|
** spoiler omitted **Did you ever doubt it?
Nope. I don't know if your clearance is high enough for me explain why ;)
I was just pointing out that there is actual written evidence of it in a recent scenario, meaning that I wouldn't be surprised if that plot thread gets picked up on.
I also know people that
I am agnostic towards that theory myself.
|
That was my initial idea as well. It was so out off character, it had to be a doppelganger there to attempt to trash his reputation. Unfortunately, there wasn't any options for this in play, (the point was to ruin Torch as a character and give the finger to SL players out of nowhere), and I'm really not certain I'd attribute that level of intelligence to the Decemvirate or the few Venture-Captains actually able to pull this sort of thing off. "Those who can do, do. Those who can't, teach" after all.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are you more mature because you happen to like whatever specifically you where referring to?The issue is not about what an individual does and doesn't like, it's about how they express that like or dislike. Stating a personal dislike is fine but when it becomes incessant or demanding, as has been the case with some issues, then it is no longer a mature attempt at a solution.
Everyone's voice should count equally. Some people want their voice to count more by repeating it loudly and ad nauseum.
Fair enough.
On the other hand, I tried your suggestion, saying "our" rather than "my", and I'm really not sure the distinction matters. I typed it first, and went ahead and submitted it so to come back a bit later to reread.
In my opinion, I think I'd actually rather see "my", as it kind of implies more ownership and participation. Maybe not ownership as much as investment.
I wasn't so much suggesting they should change the wording so much as understand the difference.
|
|
Why would there be options for it in play in that scenario if they were intending for it to be a big plot point that gets a big reveal later? The reveal would have much more weight if it is uncovered far later. It also leaves the proverbial Chekov's Gun on the wall for the campaign leadership whenever or if-ever they feel like it.
I can't comment on authorial intent. Nor do I care to, as I think it's almost always a waste of time. Pardon my French, but "Il n'y a pas de hors-texte" (There is no outside-text).
|
|
Why would there be options for it in play in that scenario if they were intending for it to be a big plot point that gets a big reveal later? The reveal would have much more weight if it is uncovered far later. It also leaves the proverbial Chekov's Gun on the wall for the campaign leadership whenever or if-ever they feel like it.
** spoiler omitted **
I can't comment on authorial intent. Nor do I care to, as I think it's almost always a waste of time. Pardon my French, but "Il n'y a pas de hors-texte" (There is no outside-text).
And that's a very interesting pairing, given current events, isn't it.
|
...(the point was to ruin Torch as a character and give the finger to SL players out of nowhere),...
So, just to be clear you have an in with Mike and John and so know the motivations that went into the decision making around the ending of the Shadow Lodge. Or perhaps you are ascribing motves to the author of the scenario, you know them that well?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a (apparently very) casual PFS player I have a great deal of trouble accepting both the arguments GMs seem to have against players with 'overly strong' characters AND the sheer player-unfriendliness of the campaign as whole.
I know it's a very delicate balance and the work that has been put in thus far is tremendous, but there's a constant discrepancy, for me at least, in the difficulty of the modules and the intention or will towards the players. And succeeding into the mid tier on the occasional disjointed, world-spanning smattering of mods I've gotten to play only makes the difficulty and stress of keeping such a character (and legal) all the more frustrating.
I also know that making easier mods will not remove all the power characters, but I know, at least in case of many players I see at cons, you bring the 'broken' to survive the bull. If not wiping an encounter in the 1st action would lead to a desperate party loss when the enemy goes, then I'd rather have that.
Heck, I even spectate higher level character builds to learn about new things to try and see the powerful options that some people get such a kick out of playing.
Over and over PFS has seemingly tried to screw their players over, and the GMs that run (myself included) become jaded to the unhappiness of their players. There's a powerful disconnect between the hardened GMs running an encounter the butchers us with some glee and then the teary eyed wonder they get as they relate to you after the wipe how their character shined in that encounter.
