[OOC] Heart of Darkness (Part II)

[secretID]

OK; thanks. I edited in a little note about him spying in spider form. Hopefully his speed with be sufficient.

[Mindsiege]

Unless Darce goes on a run, I think Tink will be fine speed-wise. Consider that we're talking about a spider that's about twice the size of a fist, and how during most hours of the day, people usually don't go at their maximum moving speed. If Tink hurries a little I don't see him ever losing Darce based on movement speed. The bigger concern would be that a spider that size is still pretty conspicuous and although Jimmy has heard about spiders that the darklings keep, he hasn't actually been able to see any around yet.

[secretID]

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

we're talking about a spider that's about twice the size of a fist

We are?! You apparently know something I don't. That would be awfully conspicuous; if that's the case, he would just go rat.

[Mindsiege]

Originally Posted by secretID

We are?! You apparently know something I don't. That would be awfully conspicuous; if that's the case, he would just go rat.

I feel like spiders are one of the most misunderstood monsters in DnD. Going by the usual stat block we are talking about a creature that is able to move 40ft in 6 seconds (with dash), is able to carry 30 pounds and has an attack so strong that it is able to kill a commoner in a single bite. That's not your common house spider.

Since imps shapeshift into spiders with the same speed as the standard stat block, I'm heavily assuming that they're shapeshifting into a pretty big spider as well, because that's a pretty high movementspeed. Maybe double fist-sized is too much, but it should be pretty eye-catching, I imagine. Do you think there is a mistake here?

[secretID]

One irrelevant mistake: it can carry 15 pounds, because tiny creatures get half CC.

I think you're of course free to rule otherwise but I just don't think that this was intended to be a spider not found IRL nature, or even a very strange spider.

I think one should not draw too many conclusions from the stat blocks, especially because the ratings break down at the fringes. Yes, its numbers look much like a rat's, and its damage before poison kills a commoner in 4 hits. But...it has the minimum STR and the minimum hp, and it does the minimum damage before the poison. A normal rat can't carry 15 pounds or kill a normal human in 4 bites, but I wouldn't conclude that 5e rats are supposed to be unusually strong and tough.*

Movement may be more problematic. A typical horse is about 4 times as fast as a typical human, not twice (or less) as fast. It's not just an acceleration issue; a real dog is about twice as fast and a rat is about as fast as a human.** I think the designers like to do monster movement in increments of 10, very rarely use just 10, and infrequently use numbers higher than 40. *shrug*

Considering all that, I would generally assume that an animal is what it sounds like unless the description notes that it's an extremely large spider, extremely slow horse, etc.

For a spider in particular, I wouldn't think it would deserve a stat block any more than does a wasp; I bet it's only there because it can be a familiar. But given that it does have meaningful stats, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's one of the nastiest spiders in nature...though the biggest, fastest, and most venomous spiders all seem to be different animals, and none is nearly as strong or as fast as the 5e spider. Personally, I'd probably go with a tarantula - big, highly venomous, and well-known.

I only posted to answer your question; I have no objection to your ruling otherwise, and will just use the rat instead in that case.

* We can go on and on. It's obviously absurd that any female gnome could carry even half as much as an ogre.
** That's all over short distances; humans are famously effective over long distances...though so are horses.

[Mindsiege]

Ah yes, halved CC for tiny, gotta remember that. That actually makes more sense too, I felt 30lb was pretty ridiculous even with the image that I was going for.

So, I guess the question is how seriously we want to take statblocks. I realize that they are intended as an approximation and to give numbers to the world, however it's clearly the job of the GM to determine what game elements carry what kind of stats to describe the game world in the way that it is meant to be received. Let me reflect on the points that you made. As always, consider this a general exercise in GMing on my end, though in the end, I will have to find a ruling for our situation.

