undead characters should be dimwitted and not be able to count 1+1. However, I admit some may metagame in order to get some beating up done. In most cases, however, it's the baddies that aren't really that smart and start whimpering after sensible RP.

it also depends on who is around... if a wraith appears in a forest full of defenders who all know each other and there is just one "odd man out" who isn't known by the others it is likely to assume that the unknown character is suspect to say the least.

Dieu_Le_Fera wrote:

it also depends on who is around... if a wraith appears in a forest full of defenders who all know each other and there is just one "odd man out" who isn't known by the others it is likely to assume that the unknown character is suspect to say the least.

Exactly this happened in that particular instance, as ICly and OOCly pointed out by Thy... *whacks Amon on the nose*

"It's not mine! Someone cursed me for it to follow me! Please, kill it!"

Worked for me.

Quote:

"It's not mine! Someone cursed me for it to follow me! Please, kill it!"

+1

All that was said before.

Guess by appearance of character and if the character is unknown while the others are not etc. etc.

Prejudice is a common thing everywhere so also on Amia. If the Wraith is near you or you look like a caster or generally the evil type, you are the very first suspect and will have to try to reason why you are not the summoner.

You may even get suspected if you truly aren't the summoner and fall into one of the above criteria.

Mind, druids usually aren't the nice and huggly pet-cuddly persons they occasionally are played as. Especially followers of Silvanus are known to defend nature in a very fierce way.

I usually don't like to go OOC in game, though I usually give and OOC "//Please hostile" in such situations since my druid wouldn't even ask a lot, she'd simply kill any undead on sight and -then- ask for/tend to the summoner after the "blight" has been removed.

First rule of thumb = Kill it.

Then see who complains the most when it died.

okey, ive had a instance, where a man goes into a corner of the map, returns, 1 min later a wraith comes going towards the person who just left from that corner, now my question is this...

can i even meta something i dont know.

That example is full of about as many holes than a screen door. Is the person flipping out that a wrath is chasing them? No? Then it is safe to assume it is theirs.

Are they screaming kill it kill it and then it delivers a message to someone the person fleeing it despises or was just arguing with? Then it is safe to assume it is his summon.

Do they do this while a kellie paladin is around? Then it is safe to assume both caster and summon are in for a world of hurt.

Are they the "odd man out" as it were? Chances are high that it is their summon.

Is there a character present that has intelligence of about 16, despises undead, and can pull of a convincing Sherlock Holmes? Better keep running.

Need to be a bit more specific as to the details.

Bah.. I guess your arguments are good (not yours, Tarich ! Rawr!). Be sure next time I'll use some ideas posted here :twisted:

I'd like to defend the metagamers.

Well, not really... what I would point out is that it doesn't sound like any metagaming actually occurred here. All the assumptions that led to the OP getting swarmed by angry druids were easily able to be made IC. To respond to your original question (How can someone assume the wraith is yours ICly), the answer is... because you ran across the forest, and then a wraith followed shortly after going the same way, and the most plausible explanation for such an occurrence is that you summoned the wraith. I'd make the same assumption, and it would be entirely IC, no metagaming at all.

Exploring that thought a little bit, though, it would be super fun for a mischievous necromancer to have an incriminating-looking familiar (eyeball, imp, re-skinned skeleton, etc.) "frame" an innocent bystander by following them around and pretending to be a loyal servant.

Innocent Bystander: "Stop following me, you foul abomination!"
Eyeball Familiar: "But why, Master? Have I displeased you? I'm sorry..." *sniffle*

If someone is trying to frame you as the summoner, it's up to your character to know how to defend it's innocence. It's all a part of playing in this world. Be willing to go through with the RP of being found guilty of things you didn't do sometimes. It's what makes the game fun.

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

If someone is trying to frame you as the summoner, it's up to your character to know how to defend it's innocence. It's all a part of playing in this world. Be willing to go through with the RP of being found guilty of things you didn't do sometimes. It's what makes the game fun.

I got a little emotive with all the hostile so I didn't have the time to think and RP about it. but thanks.

Well you were in a forest... with rangers and druids... and had a wraith closeby they thought you summoned. Of course everyone was hostile towards you.

That's a bit like walking with a burning cross into the Vatikan.

Amarice-Elaraliel wrote:

Well you were in a forest... with rangers and druids... and had a wraith closeby they thought you summoned. Of course everyone was hostile towards you.

That's a bit like walking with a burning cross into the Vatikan.

Very_Svensk wrote:

First rule of thumb = Kill it.

Then see who complains the most when it died.