I'm struggling really hard right now to express these feelings articulately and in a critical, helpful manner, but maybe I can dumb it down to
'Perhaps the staff/writers/coordinators are only listening hard to their solid core of players and GMs, when that ends up being a very small part of their audience, and in turn makes the campaign decisions not as good as they could be for everyone'
Thanks for letting me try to get that out.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
'Perhaps the staff/writers/coordinators are only listening hard to their solid core of players and GMs, when that ends up being a very small part of their audience, and in turn makes the campaign decisions not as good as they could be for everyone'
I have no doubt this is a problem, as the solid core of players and GMs are the ones who are the most invested in the campaign and thus the one's most likely to give feedback. Afterall, it is difficult for the staff/writers/coordinators to hear people who are not invested enough to speak up, even if they represent the majority of the players. And, yes, we invested players and GMs sometimes forget not everyone else has either our level of investment, level of experience, and/or level of expertise.
That is why it is important for the GMs and organizers to listen as honestly as they can to what their local player base wants (and not just what supports their own agenda). This is, however, far easier said than done.
|
|
...(the point was to ruin Torch as a character and give the finger to SL players out of nowhere),...So, just to be clear you have an in with Mike and John and so know the motivations that went into the decision making around the ending of the Shadow Lodge. Or perhaps you are ascribing motives to the author of the scenario, you know them that well?
While you're right that he may be overstating his case, I can definitely see how he reached that conclusion. Its known that mike didn't like the union master torch direction the character took and thought he should be torch the outside schemer. The shadow lodge ending was so bad that it certainly felt like a big middle finger.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just out of curiosity, does anyone actually like or care for the Decemvirate as a group or concept?
We had a Maslow's pathfinders thread a while ago, and I don't recall the ten popping up once.
People might be loyal to the society, its mission, its members, and the venture captains but no one seemed to care about the ten. I think thats what happens when you're nameless, faceless and never interact with the players at all. No one knows you, no one cares about you.
|
|
While you're right that he may be overstating his case, I can definitely see how he reached that conclusion. Its known that mike didn't like the union master torch direction the character took and thought he should be torch the outside schemer. The shadow lodge ending was so bad that it certainly felt like a big middle finger....(the point was to ruin Torch as a character and give the finger to SL players out of nowhere),...So, just to be clear you have an in with Mike and John and so know the motivations that went into the decision making around the ending of the Shadow Lodge. Or perhaps you are ascribing motives to the author of the scenario, you know them that well?
I understand that point of view exists. I just don't think claiming one's opinion as fact is appropriate, and every so often I feel the need to call people on their bull.
I've never played the Shadow Lodge retirement scenario (Rivalry's End???) so I don't know for sure how it plays out. I never had a Shadow Lodge character that I played, though I did have a concept based on how the Lodge was described to me. So maybe I would have a different perspective if I had gotten to play my concept. Torch as leader of the Lodge always felt weird to me, and I never really trusted him. He was introduced as a Criminal and Information Broker. What I have read of descriptions of the retirement scenario does not feel like an insult. It, to me, felt like the logical results of trusting Torch. I do think that as the end of the Shadow Lodge it didn't really work. It felt like someone would have stepped up to take Torch's place.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While you're right that he may be overstating his case, I can definitely see how he reached that conclusion. Its known that mike didn't like the union master torch direction the character took and thought he should be torch the outside schemer. The shadow lodge ending was so bad that it certainly felt like a big middle finger....(the point was to ruin Torch as a character and give the finger to SL players out of nowhere),...So, just to be clear you have an in with Mike and John and so know the motivations that went into the decision making around the ending of the Shadow Lodge. Or perhaps you are ascribing motives to the author of the scenario, you know them that well?
Part of it's is just the way I talk. I'm not terribly serious about much, so if you read it as less serious and more jest, it might be a little different?
As for answering the question, it's been talked about multiple times. Back before the Shadow and Lantern Lodges went away, there was a Know Direction podcast that talked hinted about it, were we got little tips like "The Lantern Lodge will get a nice send off, oh and the Shadow Lodge is ending too." and something along the lines of "when they writer showed me the scenario that would conclude the Shadow Lodge, I read it and was like "huh, is that really what you want to do? Well, ok".
