Netheril : Age of Magic
Player Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Fiverine on January 14, 2019, 09:55:38 am
-
After an IG incident today I would like to get some clarification and discussion going about monster PCs and whether it is appropriate or legal for them to be hired as mercenaries to help a party.
IG: Is it a breach of empire law? If so, does it matter what the monster specifically is, or are all monsters as bad as each other by law?
OOG: Is it something we want to encourage or not? While it gives monster PCs an option to do more things in the game (which they do need), I saw today that it can cause an awkward situation, especially for people like me who aren't steeped in the lore of the setting.
-
As someone that is not a lore person I am curious about this as well. Are all the monster races just evil baby eating caricatures? Is there more nuance?
I had considered that perhaps minotaurs were more industrious and organised, from what I see at Sullivan's the trading port. But then I have seen some say they are kidnappers, rapists and human eaters by their intrinsic nature. If that is true, it is all the more reason to consider monster pc options, because a lot of characters would need DM intervention not to kill on sight.
-
Monsters are evil but tbh just act how you see fit in char if your character thinks this monster should not join the Adventuring party then act against it.
-
If associating with them is against the law then maybe the Laws of the Valstiir Enclave (https://netheril.net/forums/index.php?topic=2699.msg10853#msg10853) should be updated and clarified to reflect this.
Right now the only thing mentioned that might be relevant to this is, as far as I could tell, that aiding the enemies of the empire is treason. Are monsters the enemies of the empire in this regard? I wouldn't say so.
The only mention of monsters in these laws is that they're a blight on the enclave and that killing them is rewarded but this doesn't really designate them specifically as enemies of the enclave/empire. Only that assaulting and murdering them is generally speaking okay. There's no differentiation between various blights here (other than half-orcs who are mentioned as adventurers providing free service to the empire) so pretty reasonable to assume all monsters are treated equally under these laws.
Considering how the server has things set up regarding monsters however such as that the Shelf on the Valstiir enclave itself hasn't been (or isn't in the process of being) scoured clean of the monsters living and trading there, the boat captain ferrying people back and forth from Sullivan's Trading Post like it's no problem and some of the work order dudes being monsters that give away their location (out in the wilderness where they can be freely murdered by anyone), it seems to me that monsters aren't really a big deal unless they're actively causing trouble and so that hiring them as mercenaries shouldn't be a big deal so long as it doesn't cause trouble.
If it is a big deal after all then maybe these things should be changed to better reflect that. I think it's perfectly reasonable though that people who hire and trust monster mercenaries not to betray and eat them be probably considered completely mad by most but it's not like monsters can't become reputable, like Shark's lizardfolk fellow.
-
Given the server's history and the setting, I don't think it'd be illegal to work with monsters. However, you would become party to their actions in legal terms. So if you're hanging around with a minotaur and it eats someone... Yikes. But if you're keeping the beast under control then you're only an idiot.
:P
-
Why do we even have monster races in the game if they are effectively unplayable because nobody is allowed to associate with them and there is a huge fight every time there is a quest?
I feel like they should be no more objectionable than mages openly trying to become liches.
-
Monsters are evil but tbh just act how you see fit in char if your character thinks this monster should not join the Adventuring party then act against it.
-
I suppose the point about interacting with monsters is people who have no idea of the lore don't understand what it means to do so. Wikipedia won't tell you how it works here, and it's not a pnp game where you have a Dm explain what your character "knows".
The only monster mercenary.I've seen doesn't really hide their nature, so maybe it works ok.
-
The legality is still a good question to address. There have been trade agreements with the Sullivan, currently a Minotuar, as far as I'm aware (I could be mistaken). And if that's the case, if monsters can be hired for jobs as important as supply and trade, I don't see why they can't be hired as muscle and protection (See Rumor: Mayor Hiring Monsters as Body Guards). It's just ona smaller, more individual basis. But! It's not classified legally yet. I'm sure we'll see some legal precedent coming up soon if anyone gets convicted for dealing with the monster merc.
Due to lack of defined lore, I've been using predominantly Forgotten Realms/AD&D 2e for my Minotuar with some tweaks to match what little is known about the forces at Sullivan's (militant and organized). If there is more defined rules on how the monster should be played I'll definitely adjust to suit.