As a matter of fact, that sounds bloody great. You are my favourite person for the rest of the week.

only two outcomes i've seen from having undead in the party. or even having a hellhound summoned in kohl in a party.

death, for all, even if its not theirs, or a weirdly friendly conversation with a banite/velsharoonite.

ed: no one asks they assume, and its irritating.

Very_Svensk wrote:

First rule of thumb = Kill it.

Then see who complains the most when it died.

That!

Glyph wrote:

ed: no one asks they assume, and its irritating.

Do you mean that no one asks whether the undead is someone's summon or not and instead assume it is of this or that character's jolly fellow, and start blaming and raging?

Glyph wrote:

only two outcomes i've seen from having undead in the party. or even having a hellhound summoned in kohl in a party.

death, for all, even if its not theirs, or a weirdly friendly conversation with a banite/velsharoonite.

ed: no one asks they assume, and its irritating.

If you have a hellhound summoned in Kohlingen, then *failing* to attack you would constitute metagaming. There's no IC reason a paladin should tolerate that even for a second.

"why don't you please unsummon that dog and lets have a few words, mm?"

*leads them over and initiates friendly RP trying to lure them towards summoning less demonic things in the future, earning them the "I'm a good Paladin!" Merit Badge*

DustSpray101 wrote:

"why don't you please unsummon that dog and lets have a few words, mm?"

*leads them over and initiates friendly RP trying to lure them towards summoning less demonic things in the future, earning them the "I'm a good Paladin!" Merit Badge*

A good paladin is a dead paladin. Im sorry, But they'd get backstabbed faster than i can say schnitzel

A good Paladin is a paladin, any should never be anything but.

Very_Svensk wrote:

DustSpray101 wrote:

"why don't you please unsummon that dog and lets have a few words, mm?"

*leads them over and initiates friendly RP trying to lure them towards summoning less demonic things in the future, earning them the "I'm a good Paladin!" Merit Badge*

A good paladin is a dead paladin. Im sorry, But they'd get backstabbed faster than i can say schnitzel

But it's a lucky thing you won't be saying Schnitzel. Requires my permission first.

And I'm rather sure if someone summons comes with a wraith anywhere close to Daren, he'll first bash the wraith to hell and then start pointing fingers to possible summoners.

DustSpray101 wrote:

"why don't you please unsummon that dog and lets have a few words, mm?"

*leads them over and initiates friendly RP trying to lure them towards summoning less demonic things in the future, earning them the "I'm a good Paladin!" Merit Badge*

no it dosnt lead to the "im a good paladin!" merity badge it leads to the "im a borderline fallen paladin, who allowed demonologist to live" merit badge, and conterary to the common perception of people. that isnt a badge one should want; summoning a demon, like a hellhound, is a extremely evil act.

Kraniumbrud wrote:

DustSpray101 wrote:

"why don't you please unsummon that dog and lets have a few words, mm?"

*leads them over and initiates friendly RP trying to lure them towards summoning less demonic things in the future, earning them the "I'm a good Paladin!" Merit Badge*

no it dosnt lead to the "im a good paladin!" merity badge it leads to the "im a borderline fallen paladin, who allowed demonologist to live" merit badge, and conterary to the common perception of people. that isnt a badge one should want; summoning a demon, like a hellhound, is a extremely evil act.

That's a load if I ever read one. A paladin's job description is not always "kill it now. And let my god sort it out" however it -is- "oh, there's a bad guy... Let's try to look for the best in him/her... Oh, seems conversion with words isnt working... Okay, must mean I am supposed to convert with the sword... 'Die Heretic!' ". Simple fact of the class unless you are a paladin of a god/goddess of Murder. (which would qualify you as fallen already)

I would find a paladin who starts a nice discussion politely requesting a fiend from the lower planes to be unsummoned so he can explain why condemning your soul to baator is a bad idea slightly hypocritical.

I can't help but agree. I have never really dealt with Paladins myself, but the idea of the class supports what DustSpray said.

1) Approach evildoer
2) Try to reason with them
3) Dispatch them to the other world

That about sums it up, but to me that seems most in line with the class concept. Just killing evil with even trying to bring them to the side of good smacks of leading to becoming fallen. *shrugs* Maybe it's just me (and DustSpray)

Killing the demon or devil is something definitely to be done immediately. After that you have a sinner at your hands, who must face the consequences of his actions. Different paladins consider different consequences appropriate, but "Lol. *shrug* This is why you should not do that again." sounds very much CG rather than LG to me.

In most civilized areas you might want to imprison the culprit rather than outright kill, but the idea is the same regardless of character and enviroment dependent severity.

Lawful Good does not in any way equal Lawful Nice.