• Most of my rats (talking house rats in this case) that a commoner can encounter will not use any kind of attack on them. Similarly, I don't think that I'll ever allow a bite from a common rat to kill anything small or medium outside of Maybe a chainlock with the invocation that lets his rat familiar take an attack action, and then it jumps straight for the jugular or something.extraordinary circumstances. At best the bitten target will faint. Contracting a disease is a different matter of course.
• So in general, anything that I don't think deserves the ability to harm my adventurers will receive no such ability. I think a rat biting your finger deserves a 1 hp penalty, though that's mostly the shock of getting bit rather than the wound (HP is just an abstract reflection of health, so you can suffer loss of HP without receiving any wounds in my book).
• Is 2 the minimum STR? I have been wondering. It's a big point for me that I'm assuming the intent that the stat block is intended for extraordinary rats and spiders as they aren't just at 1 STR.
• Personally, I'm fine taking movement speed for what it is. It's about as useful at reflecting the narrative realism as HP, meaning it isn't meant to. It's a pretty shallow abstraction to allow a depiction of turn-based combat, so I don't mind that there are inaccuracies in the relative movement speed between those broad 5' increments that DnD favours. However, I do think of them as speed categories where creatures capable of similar speeds should have the same movement speed. 20' per movement action is just far too much for anything outside a very noticeable spider.
• I agree that the spider stat block is meant to depict a spider, just as the horse is meant to depict horses. I would not give a household spider that particular spider statblock though. And I don't think that WotC meant for me to do so. A house spider cannot create the challenges that the spider statblock suggests, and as such I think that any interaction with it should be resolved without ever drawing on that particular monster statblock. WotC is pretty clear that statblocks should be modified according to the actual narrative abilities that the GM wants his creatures to have. I think if a statblock is used, it should reflect the narrative accordingly.
• To reiterate, I think that pests may merit receiving whatever stats are relevant when dealing with them. If my adventurer gets stung by a wasp because I wanted to be mean when he was smelling flowers, I don't mind dealing a 1 hp damage just to be funny. If that point of health will make any difference, then only because something way scarier has already tried to murder the adventurer or will try to murder them while they are still upset and stressed from the wasp sting.
• I agree with your interpretation of at least the familiar-type spiders being some kind of extraordinary spider. A tarantula or something similar is what I keep imagining for spider familiars as I envision the game world, though I don't mind that the DnD spider is even more capable than a tarantula. That just goes to show that things in DnD are more fantastical than in the real world. Which of course is kind of the point, I'll admit.
• There is a time to use stats, and there are times when you shouldn't. The comparison between your 20 STR gnome lady and the ogre next door is probably one of those. Narratively, I think it's fine to display how that particular gnome lady lifts and carries ridiculous amounts of weight, while the ogre will still finally always outlift her. That's the picture that will result, and I think it's fine to forget that DnD assumes some numbers in the background that would draw a fairly absurd picture if looked at too closely. The exact numbers should only be important when characters are challenged to the extreme of their abilities, but since the characters would only have a very vague understanding of measurements in the game world, I think glossing over the numbers that we use in the background is fine to preserve the assumption of realism. It doesn't matter too much how much more weight the ogre can exactly lift compared to our gnome lady, as long as they are able to perform according to player expectation and the narrative displays what we've all bargained for. I think this is another matter where abstraction and inaccuracy can be glossed over for the most part.

In summary, I feel like giving something the speed that narratively fits is pretty important. I always knew that I would allow druids to shapeshift into household spiders, but I was already sure that I would not allow them to use the spider statblock if they choose to do so. I think in this case, I am fine with making a ruling that goes according to that thinking. Imps appear to be able to shapeshift into spiders, and that's good enough for me to be a bit liberal.

I'll give you the option of what you want it to be. Either Tink shifts into a spider that's big and has an easy time keeping up (using the movementspeed that his ability allows), or he shifts into a smaller spider that has the benefit of being hard to notice, but will have trouble navigating the outpost if Darce chooses not to remain stationary. Jimmy's order for Tink may include for him to shapeshift into the most appropriate form for what he is attempting to achieve at each time.