-
Monsters are .. monsters. At a baseline, they do nasty things and are generally not fit for life among more civilized or grey-leaning-towards-light settlements. In fiction, they're usually the footsoldiers or pawns of more sophisticated villains than they for good reason; their base urges can be manipulated by a cunning villain or turned against them by a clever hero.
The monster mercenary in question is fine. It is also fine that he'd want to butt in on big events to get a share of the loot, and get his way by virtue of being a useful and powerful individual. It is also fine that more rigid-minded PCs would refuse to work with him. None of this is a big issue, really. There doesn't need to be a big, ironclad rule allowing or forbidding people from associating with monsters aside from what the player finds in-character for their PC, to me it's far more interesting for there to be diverging opinions and people taking action for or against mingling with monstrosities than everyone be in lockstep whenever an unorthodox situation occurs, which to me feels a bit like where this thread is going.
If your PC has reason to antagonize a monster, they can take action accordingly. The monster has reason to antagonize most anyone too, it's fair game and it should be expected when taking the steps of writing an application for one that justifies being more than a bunch of +4 bonuses on a stats sheet.
For those who are not aware, there is a Forgotten Realms Wiki with extensive lore on most things, from which this server's lore is based upon, and relevant to this particular discussion it has information on the many monstrous races of Age of Netheril: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page
-
Thank you everyone above for the constructive thoughts! I had fears I'd start a flame war ;D
Thanks too Search for Eden for that wiki link.
-
I.Cly hiring or supporting monster characters would be covered under 'Reckless Endangerment'.
If you support a creature that eats a baby the next day, you are responsible for the recklessness of supporting said baby eating.
That law covers alot of laws that aren't specific, but it would be a rather serious crime. Most monsters are vile creatures that have committed henious acts against mankind and earned their designation for a reason.
-
I'd have to disagree with that. We have precedence of inhuman ambassadors with peaceful interactions with Hadrian and nearly everyone, from adventurers to Valstiir, seems to have worked with them at some point. Since none humans were allowed to run in the last mayoral race and half dragons, previously kill on sight creatures, are now allowed to wander around, then merely interacting with monsters would be insufficient. Prosecution would need to show cause.
-
Non-humans and half dragons are not the same as 'vile monsters.' If you check the ruleslist, you can see that the only monster race that is actually permitted in Hadrian is Half-dragon. They are monsters, but have certain exceptions made to them. Nevermind that I think the subrace is awful and shouldn't exist in this campaign.
I'd rather they remove monster P.Cs entirely to avoid the inevitable result of them being murdered or persecuted for being monsters, or worse yet, being accepted by adventurers.
-
A rule set that was changed a month ago. They've been kill on sight for longer than they haven't been - including circumstances that have affected characters in the past, so you can hardly ignore it. And that's a tangent anyway - you still can't attempt to indict someone when no crime has occurred.
Edited to add: And the 'wreckless endangerment' was killing a lich who had slain an entire Netherese village. That's obviously not wreckless endangerment. If anything, a paladin refusing to aid the cause is betraying their own vows.
-
look basically its all about impressions and influence.
to the average commoner. If they see an orc strolling down the street, they will freak out. most commoners rarely meet monsters. they only hear old wives' tales about how X monster killed and ate Y's baby. most commoners however will probably flee or gather a pitchfork wilding mob to deal with it.
Now if that monster is being escorted. Say by 3 knights. who walk down the street with this monster in tow, speakin out saying: "calm everyone its all under control. nothing to fear" They will receive a very different reaction. Due mainly to the fact that thier faction bears a lot of influence and trust.
If the Arcanists did this people would probably avert their eyes and hurry away in case the whole thing exploded and demonic rifts opened.
The point is monsters will be treated as vile dirt. Unless someone backs them up by exerting in game influence. Will this influence work? maybe...
you may walk through the streets 3 times uneventfully but on the fourth time a guardsman whose fed up and had enough of your monster sauntering through the street will have a crack.
And be lawfully entitled to do so..
Ineveitably it is a high stakes risk. If you fail it will cost you your life.
