Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account
DriveThruRPG.com
Photo

Tomb of Haggemoth Session 4


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Lindsay

Lindsay

    Site Hottie

  • Members
  • 2,670 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationTexas

Posted 25 October 2007 - 11:16 AM

Continuing the stream of releases (mostly to catch up with the downtime caused by switching servers) is another session from Tomb of Haggemoth.

This one has the party heading towards the Oasis at El-Fendar to venture into the desert and find the Pit of Thud. Sadly they get ambushed by pirates on their way and are forced to fight for their lives :)

Tomb of Haggemoth Session 4

or

Tomb of Haggemoth Session 4 Direct Download

Enjoy folks :) I will update the podcast when I get home from Lindsay's sewing school :)

Hal :hal:
  • 0

#2 Hal

Hal

    Site Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,095 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 25 October 2007 - 11:17 AM

Ooooops :)

Hal :hal: :D
  • 0

#3 eformo

eformo

    Ghoul

  • Members
  • 566 posts
  • LocationWaco

Posted 25 October 2007 - 11:24 AM

Yeah Lindsay!

I dunno Hal, but Lindsay seems to do an awesome job of posting the direct download links. She even offered commentary. You usually just say something like "Here it is" that I read whilst downloading the file.

You may be out of a job guy.

Long Live Lindsay the Link poster!
Huzzah!
Huzzah!
Huzzah!

Thanks one and all!
  • 0

#4 Qwaz

Qwaz

    Stirge

  • Members
  • 388 posts

Posted 25 October 2007 - 12:38 PM

Ta muchy :D
  • 0

#5 MelkiorWhiteblade

MelkiorWhiteblade

    Lantern Archon

  • Members
  • 1,186 posts
  • LocationRoseville, CA

Posted 25 October 2007 - 07:34 PM

Thanks again as always!
  • 0

#6 centauri

centauri

    Lantern Archon

  • Members
  • 1,275 posts
  • LocationSeattle, Washington

Posted 26 October 2007 - 01:18 AM

Thanks, Halindsay.
  • 0

#7 Hal

Hal

    Site Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,095 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 26 October 2007 - 09:00 AM

Podcast is updated :)

Hal :hal:
  • 0

#8 MelkiorWhiteblade

MelkiorWhiteblade

    Lantern Archon

  • Members
  • 1,186 posts
  • LocationRoseville, CA

Posted 30 October 2007 - 03:11 PM

Without putting any spoilers out there, I think there was an interesting point in this session.

I think thiscame up earlier too in WLD, but how does a GM respond to a player who says "I do action X," When action X, in some degree, is contrary to alignment?

I think asking 'What's your alignment?' is a good question, but sometimes I think its okay to let them do it, and change their alignment.

What are others thoughts?
  • 0

#9 PaulofCthulhu

PaulofCthulhu

    Lantern Archon

  • Members
  • 1,345 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist

Posted 30 October 2007 - 05:08 PM

Always fun to talk about. I personally say "ditch alignment".

I mean, really, it leads to that whole Paladin/Orc babies argument.

I think alignment works OK for very basic/simple games as with the original D&D following a limited number of archetypes with limited scope, but the whole "Your life and all actions governed by a set of moral guidelines, no matter what sentient being you are (gods included)" is just untenable to me.

Evil is palpable, good is palpable, because you can actually magically (and thus physically) protect yourself against it. But then I say all this in WLD. ;)

Of course if you ditch alignment does it still remain D&D to people?
  • 0

#10 Hal

Hal

    Site Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,095 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 30 October 2007 - 05:23 PM

I have thought previously about running games that have alignment altered - but to be honest there is so much inherent in the DnD system that uses it as a device that you would need to rewrite the whole thing!

I mean there are spells, magic weapons, character abilities and all kinds of stuff that are keyed to alignment. I think most people just use it as a game mechanic and play their characters however they like (as long as they are consistent).

I think it is a weak mechanic but until we see if things change in 4e we are pretty much stuck with it!

Hal :hal:
  • 0

#11 Qwaz

Qwaz

    Stirge

  • Members
  • 388 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 08:54 AM

Rather than say people can't act outside their alignment just have their nominated alignment be a standard they are shooting for. the paladin isalways trying to be lawful good. The rogue is always trying to be chaotic neutral...etc. If the rogue finds an altruistic moment it isn't cause for their alignment to change and if the paladin accidentally breaks a law he was unaware of it's not cause for him to fall.

If someone is consistantly acting outside their alignment, then their alignment should be changed to more accuratly reflect their goals.

This allows for the alignment and spell effects...etc to remain while giving a more loose purpose for alignment.
  • 0

#12 Thing

Thing

    a Bad Man

  • Administrators
  • 12,601 posts
  • LocationNear Seattle, WA, USA

Posted 31 October 2007 - 09:23 AM

I think the orginal design of alignment was to create a morally simplistic world and avoid problems with that. As long as whole groups and races are inherently evil, you don't have to treat them as individuals and it makes it ok to go seek them out and kill them.
  • 0

#13 wolfsnap

wolfsnap

    Stirge

  • Members
  • 457 posts
  • Locationwww.diredestiny.com

Posted 31 October 2007 - 10:02 AM

Generally, I think alignment is an objective measurement where NPC's are concerned, and a guideline where PC's are concerned.