By the way, Jimmy is aware that the current Tink is taking his orders pretty literally, because he is pretty peeved over how he's been used on the way to the colony. Finding a wording that allows him some flexibility might either improve or decrease how well he will do at his task.

[secretID]

OK; if rats are not uncommon, Jimmy will choose that. Otherwise, he'll choose a normal spider, and hope that Tink can latch on.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

By the way, Jimmy is aware that the current Tink is taking his orders pretty literally, because he is pretty peeved over how he's been used on the way to the colony. Finding a wording that allows him some flexibility might either improve or decrease how well he will do at his task.

Maybe I've forgotten; I don't know what Tink is upset about.

We can do that, but...do we want to? Jimmy obviously has as pretty distinctive communication style. I could have him be very specific with Tink to work around that, but that doesn't sound like much fun. It seems similar to me to handicapping his interaction skills because of the voice I've given him. Even if it's more accurate that Jimmy might grate on someone, it would be less fun if everyone trying Persuasion had to be traditionally charming. Add to this that familiars, IMO, are in a gray area between PC and NPC...

[Mindsiege]

Originally Posted by secretID

OK; if rats are not uncommon, Jimmy will choose that. Otherwise, he'll choose a normal spider, and hope that Tink can latch on.

Jimmy can easily confirm the particulars with Boanagh. Both rats and spiders will make for unexpected guests in this outpost when they are spotted because they don't really habitate here. Neither of them is fully unthinkable though, if they somehow got lost down here, most likely descending down from the Heart Tree. It has happened, if rather rarely.

Of course Tink will be able to help himself with successful Stealth checks, and he can also make one to latch himself onto Darce if you so chose. Right at the moment after the interaction, I think Tink is an invisible raven, presumably at a distance outside of blindsight. What course of action would you like Tinkerbell to attempt while Darce is walking away angrily?

Originally Posted by secretID

Maybe I've forgotten; I don't know what Tink is upset about.

We can do that, but...do we want to? Jimmy obviously has as pretty distinctive communication style. I could have him be very specific with Tink to work around that, but that doesn't sound like much fun. It seems similar to me to handicapping his interaction skills because of the voice I've given him. Even if it's more accurate that Jimmy might grate on someone, it would be less fun if everyone trying Persuasion had to be traditionally charming. Add to this that familiars, IMO, are in a gray area between PC and NPC...

I'm not meaning to make this part difficult, that's why I mentioned it up front. Tink has been treated as fodder, I think at least twice, probably more like thrice. He's not malicious though and his feelings on the matter are likely to be reset at the start of the next adventure.

About instructing him currently, I don't need anything elaborate and I do agree Jimmy should be able to do this without any issues. Mostly I wanted to make a point that right now Jimmy has a loyal, but disgruntled minion. If you don't want me to go with a literal wording, feel free to add a bit narration that paraphrases Jimmy's intentions. I'm fully fine to resolve this based on intention instead of implementation. The point is that Tink will try to not get himself into danger as much as possible, but while staying within the intent of the orders he received. I'm clarifying this ahead of time because I will use this behaviour once I resolve his shadowing of Darce.

About Jimmy's general persuasiveness, were you thinking about a situation where you would have hoped him to be more successful, or was this a general example? Mostly I'm just letting the dialog flow unless it's clear that the conversation of a PC has an evident intent that might pose a challenge to achieve. In that way, Persuasion skill checks don't require any particular charm, though the particulars of the interaction might influence the DC. Basically, Jimmy is fine being untraditionally persuasive in his own charming ways. But he can't count on his stats to let him get away with saying whatever he wants. Sometimes the what is more important than the how. But so far I wasn't really too worried about Jimmy's persuasion performance this adventure. If I recall correctly, in both parts of Heart of Darkness Jimmy hasn't attempted many things which required him to make Persuasion rolls.

