I applaud Tavis for skillfully weaving this conflict into his story line and letting it take on a life of its own.

Balancing the Dichotomy of in vs out of character is always a tightrope walk. You just need to be aware and accepting of the consequences if the DM calls you on it.

I'm shooting for shutting up in future.

Let's not have any of that please! To my mind this whole thread proves more than anything else that we're capable of having a real exchange and shutting up is rarely a part of that.

I think it's more interesting for people to know what's going on and figure out a cool place to go from there rather than perform the dutiful chastity of ignorance

This is also my preference. I tend to be more comfortable in the direction of a lot of meta-talk: "hey, do you mind if my character tells a joke? I just want to be clear that although this joke is offensive to hobbits and some of us are playing hobbits this is about what my character thinks, not me. And it's a dumb joke but it'll be funny and pertinent because I know that your sexy PC is really a shaved hobbit, but my character doesn't know that, so as a player I get to play up my dude's obliviousness to the hobbitness of his love interest. OK, since I've totally sucked all of the spontaneity out of this, how about the joke now?"

I understand that this means we don't get to do the kind of gaming that I'd caricature as "everything I do and say at the table is in character, and that whole character is subtly building up to the big reveal where the players understand what I've been doing all along and understand it wasn't me but a masterfully created smokescreen that the others are equally masterfully trying to gain insight into the heart of, except the campaign ended long before this payoff ever actually took place."

I'm making straw men of both poles because I think that part of the fun of the game is some productive tension between these extremes. That's why we have spells that detect good and evil, except I deny those concepts exist in the game world, while insisting that the cosmos is all about chaos and law, except that there's no in-game way to get a handle on those: because, to follow IO's lead, I think it's best to have just the right mix of friction and lubrication.

In a productive tension situation, different people pull in their own preferred direction, and that's awesome. In part it's awesome because it leads to moments when someone worries that they've pulled too far and we get to affirm that no, it's cool, we love you & your contribution of the opposing impulse. Tension and catharthis, baby!

In that spirit, I'd like to apologize for everything I do, usually unconsciously, to frustrate people who'd like to play a game that involves keeping things more secret and setting up reveals. If you've been in a game where that's really paid off, or where everyone's productive tension was centered much further along that axis than ours is, I want to hear about it because otherwise I tend to think my preferences = the only possible way not to end in tragedy.

On your metaknowledge ideas … I think you have a point, especially in response to my douchey …

Of course he will insist that our characters have no whiff of this, and we will laugh and laugh. Because, dude.

which any reasonable person would read as me saying that we would all know about your attempt to contact kidnappers, which is not what I intended. I should have written something cleverer alluding to how we all know that Ookla is a pretty bad biscuit, or better I should have just shut the fuck up, which is my plan for the future. I of all people should know how really irritating it is when other people tell you about your character and get it wrong.

On the move by move level, I totally agree that you should be able to post and act without letting everyone in on it in character. For example, when you had Ookla sneak up and (I forget the details) spy on the lizard man chief and then lie to us that he was definitely set to betray us, I thought it was great and had John take you completely at your word, and thus we popped the chief. If that kind of thing happened a lot, I would find it tedious and want a change, but it hasn't happened a whole lot, so no problem.

On the "Ookla's Rep" level … well, he's said and done a bunch of stuff! I'm sorry I haven't kept a list, but there's a whole lot of advocacy for merciless slaughter and stuff. There's a haziness there about what Ookla advocates and what FA advocates … without a transcript written in different colors for the two (which seems like some extra work for the rest of us) it's hard to sort out. And that's why I think the rest of us would have the gist of bad biscuitness. And thus there is some razzing about his black soul. But are other PCs actually taking actions that get in Ookla's way? I can't think of any offhand. Still, like I said before, I'm shooting for shutting up in future.

I will say that the whole player knowledge PC knowledge split has always seemed less like an intriguing frisson than just a big drag. You're not mentioning this aspect, but they fall together a bit in my mind: Do I have to pretend I don't know what attacks harm a green slime? Really? If you want a fresh new surprising mucus, just browse through a crayola box and let your imagination run wild. Or say that the drunk who told me about slimes was wrong, green slimes are different in your world, they're only vulnerable to glaive-guisarmes. With player interactions, I think it's more interesting for people to know what's going on and figure out a cool place to go from there rather than perform the dutiful chastity of ignorance.

Yes, I made this about sex too.
IO out!

Firstly, I'd like to reiterate my earlier statement that my intention in posting my rant on the way that character alignment casts or colors perception of their actions was never to insult or offend any other players. It was written as part of a larger argument that player knowledge is bleeding into and influencing character knowledge to a degree that I felt was disproportionate.

But your stuff on John is a bit much and makes me, IO, sound pretty vile.

I apologize again, and did not intend for my post to make you, IO, sound pretty vile, or to make you feel as though that was my perception. My opinion is quite the opposite.

I think that the main issue that I have, as I've referenced above, is the way in which player knowledge influences character knowledge. If we can not as players, as role-players no less, make a separation between the knowledge that we gain and share through these forums with the knowledge that our characters have and how we/they act on that knowledge, then every time our characters encounter some sort of enemy or threat we might as well concede that rather than drawing swords and casting spells all combatants hunch down and gather 'round as they roll dice to determine the outcome of the encounter.

