Campaign: Facets

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by SionEwig

. . .I think that callous might have been a better choice. They don't seem to care anymore about the piles of bodies they are leaving behind them. They certainly do not seem to be thinking about how this (and other similar actions) are going to negatively affect their overall plan.

They seem to be suffering from "other worlds' people aren't real" syndrome, which is always a risk for world-hoppers.

The straight-up high-rank Cabalists in Infinite Cabal are far subtler, simply to save hassle, and because it's polite.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Likely because they could see they were about to be disarmed and escorted and would probably never get their gear back without violence or very careful sneakiness.

Someone who kills twenty people because they don't want to lose a few thousand dollars worth of stuff is a pretty good working definition of a villain.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Icelander

A reasonable person would know or should know that their unecessarily risky actions were calculated to bring about the violent deaths of one or more persons.

I think you're being ungenerous in regards to the group as a whole. I disagree that there was calculation in anything that occurred up until the arrows were launched. At which point A.J. and Aurelia* calculated exactly how much worse things would be for the group, up to and including their imprisonment or deaths if they didn't resist right now.


* Likely a group decision by the Players, but maybe not.

And the actions that I specifically called out as villainous was PCs appearing to deliberately and pridefully refuse to conform to the cultural expectations and values of the place and time where they are operating, even when they must be aware that this will result in violent confrontations.

Again, less villainy and more 'extraordinarily bad choices'. This situation went pear shaped largely due to one Character, Beatrice.

Whom, if I'm not mistaken has never gone on one of these expeditions before?

That's the exact same thing as people who commit vigilante killings for violating the tenets of their religion, in a country which doesn't have penalties for religious offences, are doing.

That's now exceeding the nature of this situation. Beatrice didn't attack the soldier, she tried to get out from under him. Was it a very bad choice? Yes, but not an initiation of violence.

Originally Posted by SionEwig

However, it's also possible the recon unit just wanted more information from the players. The unit was probably even more curious about the players equipment. If these folks have this stuff is it available to the enemy.

Quite likely. however, if the leader of the base camp decided to impound the weapons for whatever reason, and decided the party were 'spies' (highly likely), then it goes from 'bad' to 'worst'.


Which is why I don't disagree with the actions of any of the PCs in this situation (except Beatrice, who seems designed to make situations worse).

You are may be right about use of the word villainous, instead I think that callous might have been a better choice. They don't seem to care anymore about the piles of bodies they are leaving behind them. They certainly do not seem to be thinking about how this (and other similar actions) are going to negatively affect their overall plan.

I'm pretty sure some of them still care a lot about how badly this went and how it negatively impacts their plans.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Someone who kills twenty people because they don't want to lose a few thousand dollars worth of stuff is a pretty good working definition of a villain.

Note the above. They likely would have ended up detained at the least, likely imprisoned facing spying charges (weird equipment, inability to adequately account for where they came from, bungling of temporal cues ("Native Americans"), etc), and definitely had their equipment impounded ending this adventure and likely sorely setting back any possible future endeavors.

They came face up to "We might just die or never return home" and at least one of them made a call I agree with.

Also, when the gear cannot be reasonably replaced (due to locale restrictions) it ceases being a mere 'few thousand dollars' and becomes irreplaceable (at least until they return home).



Though I'm still wondering where they plan to store any dirigible they manage to steal? I'm not sure their plans are completely thought out...



Also, tshiggins, is Randy slowly shifting his vision with Night Adaption, or just buying Night Vision (I've skimmed more than just AJ's post on the other message board)? Or what? And are you 'mutating' any other PCs? Is this from your end or at the Players initiative?

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by tshiggins

the trooper tried to butt-stroke Beatrice with his pistol to subdue her.

Private! Get your head out of the gutter and try something more appropriate!

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I think you're being ungenerous in regards to the group as a whole. I disagree that there was calculation in anything that occurred up until the arrows were launched. At which point A.J. and Aurelia* calculated exactly how much worse things would be for the group, up to and including their imprisonment or deaths if they didn't resist right now

I understand how inattentive players, perhaps not very culturally familiar with the past, which is a different country, after all, and even more likely, perhaps not familiar with the the duties, culture and rules of engagement of a patrol of soldiers in a warzone, might have acted without malice.

After all, I'm not calling the players bad people. :-)

You can play horrible, greedy, selfish, callous, conniving Murder-Hobo characters and be a wonderful person in real life.

My point was how the PCs came across. Because in the context of the game world, it seems very implausible that the characters, who have lived this stuff for months, could ever make these mistakes accidentally. It comes across, to me, as a deliberate refusal to care about blending in, avoiding clashes with the locals or preventing dangerous situations from developing.