Let me know if all of that works for you. Personally I enjoy the "word your wish wisely" scenario, but this shouldn't need to be that type of challenge. I usually give my players the choice to RP their familiars themselves, but if the task falls to me like in this case, I like to do the job according to the narrative. As NPCs, I take familiars to be self-sacrificingly loyal. However, since they are assumed to have minds and personalities, I have been tracking Tink's mood, and he does feel like Jimmy is viewing him entirely as a tool. Which he naturally is, but he is currently trying to avoid getting beat up as much as is within his allowed parameters. I hope that doesn't make it less fun, but we can do it differently too. I'm pretty flexible on what you think makes for the better story/gameplay here.

[secretID]

I think we may have some differences in familiar approach, which I'm optimistic about resolving. I think that the player get to decide how obedient the familiar is, at least so long as the PC is using the familiar normally.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Tink has been treated as fodder, I think at least twice, probably more like thrice.

I dispute that characterization. He can't be fodder in the usual sense because he's effectively immortal. Yes, Jimmy has put him at risk in a way that he would not if Tink could not be revived, but so what? There's no reason to think that being killed is any more painful than being seriously wounded, and Jimmy, like all adventurers, puts himself at that risk regularly.

If Tinkerbell had only one life, Jimmy would have to be very careful with him, and he might just keep him at home because adventures would be too dangerous - i.e., he wouldn't use him as a familiar. Temporary death is a regular risk of the occupation of familiar. Maybe Tinkerbell chose that job, or maybe he was assigned, but it doesn't make much sense for him to resent Jimmy for utilizing him exactly as intended.

I understand giving a familiar a personality and feelings; I see it as an I don't mean that it's an optional rule or anything, just that it's neither required nor prohibited.option. (It's also a complicated option, because what happens to the personality when the familiar has, e.g., 1 INT in spider form?) I haven't elected to institute that with Tinkerbell, because I prefer to interact with other players and the DM, and Jimmy has plenty personality enough anyway. I think if the player wants that option, the player can run the familiar alone or can ask/allow the DM to run it. In the latter case, I think the player and DM should agree on the familiar's personality, but the familiar should never buck the PC regardless.

I've enjoyed the occasional comments from Tink that you've sprinkled in, but it rubs me the wrong way when you just announce that he's disgruntled, or "not [yet?] malicious," etc. I think I can just say that my vision of my Jimmy, Jimmy's patron, and Tinkerbell is that Tinkerbell is a pathologically devoted follower, a masochist, or simply a good soldier, just like I could say that Jimmy's mother is saint who would do anything for him. I don't think I should have to worry about my PC's familiar deciding that it doesn't want to do its job, or doesn't want to do it well. I don't think that's in the spirit of This could be an interesting dimension of the situation in which a mage gets an actual imp or whatever to agree to be a familiar, a very different situation.the spell.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

If you don't want me to go with a literal wording, feel free to add a bit narration that paraphrases Jimmy's intentions.

Edited in.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Right at the moment after the interaction, I think Tink is an invisible raven, presumably at a distance outside of blindsight. What course of action would you like Tinkerbell to attempt while Darce is walking away angrily?

Hm. My edit probably wasn't perfectly clear. My idea is that he flies several feet over Darce in raven form, regardless of perceptibility, then changes into a small spider once over Darce's head, hopefully to give the impression of having disappeared.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

About Jimmy's general persuasiveness, were you thinking about a situation where you would have hoped him to be more successful, or was this a general example?

Just general; I don't recall it being an issue.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

But he can't count on his stats to let him get away with saying whatever he wants. Sometimes the what is more important than the how.

