Search results

Subservience entails being prepared to obey others unquestioningly. Having concern for other people doesn't entail following orders from them or anyone else. Serving others is not slavery if you are neither owned as property nor forced to serve but are performing the service voluntarily.

I realize it's my own rigidity that's creating the issue here, but it's a matter of aesthetic preference. The navigation check in my game isn't about knowing which way to go. It assumes you've chosen the direction that's desirable to you, and it's a test of whether you succeed in going that way...

Thanks, I'll see if I can make something like this work for me. The complicating factor is I resolve overland travel in roughly half-day turns which is also the distance I make one hex, so the navigation check always covers that half day of travel into an adjacent hex, failure meaning it's not...

Yep, it's frequently not necessary. If the party's got a good navigator or they're traveling through easy terrain, they just get where they're going. There's only a roll sometimes if the terrain is more difficult.

I'm not sure I know what a sliding failure scale is. Do you mean something like degrees of failure? I think there's something like that in the 5.0 DMG, but I don't use it because it's sort of abstract, and I like to map things out hex by hex.

I roll monster surprise checks in the open because, at that point, it's been determined an encounter is going to happen, and I'm just checking to see who in the party might be surprised. One roll I've been in the habit of hiding is a terrain roll against the party navigator's passive Survival...

Why would I have (or want) to tell the players how to react in any case? What you’re describing is just another way of telling them about the environment. They still get to decide how the PCs react.

This is not true. Muscular neutrals, like neutrals in general, can be unopposed to the tenets of both good and evil, assisting and using the tactics of either as they see fit to maintain balance between the two. It's understood that good and evil is a dichotomy. Good is associated with...

I know you're looking for D&D-specific demons, but this is where I'd go for something like this: List of theological demons - Wikipedia

Sure, that could be the result of a failed ability check on your part to influence the outcome of the election.

Of course! When events in the game world, i.e. the results of the NPC's successful Charisma (Performance) checks, begin to mount up in contradiction to the PC's stated opinion of the NPC's degree of talent, the player might feel the PC is obliged to acknowledge the NPC's raw talent, regardless...

The GM can certainly narrate that the NPC has a reputation as an objectively and expertly competent and gifted performer, a virtuoso in their craft, is well liked and regarded by all, etc, but I don't think that narration should ever contain "you (the PC) are entertained/influenced by their...

The poster to whom I was responding said altruism being a value of good is a "slavery mindset" to which the muscular neutrals are opposed. That's more than just not caring. It's an inversion of morality. It's saying something good is actually bad. This is what evil thinks. I don't think you can...

This raises the question why the GM rolls. Remaining consistent with the rules requires taking this into consideration: The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice...

D&D 5E has Charisma (Performance) check.

Subservient to whom or what? Slavery is not voluntary. It is forced.

"Why aren't you laughing? I thought you were here to roleplay your character!"

Yes, those who are good would uphold altruism (ie be "for it"), and those who are neutral would not be opposed to it. I'm not sure what "own slaves" would mean in this context. Since altruism doesn't involve treating other people as property and actually calls for freeing of literal slaves, I...

If by “slavery” you mean the “slavery mindset” that altruism is a good value, then yeah, because that’s the premise of the thread. It’s the position of evil that altruism is an injustice that deprives the truly deserving of reaping the earned benefits of their superior ability to dominate...

Then they are evil.