A variation of that that I've just thought of is that theirs no law saying that the person that's The Regent can't also be The Court Wizard and even though its never happened before the current regent could be the 1st person to be both The Regent and The Court Wizard. Your thoughts?
D&D General Was the court Wizard right to Polymorph The heir from A Teenager into A Baby because she knew the villain would kill A Teenager but not A Baby?
- Thread starter JMISBEST
- Start date
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
They would need either a blood tie to the Royal House, or be of noble enough birth that the other noble houses would accept them.
If nobility in your campaign works like it does in our world, the first born is prepared to be the heir, and the second born might be sent to join the clergy...or be a wizard.
The way I'd do this is have the Princess be the daughter of the late King, and have the Regent be her maternal Uncle, so they would linked to the family, but have no claim to the throne.
If nobility in your campaign works like it does in our world, the first born is prepared to be the heir, and the second born might be sent to join the clergy...or be a wizard.
The way I'd do this is have the Princess be the daughter of the late King, and have the Regent be her maternal Uncle, so they would linked to the family, but have no claim to the throne.
LuisCarlos17f
Legend
If it can plymorphed into a baby then also as animal and sold to the butcher for the meat.
The fun fact is in a fantasy world with dragons, wizards and divine spellcasters everybody accepts there is a punishment in the afterlife for the criminals.
BABALITY, JHONNY CAGE WINS!
tvtropes.org
The fun fact is in a fantasy world with dragons, wizards and divine spellcasters everybody accepts there is a punishment in the afterlife for the criminals.
BABALITY, JHONNY CAGE WINS!
Raise Him Right This Time - TV Tropes
Sometimes, a person's spirit is just too corrupted to redeem. Maybe he committed despicable acts, maybe he became one of The Heartless, maybe he just had extraordinarily bad luck. Regardless, there's simply no hope of redemption. So, what do you …
tvtropes.org
aco175
Legend
How many movies and TV shows have the bad guy say, "I said, I will not kill you." Then turn to a henchman and tell him to kill you.
"I could never kill a baby, everyone here knows that is my weakness and something I would never do. When I say never, I mean nev-er." Turn to henchman...
"I could never kill a baby, everyone here knows that is my weakness and something I would never do. When I say never, I mean nev-er." Turn to henchman...
Some great examples
FrozenNorth
Hero
To be honest, this is what I find the most unrealistic about these thought experiments (and hypotheticals in general): they are all based on specific, actionable information that there is no realistic way a person could have.
I know, with 100% certainty, that the wizard will kill the 14-year old. I also know, with 100% certainty, that the wizard won’t kill her if she is polymorphed into a baby. Somehow, I also know that the wizard won’t dispel the polymotph then kill her, or abduct her, wait for 10 years, then kill her, ask a henchperson to kill her, etc.
There’s never any answer about why I don’t use my perfect knowledge of the wizard’s character to defeat them or convince not to kill the child.
There are so many great examples, but one that really stands out to me is Valentine from Kingsman who really dislikes blood. This is just one scene, but there are a few!
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Granted, when creating a story, you do put these sorts of elements into place. You may decide that Warduke, Chaotic Fighter and all around badass (despite questionable armor choices) has a soft spot for kittens.
You might then turn someone he wanted to kill into a kitten, in hopes that he adopts them rather than murders them. It's a contrived scenario, but so is deciding that Warduke slays who he wants, when he wants, and nothing ever gives him pause.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not your audience buys into the story you're telling. If the facts are too contrived, if there are too many coincidences at play, then they might reject the narrative outright.
But by the same token, something needs to happen to move the plot forward. Bilbo has to just happen to find The One Ring, and somehow resist it's corrupting influence for decades so he can pass it on to Frodo.
We're not going to make Will saves every day to see if this actually happens! Rolling low is inevitable, but we must suspend our disbelief or there's no story at all!
You might then turn someone he wanted to kill into a kitten, in hopes that he adopts them rather than murders them. It's a contrived scenario, but so is deciding that Warduke slays who he wants, when he wants, and nothing ever gives him pause.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not your audience buys into the story you're telling. If the facts are too contrived, if there are too many coincidences at play, then they might reject the narrative outright.
But by the same token, something needs to happen to move the plot forward. Bilbo has to just happen to find The One Ring, and somehow resist it's corrupting influence for decades so he can pass it on to Frodo.
We're not going to make Will saves every day to see if this actually happens! Rolling low is inevitable, but we must suspend our disbelief or there's no story at all!
FrozenNorth
Hero
Which is why you shouldn’t treat an RPG game like a novel (or vice-versa).
In a novel, maybe a particular action doesn’t break suspension of disbelief (though quite often, multiple excessively contrived scenarios will absolutely break suspension of disbelief).
However, imposing this on characters run by other people will definitely lead to pushback, particularly when they come up with a scenario you didn’t consider (such as dispelling the polymorph spell).