Sure, sure, there are limits. My image of Jimmy attempting persuasion or deception is a scene in a comedy in which the protagonist might not be very realistically convincing, but it works through some combination of the other party's gullibility and the audience's suspension of disbelief. I completely understand if a DM isn't into that for a particular game, but I don't think it's been an issue for you. Actually, just a few hours ago I was thinking of Sideshow Bob's trial in the Simpsons, in which he explains that his tattoo, "Die, Bart, Die!" is actually just in German, and the jury finds this completely acceptable. That probably would be over the line for you, and most DMs. (:

[Mindsiege]

 

Tinkerbell I think my previous explanation caused some misunderstandings about what I'm actually trying to do here. Below I'm offering some clarification. None of it is meant to be combative and I'm mostly trying to gauge your preference about any changes to Tink compared to what I've been doing with him so far. My goals are your fun and a cohesive narrative. The rest is just talking about my own preferences and some requirements for me to resolve Tink's actions. Originally Posted by secretID I think that the player get to decide how obedient the familiar is, at least so long as the PC is using the familiar normally. This is non-debatable. Familiars are obedient servants. They don't have agency to be disobedient in my book. Originally Posted by secretID I dispute that characterization. He can't be fodder in the usual sense because he's effectively immortal. Yes, Jimmy has put him at risk in a way that he would not if Tink could not be revived, but so what? There's no reason to think that being killed is any more painful than being seriously wounded, and Jimmy, like all adventurers, puts himself at that risk regularly. I'm not sure that I've understood where the dispute is. Would you prefer if I switch the vocabulary from 'fodder' to 'punching bag'? It really follows the same line of thinking that I used where a contractually-obligated and independently-thinking creature with feelings wouldn't like being ordered into self-sacrifice in the absence of some extenuating I didn't do my research on this because I thought you'd inform me if there is anything pertinentestablished lore. Either way though, I don't think Tink's emotions are relevant for his effectiveness, but more on that later. Originally Posted by secretID If Tinkerbell had only one life, Jimmy would have to be very careful with him, and he might just keep him at home because adventures would be too dangerous - i.e., he wouldn't use him as a familiar. Temporary death is a regular risk of the occupation of familiar. Maybe Tinkerbell chose that job, or maybe he was assigned, but it doesn't make much sense for him to resent Jimmy for utilizing him exactly as intended. I would argue "as intended" really only works in this case if you choose to view familiars as beings that shouldn't have independent thought or feelings. Which I think is a legitimate way of treating your familiar, though asking the familiar to like that treatment is a bit much. But again, this isn't actually relevant to the scenario (from my GM POV) and merely a conversation about flavour. I can see how this particular point would be troublesome for your RP though. From my understanding, your intent is to play Jimmy as moral. I assume that you view slavery as immoral. Personally, I think there are different ways of treating servants, but on a player level, it appears that you've been viewing familiars as mere tools rather than servants. So I can understand that you would prefer keeping morals out of the equation which would allow you to maximise a familiar's mechanical benefits. This strikes me as a rather convenient RP choice. Sometimes being good isn't mechanically optimal, I think that's part of the point of playing a moral character. While I personally think alignment should remain a challenge in DnD, I definitely don't want to spoil your fun. If you would like me to adjust my current characterisation of Tink to make it morally easier on Jimmy, that's definitely a conversation we can have. Let me know your preference on this point. It's beside the topic of Tink's shadowing task, but I think it's still important to be on the same page here. Originally Posted by secretID I understand giving a familiar a personality and feelings; I see it as an I don't mean that it's an optional rule or anything, just that it's neither required nor prohibited.option. (It's also a complicated option, because what happens to the personality when the familiar has, e.g., 1 INT in spider form?) While I think a beast familiar is naturally easier to implement than something sentient, that's really just an aside. The reason the characterization of a sentient's personality shouldn't be handwaved in my opinion is that tasking your familiar with complex challenges requires them to take independent action. To resolve your familiar's independent actions I need to establish their behaviour. I don't think that I want to be beneficial enough to just allow the familiar to take optimal actions in the absence of their master's orders. That's why I was simply trying to establish Tink's default behaviour as "taking minimal risk and focusing on self-preservation". Opting into that behaviour was my way of being beneficial, though I see that you took it as the GM creating more challenges for you with how I've flavoured it. The