As far as I can tell, the biggest issue seems to come from DM's running GMT very differently, partially based on their own views of the NPC and also probably based on in which order they may have played or run scenarios that involve him. And also probably if they have only run/played some that involved him, which probably shaped their view of his motivations. Some people see him as a selfish asshat, which is a front he showed early on and a bit here and there later, while others see him as the ultimate rebel that has the power to make the Decemvirate and Venture-Captains cry, but an honest interest in the working-man's safety and advancement, with some dark history as an ex-pathfinder. In both cases, he absolutely has his own interests in mind as well.
It seems, kind of like Elfabet mentioned, that a certain group seemed to have the PFS leaderships ear on this one, and for all those that liked the idea of the Shadow Lodge as "watching the watchers", or didn't really like the Pathfinder Society but had to play because there was no other option, had experience with the non-CE GMT that was more people ascribing motivations and characteristics to than how he had been presented where left with this Faction conclusion that neither made any sense at all, but also basically went out of it's way to put the characters in a position where they got to sit and watch rather than interact with.
This was so bad it was to the point where non-Shadow Lodge fans and players where saying things like "wtf!!! was that?".
He was introduced as a Criminal and Information Broker. What I have read of descriptions of the retirement scenario does not feel like an insult. It, to me, felt like the logical results of trusting Torch. I do think that as the end of the Shadow Lodge it didn't really work. It felt like someone would have stepped up to take Torch's place.
GMT absolutely was a criminal and an information broker. Much more the later than the former. Honestly, his criminality is pretty debatable, though he clearly and openly worked outside the laws. But, well, Pathfinders!
He had a lot of enemies, most notably the leaders of the PFS who had betrayed him, gotten his friends murdered, and left him for dead with this mysterious wasting and painful curse. He was always looking for new talent, and while he hated the PFS leadership with a personal passion, also had a bit of a soft spot for lower level Pathfinder agents who he didn't want to see get screwed over like he himself had. (This was DM only information most of the time).
With that, he always had a "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" attitude, so like I said, he did have his own agenda, which was often "lets be friends and form a very mutually beneficial relationship".
Then came the Shadow Lodge as a Faction, where GMT had gotten enough dirt on the PFS leadership (in game) to lay down some terms. He formed a Faction devoted to checking the Decemvirates power and making sure they didn't bone the lower ranks too much, and also to make sure that everyone came back alive, even if that meant going in and rescuing their bodies so they could be divinely aided or preventing them from becoming undead monsters.
All this time, yes, obviously GMT was also serving some self-interest based agendas, increasing his knowledge, allies, and avenues of interest, turning the Society into not such asshats as they where known world-wide as, and probably getting even more dirt on the leadership.
Then he started to loose control, his already fragile alliance with the dark side was nearly destroyed as the (false) Shadow Lodge fractured into other cells that actively wanted to destroy the PFS, usually for some pretty good reasons.
There was a lot of politics and battles with the true and false Shadow Lodge, (or maybe the loyal and the enemy Shadow Lodge may serve better here).
The enemy Shadow Lodge cells where eventually almost destroyed, (there still some out there, but their various leaders where killed), and the existence of the real Shadow Lodge became more public knowledge within the Society.
Then Rivalry's End, and the Shadow Lodge suddenly goes from "Um, no. Our first priority is doing this safely, and right, and making sure we all make it back. I don't care what your Rank is. Lets work smarter, not harder" to, "oh, thank you masters. You are so right and we where so wrong, and we are eternally grateful that YOU ARE LETTING US BACK IN YOUR LITTLE GROUP. Please, do I have your leave to ignore everything I actually believe in and fall in line as soon as I can. Pretty please?".
Again, read this as less than 100% serous. :)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that point of view exists. I just don't think claiming one's opinion as fact is appropriate
Its a very difficult thing. People don't always disclose all of their motives. Peoples actions don't always show all of their motives.
I've never played the Shadow Lodge retirement scenario (Rivalry's End???) so I don't know for sure how it plays out.
I think you need to know that before you're quite so hard on my fellow shadowlodger there.
Torch sends you to get the spider: ALIVE.
Party gets the spider, brings her back. She has a list of names that are in code for the names of the 10.