In fact, Beatrice came across as annoyed with the presumption of these dirty downtime savages and actively engineering a situation where she could kill them out of spite, but still allow her Pacifist-in-name-only companions to swallow her laughable justification of 'self-defence'.

And, frankly, I can't see any way to justify bringing obviously out-of-time artifacts without any provisos to conceal them. That seems prima facie evidence that the PCs were planning to kill any uppity local who dared react to their future weapons. If they cared about trying to avoid murdering locals, they'd have brought one of the many weapons with broadly similar capabilities, if slightly less shiny, which could pass a visual inspection as unremarkable for the kind of people the PCs are pretending to be.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Again, less villainy and more 'extraordinarily bad choices'. This situation went pear shaped largely due to one Character, Beatrice.

Whom, if I'm not mistaken has never gone on one of these expeditions before?

I don't recall whether she had, but she certainly had time to prepare and access to knowledgable experts.

At a certain point, claims that 'mistakes' don't actually amount to criminal neglience or even actual criminal intent become too implausible for me to swallow. The senior police official who claims that she just didn't know the law for investigative procedure and thus never intended to break the half-dozen laws she did, the doctor who claims that the paperwork relating to the procedure where he appears to have killed someone just accidentally got lost, misfiled and then altered afterwards, etc.

Basically, stupidity is usually more likely than malice, but unless the person is actively drooling and having trouble tying their shoelaces, at a certain level of alleged incompetence, malicious stupidity starts to look more plausible.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

That's now exceeding the nature of this situation. Beatrice didn't attack the soldier, she tried to get out from under him. Was it a very bad choice? Yes, but not an initiation of violence.

She physically pushed an armed soldier in a combat situation and acted threatening enough to make her frightening attack dog prepare to assault the soldier.

She initiated combat, not the poor soldier who did his best to non-lethally subdue the apparent enemy combatant and/or spy.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Quite likely. however, if the leader of the base camp decided to impound the weapons for whatever reason, and decided the party were 'spies' (highly likely), then it goes from 'bad' to 'worst'.

Which is why I don't disagree with the actions of any of the PCs in this situation (except Beatrice, who seems designed to make situations worse).

The PCs created the situation and acted in a way that any reasonable person would know that a military patrol in a warzone could not help but detain them. They didn't have to do that.

That they didn't even try to blend in suggests that they didn't really mind having to kill locals, as they seem to find it more convenient than trying to understand them or get along with them.

And again, I'm interpreting the actions of the characters. Players may actually brush aside weeks or months of thinking and planning that their character is doing and are just being flippant in their hobby, but when the characters act as if they haven't spared a single thought for something that obviously endangers innocent people, they send a pretty strong signal that the lives of these people don't really matter to them.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I'm pretty sure some of them still care a lot about how badly this went and how it negatively impacts their plans.

Well, I did mention it because I suspect that some of the players do not actually mean their PCs to come across as villains. In any case, it's worth considering for the PCs, in character and out, whether they are okay with the choices they are making and the consequences of their actions.

I realise that Randy is deliberately being played as a decent person falling into a moral abyss through the influence of the people he associates with. He's also in love with what seems to be a very bad person, who is toxic for those around her. That's good, solid melodrama, perfect RPG fodder.

But have the other PCs considered what association with Beatrice, for example, is doing to them? Whether they can continue to look in the mirror in the morning while condoning her actions?

A.J. and Aurelia certainly didn't mind making a decision to execute the soldiers rather than considering another alternative, either. At the time they shot, no one was in clear and present danger of physical harm. The characters were in trouble, but so far not in direct danger.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Note the above. They likely would have ended up detained at the least, likely imprisoned facing spying charges (weird equipment, inability to adequately account for where they came from, bungling of temporal cues ("Native Americans"), etc), and definitely had their equipment impounded ending this adventure and likely sorely setting back any possible future endeavors.

The villainous vehaviour lies in callously engineering the situation where the soldiers could not possibly avoid having to detain them and then killing them when they tried.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

They came face up to "We might just die or never return home" and at least one of them made a call I agree with.

Yes, but this threat was obvious during the entire time they expected to return to the other world. There is no good justification for the PCs to act as if being asked where they come from, or where they got the clearly futuristic weapons they carry, is suddenly a surprise.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Also, when the gear cannot be reasonably replaced (due to locale restrictions) it ceases being a mere 'few thousand dollars' and becomes irreplaceable (at least until they return home).