That's true I had not thought of it like that. Like I said, little Pally knowledge here XD

I left out the 'killing demon' part since I figured that was obvious, but I did forget about the imprisonment option.
Yeah, LG isn't always Lawful Nice, and is borderline Lawful Zealot at times lol

DustSpray101 wrote:

Kraniumbrud wrote:

DustSpray101 wrote:

"why don't you please unsummon that dog and lets have a few words, mm?"

*leads them over and initiates friendly RP trying to lure them towards summoning less demonic things in the future, earning them the "I'm a good Paladin!" Merit Badge*

no it dosnt lead to the "im a good paladin!" merity badge it leads to the "im a borderline fallen paladin, who allowed demonologist to live" merit badge, and conterary to the common perception of people. that isnt a badge one should want; summoning a demon, like a hellhound, is a extremely evil act.

That's a load if I ever read one. A paladin's job description is not always "kill it now. And let my god sort it out" however it -is- "oh, there's a bad guy... Let's try to look for the best in him/her... Oh, seems conversion with words isnt working... Okay, must mean I am supposed to convert with the sword... 'Die Heretic!' ". Simple fact of the class unless you are a paladin of a god/goddess of Murder. (which would qualify you as fallen already)

not all paladins believe in redemption, and not all paladins ask first when they are dealing with people who do unspeakable evils.
as for what is "murder" dont try and force morality of the 20th century upon people, there are definite evils in the world of faerun.
some work with redemption some with the sword.

Silvarus wrote:

I would find a paladin who starts a nice discussion politely requesting a fiend from the lower planes to be unsummoned so he can explain why condemning your soul to baator is a bad idea slightly hypocritical.

I can see that and this idea would be true in a world where everybody was beyond redemption and alignment shifts do not occur.

Giving it a go only to fail with words and resulting in turning to the sword doesn't mean the try should not be made. Skipping the key step of trying words leads a paladin to the route of becoming fallen as all he is is a good aligned assassin hiding behind his god much the same way some person can walk into a school, kill children, and claim some god told him too because the children were evil.

Just as there is potential for Chaotic "stupid" evil, it's purest opposite is not LG but Lawful "stupid" good.

DustSpray101 wrote:

Silvarus wrote:

I would find a paladin who starts a nice discussion politely requesting a fiend from the lower planes to be unsummoned so he can explain why condemning your soul to baator is a bad idea slightly hypocritical.

I can see that and this idea would be true in a world where everybody was beyond redemption and alignment shifts do not occur.

Giving it a go only to fail with words and resulting in turning to the sword doesn't mean the try should not be made. Skipping the key step of trying words leads a paladin to the route of becoming fallen as all he is is a good aligned assassin hiding behind his god much the same way some person can walk into a school, kill children, and claim some god told him too because the children were evil.

Just as there is potential for Chaotic "stupid" evil, it's purest opposite is not LG but Lawful "stupid" good.

when dealing with clerics of dark gods and summoners of undead and/or fiends, i dont think its stupid of a paladin to purge them, its common sense, dont take a chance, dont put faith in thier will to change, while risking the world around you because you let them live

*sighs* "stupid" good it is then... Or wait... What's this? Dawnguards actually use words first!? Banites converting after seeing the light and becoming strong warriors for good? How dynamic!

It looks like this absolute world where paladin murder is okay so long as the fallen did anything evil is full of holes if Lathender's crew is showing any amount of a success rate. Look out yon mighty smite-firsts! It seems the shiny world of "white" knights gleefully frolicking in the blood of mages with Imp familiars and people with glowing red swords is getting turned on end!

This debates are really hard because in the end, its all about what ones character would do and that is how one should respond. The DMs will take notice of characters acting out of tune with their god and they will act on it. I have seen it happen to a druid, and nearly saw it happen to a cleric just recently. So act as the character would and go from there, if one falls I can't think of better RP then a fallen hero trying to redeem themselves in the name of their god.

It is not a case of stupid good vs. smart good, but a case of a grim setting versus a My Little Pony setting.

Not really, it's more of a "No man is beyond redemption" vs "The sinner must be purged".
Neither is better than the other - each is their own separate style of RP.

Silvarus wrote:

It is not a case of stupid good vs. smart good, but a case of a grim setting versus a My Little Pony setting.

haha that is true!

Isn't that your job as a paladin? Turn the grim setting into rainbows and unicorns so that every kid looks up to you with awe?

May be you are confused with the duty of black guards and fallen paladins to take rainbow sprite and my little pony, toss them into a fire and create nightmares.

I see this question as a case of:

Lawful: Consequences of actions must be enforced.

+Good: After the crimes have been paid for, redemption must be sought.
or Neutral: I am happy. Law and Order has been preserved.
or Evil: I may use this as means to enhance my own authority and reputation.

