fusangite said:
I'm having rather a different reaction to the "new information" than others are. I don't understand why the geas thing is relevant here.
The level of responsibility the PCs have for their actions is directly related to the level of leeway that they have in those actions. Who cast the Geas? Why didn't the Geas caster forsee this problem, and provide some guidance?
My guess is, barring further information, that the PCs were on a "Mission...from God" as the Blues Brothers put it. If that were the case, then doesn't it seem reasonable that they expect a little divine providence? Wouldn't the gnomes seem like divine providence under the circumstances?
The
gnomes have the right to stack the deck against the PCs. The DM should not. In 25 years of DMing, I have never relied on Geas or Quest spells to force the PCs to undergo certain actions. Personal preferences, I know, but I have always thought that this stacks the deck.
(a) the fact that some people in the party have high charisma scores
(b) the fact that one of the PCs is a gnome
Unless the world is one in which racial sympathies are strong, I agree with your point (b). However, your point (a) does not take into account the fact that, simply put, it is harder to screw over charismatic people than it is to screw over people you find loathsome. In D&D, things like Charisma and the Diplomacy skill are used to sway attitudes. If the DM doesn't allow Charisma to do this, the PCs might as well all go put that high stat somewhere else.
Charismatic individuals are obviously not impervious to robbery, but do you honestly believe that if a group of people decided to steal some jewels, and then they discovered that stealing those jewels would bring harm to a beautiful and charming individual, not one of the group would consider tipping the beauty off, even if only in hopes of a more personal reward?
Are you actually suggesting that how you are perceived has no bearing on how you are treated?
Are you suggesting that how you treat others doesn't affect how they treat you? In such a world, being good really does equate with being stupid.
Do devious people take pity on individuals because they are subject to a geas, quest or curse? If devious equates to evil, then not necessarily. But in my campaign at least, even evil people can feel some degree of empathy.
What has changed here is specifically:
(1) We now know that the PCs deliberately went out of their way over a period of time to change the gnomes' opinion of them, and were given reason to believe that they had succeeded, and
(2) As even you note, the Sense Motive check(s) turned up nothing.
Over an extended period, with a PC who has actually taken enough ranks in Sense Motive to indicate some sense of wisdom and caution, there should have been
something.
There is also the general sense from the Noelani that this is not an isolated incident within the campaign. My first response included the caveat that the players shouldn't be betrayed so often by NPCs that they conclude that "They are all against us", so, in a sense, my
opinion has not changed. What has changed is my understanding of the circumstances, and therefore, the meaning of "this" in the question "Is this unreasonable?"
Now, perhaps there is more information than we are now being told, which would indicate that not only is the outcome reasonable (which it may well be, especially if the gnomes are also Geased), but -- equally importantly -- that the information the players were given about the situation was reasonable.
RC