Yeah, but normal people put up with inconvenience, changes of plan or even accepting that something isn't going to be practical and aborting, rather than kill nearly twenty people for just doing their jobs. Especially when there is no evidence that their jobs were the slightest bit of a threat to the PCs until the PCs contrived to effectively force the soldiers to regard them as threats.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Icelander

After all, I'm not calling the players bad people. :-)

Granted. But I think you're being uncharitable to the PCs by deciding the Characters must have made these decisions because the Players (out of not thinking about it, or reasoning incorrectly that it wouldn't be a problem) did not...

My point was how the PCs came across.

And we disagree on how they are coming avross. I'm putting this largely down to cultural and personal differences.

At a certain point, claims that 'mistakes' don't actually amount to criminal neglience or even actual criminal intent become too implausible for me to swallow.

Right, and again you reach for examples beyond that which occurred in this situation.

The PCs created the situation and acted in a way that any reasonable person would know that a military patrol in a warzone could not help but detain them. They didn't have to do that.

All they reasonably could have done was to retreat in the face of the patrol, try to wait them out, and hope they went unnoticed and untracked (both unreasonable hopes).

That they didn't even try to blend in suggests that they didn't really mind having to kill locals, as they seem to find it more convenient than trying to understand them or get along with them.

I presume they were hoping to completely avoid the locales until such a time as they went about stealing a dirigible.

Again, a gross mistake.

A.J. and Aurelia certainly didn't mind making a decision to execute the soldiers rather than considering another alternative, either. At the time they shot, no one was in clear and present danger of physical harm. The characters were in trouble, but so far not in direct danger.

I disagree, but that's about where we're at.

There is no good justification for the PCs to act as if being asked where they come from, or where they got the clearly futuristic weapons they carry, is suddenly a surprise.

They as a whole did not.

Again... Beatrice seems to be the lose canon on the deck here... and I suspect it's largely down to Disads and good rp. And she might end up being taken to task for her behavior by her cohort. I've yet to read the other thread tshiggins has linked to, but there is a lot more info over there... so I'll be doing it soonish (when I get time between sleeping and working... and it's probably a long thread).

Especially when there is no evidence that their jobs were the slightest bit of a threat to the PCs until the PCs contrived to effectively force the soldiers to regard them as threats.

They are in a warzone. The soldiers have no choice but consider them threats up until the party shows absolute proof of good intention or a really awesome and corroborated story about what they are doing there.

Things began going downhill the moment they stopped and waited for the patrol to reach them. They (IMO) really had very little hope of getting past this without really good social skill rolls. I mean like crits...

[SionEwig]

Reading back over the last session this part struck me.

At Doc Bascher’s insistence, the group didn’t execute any of the cavalry troops who remained alive, but at A.J.’s insistence she cut out all of the bullets the group has put into them. Meanwhile, he and Aurelia recovered their top-flight aluminum-shafted bolts and arrows.

It may not have made the write up, but I wonder if there was anyone who talked about executing the wounded or whether Doc Bascher precluded that thinking by her insistence.

[tshiggins]

Wow. I checked the thread, briefly, at lunch. Between then and now, it has really blown up.

So, a few things: I just got home from our latest session. As noted in the previous write-up, I've recently moved, which means I hadn't had the time to check my notes with Anten and Bennie Rae, the two other note-takers in the group. I banged out that write-up, in a hurry, and just slapped it into the forums.

I'll need to make some edits. Given what I'd left out, I'm not sure they'll change very many minds. :)

I'll do the additions and revisions, as soon as I've had a chance to get some sleep and start my Saturday.

Also, just as an FYI, the players were rather surprised and deeply flattered to see you guys put so much time and energy into the discussion about the most recent write-up. Honestly, they were kinda gob-smacked.

Additionally, I drew Anten's attention to acrosome's interest in the hiking route. If you keep an eye on the Denver GURPS Group thread, acrosome, Anten will post a screenshot of the mapped out route so you can see it.

A picture is worth a thousand words of my somewhat garbled description. :)

We talked about this thread at the start of tonight's game. The funniest quote from that:

Jeff T: Our defense attorney is named evileeyore!

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Wait, is that a variable power scope that goes up to x20, like a Vortex Viper 6.5-20x50 (available under $500) or is she genuinely carrying around a self-defence firearm topped with a fixed 20x scope?

(SNIP)

This one I can answer, before I go to bed. The .30-06 has a very nice variable scope. Not quite military-grade, but not cheap.

Steve's rifle, on the other hand...!

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Also, tshiggins, is Randy slowly shifting his vision with Night Adaption, or just buying Night Vision (I've skimmed more than just AJ's post on the other message board)? Or what? And are you 'mutating' any other PCs? Is this from your end or at the Players initiative?

Aha! I found the answer myself, straight from G&AI's posts in the Denver Game Group's thread:

"With Tom's permission, I have also added Night-Adapted x1 [0] as part of the aftermath of Randy's near-death / endless white light experience."