point is, in a complex challenge your familiar's success will depend on your orders and their default behaviour. What I was trying OOC was to guide you into giving Tink more orders. I considered this beneficial because once I get to resolving Tink's success off-screen, while I won't cripple him unnecessarily, as a mere imp Tink's decision-making ability is assumed to be limited compared to Jimmy's. Originally Posted by secretID I haven't elected to institute that with Tinkerbell, because I prefer to interact with other players and the DM, and Jimmy has plenty personality enough anyway. I think if the player wants that option, the player can run the familiar alone or can ask/allow the DM to run it. That's perfectly fine. I had to take up RPing Tink because I needed him to have a voice during the hobgoblin encounter. Since he is a scout, using his voice came up a few times more, but generally, I don't plan on giving Tink much of a story impact. Originally Posted by secretID In the latter case, I think the player and DM should agree on the familiar's personality I personally figured Tink's personality in this case didn't matter much, and for the most part, it's pretty arbitrary and close to your standard imp, just with the adage of unbreakable loyalty. Considering the point about morals though, get back to me if this is still a concern for you. Personally, I felt the way I've been handling Tink hasn't detracted from anything, but I'm pretty flexible to make changes. Originally Posted by secretID but the familiar should never buck the PC regardless. Hopefully my explanation about complex tasks and default behaviour were able to explain how that's not why I brought up the topic. Originally Posted by secretID I've enjoyed the occasional comments from Tink that you've sprinkled in, but it rubs me the wrong way when you just announce that he's disgruntled, or "not [yet?] malicious," etc. To clarify, I still think that Tink being disgruntled is not that far-fetched of a consequence based on Jimmy's orders, even if it doesn't make him look good. But to reaffirm for you, maliciousness and sabotage are off the table. I brought that up specifically to clarify Tink's loyalty. The most defiance that I expect to see from Tink are petty remarks. Originally Posted by secretID I think I can just say that my vision of my Jimmy, Jimmy's patron, and Tinkerbell is that Tinkerbell is a pathologically devoted follower, a masochist, or simply a good soldier, just like I could say that Jimmy's mother is saint who would do anything for him. As far as convenience goes, those RP choices are on the table. I don't think we need to characterize Tink in any such way to keep him effective, but if that's the narrative you would prefer to tell it will be fairly easy for me to accommodate you here. Let me know what you would like to see from Tink. To keep the RP continual and the story straight, I can easily include a small scene where I make Tink give Jimmy a reason to use his That's not a thing, but it sounds legitimate enough for me to serve our narrative purpose. familiar command word on Tink, to return him to being a perfect, mindless tool (or Jimmy just reminds Tink that dying for the cause is very much expected of him, if that's more palatable). Originally Posted by secretID I don't think I should have to worry about my PC's familiar deciding that it doesn't want to do its job, or doesn't want to do it well. I don't think that's in the spirit of This could be an interesting dimension of the situation in which a mage gets an actual imp or whatever to agree to be a familiar, a very different situation.the spell. Hopefully I clarified that this wasn't any concern for me. It's not about Tink refusing to do his job or not wanting to do it well. No matter which behaviour we choose for him, it will never be optimal in all situations. I meant to give you an OOC pointer that Tink's success will depend on the orders that he receives plus the default behaviour that I needed to fit him with, which wasn't specifically, "taking minimal risk and focusing on self-preservation" is pretty optimized towards protecting Jimmy's gold resource, which you've displayed as a main character-drive for Jimmygood or bad behaviour, but something I chose based on the dynamic between Jimmy and Tink as I've seen it during this game. My choice for Tink's default behaviour and my choice for Tink's personality felt fitting at the time of my choosing. Allowing the player to choose their prefered default behaviour and personality for their familiar is pretty beneficial since these are not specified as choosable by the Find Familiar spell. However if you've come to expect this from your past games and would like to have those choices, I really don't mind letting you make these choices, even retroactively. The only thing I would ask for is for us to at least put some narrative element (like a mind-wipe command word or rousing speech) into the narrative to explain Tink's change of personality and mood. Whenever it applies, if there already is established RP surrounding something critical to your character, please let me know beforehand. Researching character history in the WM is pretty tedious, so I've been avoiding it besides looking at the character applications and character sheets. And if I ever get something wrong anyways, I'm really not pressed to stand corrected. The earlier I know that I'm doing something outside of expectations, the easier it is for me to adjust.