Torch gets a single word out of her: probably the key to the cipher
Torch then Kills her, takes her lower jaw, makes a "you're all idiots for trusting me!" speech and leaves. If the party peruses, his half orc guards attack.
WHY on earth would you risk letting the party hear you (because you never know which party member is going to max out perception and attend the meeting as a bat, or invisible, or with claireaudience going, or has skill focus perception and a familiar...) when you could just say... "Nice job pathfinders! Drinks are on me. See you tommorow at the meeting, Leafytree, its your turn to bring the doughnuts". He doesn't even check to see if the word WORKS. He had no need, at all, to blow his cover and burn the bridge that might have become useful in the future.
From a character standpoint, this seems done deliberately to make torch the bad guy, because otherwise he wouldn't be. Its so utterly nonsensical that the idea that someone hated the character comes in as the most sensible explanation (up there with some epileptic trees about dopplegangers and Doom Torch bots)
The home pfs group I dm'd for never met schemer torch. They only knew Union boss torch. Both members just saluted him and said "see you around" as he left.
[/spoiler]
He was introduced as a Criminal and Information Broker.
Shady and possibly illegal. Whereas the other members are a hedonistic devil summoner working for a totalitarian government, a mob boss, a greedy merchant, and a decadent noble.. if it weren't for Olystria and possibly Maldris on a good day his major claim to fame would be he's too GOOD to be working with the society.
What I have read of descriptions of the retirement scenario does not feel like an insult. It, to me, felt like the logical results of trusting Torch. I do think that as the end of the Shadow Lodge it didn't really work. It felt like someone would have stepped up to take Torch's place.
|
|
While you're right that he may be overstating his case, I can definitely see how he reached that conclusion. Its known that mike didn't like the union master torch direction the character took and thought he should be torch the outside schemer. The shadow lodge ending was so bad that it certainly felt like a big middle finger....(the point was to ruin Torch as a character and give the finger to SL players out of nowhere),...So, just to be clear you have an in with Mike and John and so know the motivations that went into the decision making around the ending of the Shadow Lodge. Or perhaps you are ascribing motives to the author of the scenario, you know them that well?
Part of it's is just the way I talk. I'm not terribly serious about much, so if you read it as less serious and more jest, it might be a little different?
As for answering the question, it's been talked about multiple times. Back before the Shadow and Lantern Lodges went away, there was a Know Direction podcast that talked hinted about it, were we got little tips like "The Lantern Lodge will get a nice send off, oh and the Shadow Lodge is ending too." and something along the lines of "when they writer showed me the scenario that would conclude the Shadow Lodge, I read it and was like "huh, is that really what you want to do? Well, ok".
As far as I can tell, the biggest issue seems to come from DM's running GMT very differently, partially based on their own views of the NPC and also probably based on in which order they may have played or run scenarios that involve him. And also probably if they have only run/played some that involved him, which probably shaped their view of his motivations. Some people see him as a selfish asshat, which is a front he showed early on and a bit here and there later, while others see him as the ultimate rebel that has the power to make the Decemvirate and Venture-Captains cry, but an honest interest in...
Fair enough.
And now that you mention it, The sit and watch aspect can be very annoying. I do think scenes where you are a witness and not a participant are okay in the right circumstances. Sometimes the players are too large for you to have an effect. I don't think GMT qualifies for that status. Sometimes things happen too quickly and/or too far away for you to respond effectively, and that is okay. Certainly it should not happen often, and from how the end scene of Rivalry's End has been described, there is little reason why characters should not have had an opportunity to see where things were going before things went down. I had forgotten that scene, and I could see how that scene could feel like a flip you off moment.
I just never felt GMT's betrayal as all that surprising, like I said I never trusted him.
|
|
I'd say, even with the evil mastermind betrayer Torch, it's pretty surprising he did it, also.
As is, he had just gotten the one thing he has been searching for for decades, (besides a cure to his torturous plot curse), has a veritable army at his disposal, (which could both be used to attack or just to throw his enemy into disarray), and his allies and contacts are now stronger than they have ever been, and he has access to a lot of "200,000 magic items and artifacts in their basement" resources, and "yah, screw you guys, I'm out."