Example: A gang of marauding destructive orcs are alignment: Chaotic Evil. The DM knows this and this is how he plays them. If he wanted them to be more pastoral and peaceful, then the orcs would be alignment: LG or NG, and he would play them appropriately. It's his call.

For the player characters, alignment has to be more of a guide, because they are generally more complex entities than the NPCs. However, a player needs to try to stay within the alignment that they have chosen, because it has in-game effects. If I'm playing a lawful good character, but I'm always looking for loopholes and excuses to act outside my alignment without technically "violating" it, then that's metagaming, and it erodes roleplay. As a DM, I wouldn't have a problem changing a PC's official alignment if they are not consistently acting within it.
  • 0

#14 woojitsu

woojitsu

    Ghoul

  • Members
  • 652 posts
  • LocationOroville, CA

Posted 31 October 2007 - 11:00 AM

Bearing in mind that it's written from the point of view of handling characters whose players want to change alignment, here's what the DMG has to say about alignment change.

Changes in alignment should not be drastic. Usually, a character changes alignment only one step at a time--from lawful evil to lawful neutral, for example, and not directly to neutral good...

Changing alignment usually takes time. Changes of the heart are rarely sudden (although they can be)... Require an interval of at least a week of game time between alignment changes...

If a character changes alignment over and over again during a campaign, what's really happened is that the character hasn't made a choice, and thus she is neutral.


I think it would take an extreme and/or powerful act by a character for me to rule an instant alignment change. It seems to me that alignment is more of an average of the character's total actions. A NG character is more likely to act in any given situation out of a desire to help others, but he may be selfish about certain things.
  • 0

#15 MelkiorWhiteblade

MelkiorWhiteblade

    Lantern Archon

  • Members
  • 1,186 posts
  • LocationRoseville, CA

Posted 31 October 2007 - 11:51 AM

If I'm playing a lawful good character, but I'm always looking for loopholes and excuses to act outside my alignment without technically "violating" it, then that's metagaming, and it erodes roleplay.


This is where the rubber meets the road, really. Alignment unfortunately has an in-game effect. I think it is malleable though and the DM and player should be able to come to a consensus.
  • 0

#16 ChibiSoma

ChibiSoma

    Raven

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • LocationLost in the dungeons

Posted 02 November 2007 - 05:04 PM

I still say I want to roll a Chaotic Evil necromancer who is only with the adventuring party on king's orders. ...Due to the fact that the guards caught him selling fake parts of Vecna to the terminally stupid. And he'll be killed if he doesn't go with.

One of those 'And Now You Know (heart)' journeys, where he ups his alignment a few ticks over the course of the adventure.
  • 0

#17 woojitsu

woojitsu

    Ghoul

  • Members
  • 652 posts
  • LocationOroville, CA

Posted 03 November 2007 - 09:15 AM

Sounds like a fun concept, though the character seems more Lawful than Chaotic, probably Neutral Evil overall. I doubt that a Chaotic Evil character would stay with the party more than a few hours past the city gates.
  • 0

#18 centauri

centauri

    Lantern Archon

  • Members
  • 1,275 posts
  • LocationSeattle, Washington

Posted 03 November 2007 - 10:32 AM

Sounds like a fun concept, though the character seems more Lawful than Chaotic, probably Neutral Evil overall. I doubt that a Chaotic Evil character would stay with the party more than a few hours past the city gates.

For the purposes of the game, I'm sure he could come up with a reason to stay. King's orders or no, there are going to be a lot of recently self-maimed people (or their friends and relatives) looking to beat the price of a regeneration spell out of the character. Chaotic evil doesn't mean no sense of self-preservation.

I'd be happy to see alignment go by the wayside. If it's not improved in 4th Edition, maybe I'll try it. Most alignment based spells could be based on the target's "hostility" or desire to do harm toward the spellcaster, which might even change over time. Any spells or effects that couldn't convert easily could be replaced.
  • 0

#19 arvis

arvis

    Kobold

  • Members
  • 66 posts
  • LocationLas Vegas, NV, USA

Posted 04 November 2007 - 02:15 AM

I noticed a few days ago while listening to episode 3 that Lindsay is doing a lovely job of roleplaying Sharia. I remember her mentioning that she had some difficulty figuring out her character in the Banewarrens.

Kudos to Lindsay!

or as Hal might say....

Lindsay is ace!
  • 0

#20 Boonide

Boonide

    Stirge

  • Members
  • 288 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 04 November 2007 - 07:46 AM

I still say I want to roll a Chaotic Evil necromancer who is only with the adventuring party on king's orders. ...Due to the fact that the guards caught him selling fake parts of Vecna to the terminally stupid. And he'll be killed if he doesn't go with.

One of those 'And Now You Know (heart)' journeys, where he ups his alignment a few ticks over the course of the adventure.


You could also say that the character's motivation comes from watching people he hates suffer. Whether it be the party members or the enemies of his party members.

A good example of this is Black Mage from 8 bit theatre.

A heartwarming tale of a Wizard with explosive firepower resigned to his fate...

not that it stops him from killing stuff for fun (and profit) along the way.

I only bring this up because I'm trying to figure out what alignment Black Mage is.

I'm thinking Cartoon Neutral Evil.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Gravityscan Badge