-
I'm personally not a fan of monster-characters because it destroys the purity of good and evil in the game when you can have a friendly relationship with a monster and suddenly killing monsters becomes a moral gray area for any character who doesn't see violence as the first option for conflict resolution. Not that moral ambiguity isn't interesting in some settings, but in D&D it's annoying if a DM starts making you feel bad for killing ogres.
The themes of racism and imperialism are already contained in the relationship between the Netherese and other humanoid races and barbarians, we don't need to make good adventurers second guess the morality of wiping out orcs.
The whole point of monsters should be that they are evil and can't be reasoned with because violence and cruelty against humanoids is something they have an undeniable urge to enact as a result of being pawns of evil deities that have no qualms about depriving their minions of free will.
Since monster characters are a thing and I'm strictly against taking anyone's character away I play the game the way it presents itself, and my character wouldn't kill someone just for being a certain creature if they can be talked to and reasoned with, but as a player I prefer if there is no moral quandary when it comes to killing monsters.
-
Since monster characters are a thing and I'm strictly against taking anyone's character away I play the game the way it presents itself, and my character wouldn't kill someone just for being a certain creature if they can be talked to and reasoned with, but as a player I prefer if there is no moral quandary when it comes to killing monsters.
But most of the monsters are intelligent? They are just very evil.
-
But most of the monsters are intelligent? They are just very evil.
The issue isn't intelligence. I'd say there are two general categories of evil: Evil beings who do harm in the pursuit of a goal, and evil beings who pursue the goal of doing harm. These are fundamentally different. Someone who's evil because they want money and don't care if they harm people to get it can be reasoned with, because you can create a situation where they can get more money if they don't hurt anyone. Laws can be written to constrain their ambitions to activities that are a net benefit to society. Someone who's actual goal is to harm people on the other hand can't be reasoned with. Any resources you give them will just be invested back into harming people. Any laws you write will only be obeyed to stay undetected while doing harm. If you set them loose on one of your enemies they will be a threat to you again the moment that enemy is defeated. There is no possible arrangement where everyone gets what they want.
The latter is the nature of evil deities, demons, devils, and IMO monsters in a campaign that's true to the setting.
-
Someone who's actual goal is to harm people on the other hand can't be reasoned with. Any resources you give them will just be invested back into harming people. Any laws you write will only be obeyed to stay undetected while doing harm. If you set them loose on one of your enemies they will be a threat to you again the moment that enemy is defeated. There is no possible arrangement where everyone gets what they want.
The latter is the nature of evil deities, demons, devils, and IMO monsters in a campaign that's true to the setting.
Surely there's nothing to fear from a big bad Minotaur who keeps getting more money and more magic items. There's no possible way it'll backfire. I can't imagine a monster would do anything this terrible, cruel, and evil.
Oh wait.
Seriously, though, I am surprised by how many just accept the beast instead of outright fighting him at first sight. Monsters on the server are KoS and those that play them have to agree to that stipulation during the application process. Trust me, if a player of a monster character gets upset about getting PvP'd and killed outside of Sullivan's, they shouldn't have chosen a monster character. Everything is spelled out rather well on that front. The only reason there is a monster acting as a mercenary is because people are allowing it to happen! It's not a fault of the server's rules or of DM leniency.
-
Well, there is also the fact that without monster mercs I wouldn't have any fighters to team up with for quests. ;D
-
Seriously, though, I am surprised by how many just accept the beast instead of outright fighting him at first sight.
Probably the same reason they have no problem with visiting Sullivan's Port. If they're playing a character that doesn't and never has gone to Sullivan's Port... maybe they're just not interested in PVP and rationalise their character's actions accordingly. It could also just be 'if he doesn't attack me, I have no reason to murder this creature that's just minding it's own business that isn't (at this time) anything questionable.'
Really though, if a PCs first reaction to seeing a monster is to immediatelly murder it then how is that really different from this:
can't be reasoned with because violence and cruelty against humanoids is something they have an undeniable urge to enact
It isn't.
-
I suspect that some PCs would be reluctant to outright attack something as powerful as a minotaur immediately. Hell, I know I was. It's likely suicide.
-
Really though, if a PCs first reaction to seeing a monster is to immediatelly murder it then how is that really different from this:
can't be reasoned with because violence and cruelty against humanoids is something they have an undeniable urge to enact
It isn't.
That's exactly why my character doesn't do that.