I had begun this thread because I wanted to know a point of play, not because I was imagining Ookla standing up in a tavern frequented by assassins and yelling out "Hey, I know I can hire one of you scoundrels to cut up a person of my choosing into bouillon cubes, but what if I just want them delivered to me, still alive, in a sack?" or even that he was pulling Maldoor aside and saying "Hey, you ever kidnapped anyone?"

Not that I'm opposed to talking about, as characters or players, how to deal with Rakotis, which is why I started this separate thread here.

If people are upset about anything I've written I hope that they will either let me know in this forum or contact me separately. I would rather know that I've upset someone and hopefully be able to make amends than to have anything between myself and a group of players and friends that I admire.

However, I am not offended or upset in any way shape or form. And if you think I am you can go fuck yourself.

Reason #437 I love playing with you guys. Intelligent humor. This was seriously the funniest thing I heard all day.

• Look - a pretty woman we have paid to like you!
• Shiny new plate mail in just your size, but only available today!
• Following the dictates of your Matriarch is soooo "new age of mankind."
• Be a force of chaos and blow off your appointment. You know you want to.
• If this is really important to both Brother Lightenment and Ookla, I am totally hip with dangling a bribe like a potion in front of him.
• Etc.

We just have to be creative (out-of-character). Has anyone had the opportunity to approach Rakotis and see how he feels about the whole thing? I know I would be pissed if my matriarch was all like "please go duel that guy with the soul-sucking chaos blade - it'll be easy. What could possibly go wrong?"

I am sure we can have fun with this.

From their behavior, Chrystos is clearly Chaotic and John Fighter is clearly Lawful (possibly non-consensual bestiality notwithstanding). Everyone else appears to be a species of Neutral, with a few quirks here or there, and this applies to NPC's as well. (I am more than a little surprised that Patriarch Zekon has an apparently endless supply of ancient dudes on death row Fight Bag Stand-By Duty.)

I'm not saying this as a complaint! I like all these characters very much! I guess what I'm saying is that the whole Law vs. Chaos thing is pretty weakly integrated into the D&D rules, and hasn't been really been a major element of the fiction thus far.

Full Disclosure: Arnold was Neutral, but believed that it was permissible to sacrifice a few lives to save many others. The incident with Kragan, and a demonic killing while impersonating the Menegril, has caused him to reevaluate his moral beliefs in retirement.

"And then I use my barbed wire whip to flay off his skin!"

Then again my character smothered some evil king just so I'd have a story to tell, so who am I to criticize?

Of course he will insist that our characters have no whiff of this, and we will laugh and laugh. Because, dude.

I don't get this, and in fact I find it rather frustrating. I have tried to be transparent about what I'm doing with other players because passing notes back and forth with Tavis is tiresome. However, when I ask questions in these forums I expect that it would be understood that they are strictly meta. In some ways I'm happy to share this stuff here because I think it gives flavor to the whole game and that the stories are interesting. Would people rather I simply manage all of this stuff outside of the forums via email with Tavis?

A shining example of this is the insistence that John Fighter, or any other character in the game really, knows that Ookla is evil. And yet there is little or nothing that has occurred in-game that can be cited as evidence of his evil nature. Zekon is telling everyone in the frickin' forest that Ookla's a bad dude, but what the fuck did he ever do to him? He carries an evil sword, true, but he's also spent endless hours under his roof studying with the sword saints so that I not be overcome by the sword. By what we have seen in-game John Fighter is actually a more evil character. He has enslaved men and women in order to "convert" them to his "true religion" (no historical precedent for evil there though, is there?) and raped a were-bear so that he could have an heir to his non-existent throne because he used a Potion of Heroism in an untimely fashion. That's like saying "Well jeez, I popped this Viagra so now I've just got to fuck somebody." Oh no wait, he didn't rape her, he paid her family off for pimping her out to him. My bad. And now this wonderful child will be raised by who? And what if it's a girl? And if he did get his throne back and it was a boy and he grew up and inherited the throne his subjects would be then ruled by — a were-bear? Not to mention Arnold the Smotherer or Chrystos (love ya babe, but I'm making an argument here) who claims conversion to the Patriarch but is then off throwing human slaves in to Ontussa so that she'll feel good. But no, apparently after that Zekon's still out in the woods running his mouth so that the fucking creatures of the fucking forest are all up in Ookla's grill like "Yo dude, I heard you aint no good." WTF?

When we wwne to the city last time to bring Ookla back to life, foner's boss lady cleric wanted a favor: she wanted Ookla to "spar" with Captain Rakotis.

Captain Rakotis is/was coming to twon soon. He's a big deal in the church of the killing frost.

We suspect that the plan is for Rakotis to beat up Ookla and take thirster, his incredibly wicked magic sword.

We slid out of town to dodge the appointment last time, but that's gettting foner in trouble.

So Flying ace is asking mysterioso questions about kidnapping, probably for the reasons mentioned above.

Of course he will insist that our characters have no whiff of this, and we will laugh and laugh. Because, dude.

We could also sub-contract this out to someone else. Philomena leaps to mind.

Just suggestions.

At the moment, this is purely a theoretical conversation.

Although it might be prudent to ask at what level a cleric is able to commune with their deity to the same extent that Ontussa is so that s/he can ask questions of them. Also, what level is that Killing Frost lady?