=> Lawful Good: Consequences first, and the ability to suffer the consequences is a good sign of possible future atonement.

EDIT: Btw. I am the player who hates Amia's My Little Pony style with a burning passion and tries to maintain a more serious enviroment. You must be misunderstanding me somewhere in here. Knights in shining armor are not automatically knights from morning cartoons.

True. But what makes Amia different? Kellies kill people then ask questions and kill them again. On the mainland that shit wouldn't fly as they would need to stand trial first before execution, not execution trial then execution again. Can't sentence a man to death and kill him twice for the same crime and get away with keeping that LG alignment in Forgotten Realms. On Amia death doesn't stick unless the player themselves or a DM says so. This means the reason for any paladin here to believe in killing first means that they are aware of this fact. That breaks the 4th wall. Same goes for evil folks that do the same. It's not a matter of setting or altering the word order so that it fits yourselves, it's a matter that no one takes death seriously so it has become the accepted norm to not throw yourselves out there into challenging RP full of risks.

there can be "redemption" in death, it is something i think is a cornerstone in alot of peoples rp

You might have noticed that I have not spoken about killing first, especially since the example concerned a demon summoned in a lawful city, where trials are easily arrangable, unlike in open hostilities on a battlefield. However hostile encounters often do result in death, as in death trough resisting arrest rather that death via execution.

Arresting a hostile person after a combat encounter on the other hand is silly. People should just bury their enemies at war and let them rot if they have been foolish enough to enter open hostilities. I try to keep the EO from gathering the corpses of all our open enemies since trialing permanently hostile enemies after they have already been slain in battle is just silly, not to mention doing it ten times in a row.

Kraniumbrud wrote:

there can be "redemption" in death, it is something i think is a cornerstone in alot of peoples rp

Would require the soul to have met a visage or agent of whatever god is trying to convert them in death. If I'm not mistaken, that would require a DM as players can't invent gods physically interacting with them or so I have been led to believe. Which if it happens so often that "alot" of people can claim it here on Amia, that is pretty awesome an kudos to the active DM team!

Silvarus wrote:

You might have noticed that I have not spoken about killing first, especially since the example concerned a demon summoned in a lawful city, where trials are easily arrangable, unlike in open hostilities on a battlefield. However hostile encounters often do result in death, as in death trough resisting arrest rather that death via execution.

Arresting a hostile person after a combat encounter on the other hand is silly. People should just bury their enemies at war and let them rot if they have been foolish enough to enter open hostilities. I try to keep the EO from gathering the corpses of all our open enemies since trialing permanently hostile enemies after they have already been slain in battle is just silly, not to mention doing it ten times in a row.

I'd like to say that someone resisting arrest and during from it constitutes a fair game deal. That won't dock you the alignment points at all if it came to death for them. However, your PvP tool has a function that allows you to simply knock them out. Meaning mercy in the field is a very real mechanical possibility.

Otherwise my example of the Kellies is one that I have witnessed as an observer. I will not go into specifics as it would detract from the post and break forum policy, but I am glad to hear that a Kellie believes 1 death for a crime warranting it is enough.

DustSpray101 wrote:

True. But what makes Amia different? Kellies kill people then ask questions and kill them again. On the mainland that shit wouldn't fly as they would need to stand trial first before execution, not execution trial then execution again. Can't sentence a man to death and kill him twice for the same crime and get away with keeping that LG alignment in Forgotten Realms. On Amia death doesn't stick unless the player themselves or a DM says so. This means the reason for any paladin here to believe in killing first means that they are aware of this fact. That breaks the 4th wall. Same goes for evil folks that do the same. It's not a matter of setting or altering the word order so that it fits yourselves, it's a matter that no one takes death seriously so it has become the accepted norm to not throw yourselves out there into challenging RP full of risks.

Man, you're getting pwnzorzed here. Embrace it that goodies will kill baddies when seen, instead of trying to reason with them. That's because My Little Pony -setting doesn't really work even here in Amia when it comes down to good character vs. obviously evil character in the wilds. I had to admit that gay people make a thousand times better parents than straight people, and now I'm living in a more happy world. You should, too!

I don't think Kellies on Amia have that many paladins, more like ultra radical clerics who don't give a fuck about burning heretics.

hendrack wrote:

I don't think Kellies on Amia have that many paladins, more like ultra radical clerics who don't give a [removed] about burning heretics.

Yah. Most are clerics. Perhaps we have a paladin from time to time, but even for them it ought to be clear to slaughter the undead and the raiser while they're at it.

Summoning a wraith and you

Who is online