Originally Posted by secretID

Hm. My edit probably wasn't perfectly clear. My idea is that he flies several feet over Darce in raven form, regardless of perceptibility, then changes into a small spider once over Darce's head, hopefully to give the impression of having disappeared.

There are (at least) three ways I could interpret this course of action.
1) Would you like Tink to torpedo dive as a raven into Darce's blindsight range before changing into a spider at a minimal distance?
2) Would you like Tink to parachute land onto Darce after transforming outside of his blindsight range?
3) Would you like Tink to do a combination of the former two, parachuting while transforming inside the blindsight range?

Originally Posted by secretID

Sure, sure, there are limits. My image of Jimmy attempting persuasion or deception is a scene in a comedy in which the protagonist might not be very realistically convincing, but it works through some combination of the other party's gullibility and the audience's suspension of disbelief. I completely understand if a DM isn't into that for a particular game, but I don't think it's been an issue for you. Actually, just a few hours ago I was thinking of Sideshow Bob's trial in the Simpsons, in which he explains that his tattoo, "Die, Bart, Die!" is actually just in German, and the jury finds this completely acceptable. That probably would be over the line for you, and most DMs. (:

Interesting question. I think by default, I'm likely to adjust the DC if Jimmy's presentation appears to be hurting his chances at success. But otherwise, I think as long as I can imagine the narrative working, I'll always allow for a roll. My take on Jimmy as a character is that he's pretty functional in his own way, though with a bit of hubris that may not help his chances with every In my case, suspension of disbelief will probably occur more often if there aren't actual stakes to the interaction. What I can say for sure though is that there will be some NPCs that are inherently not gullible, just like there will be some that are. NPC interaction. In HoD it has definitely not been a problem for him yet, as far as I recall.

[Mindsiege]

tldr;
I'm really not pressed about how to handle Tink as a familiar. I don't care much either way, really. I could have kept the above post a whole lot shorter, but you know once I try to give insight into my thinking, I don't have a habit of keeping things digestible. To run Tink in this game I made a few choices about him without checking in with you and then I was clumsy in communicating that I need Tink's behavior narrowed down to resolve the next set of orders that Jimmy had given him. All that moral, personality, and feelings stuff is really not that important to me. It's really just what felt most consequential in the moment, but I'm also worried that it's something that's pretty important to fit your vision for Tink and Jimmy's relationship. Basically, that's not something I wanted to encroach upon. Mostly, I assumed that they barely have one, besides a pretty straightforward master-servant dynamic. The disgruntled minion trope is something I've seen a lot and which I think is fun. Whether we make things fit to view Jimmy as either a good master or a bad master doesn't really matter to me anyways. I have my own way to make the distinction of what makes a good master, but if there is lore that can allow us to ignore all those unnecessary flavor pieces that detract from making your familiar into a mechanical benefit that doesn't need to be worried about, then I don't mind for us to establish that lore and to rest easy.

I also never meant the characterization that I came up with for Tink to appear as detrimental. I gave insight into what I believed to be the most likely and helpful default behavior, exactly to give you more control over Tink's actual approach to his little mission. The intent is for Jimmy to have full control over how his familiar ends up doing things, though that only includes control about Tink's which mechanically do not matterthoughts and feelings if you want that to be so. Specifically, if willing self-sacrifice is something that's important for you to enjoy the flavor that I came up with to give a little life to Tink's participation in the adventure, then I really only want to be accommodating to your preference. I know this post is a repeat of what I said above, but I can't help but feel that the post above reads argumentative, when I really don't want it to be read like that. It's supposed to be read as a summary of why I chose Tink's flavor in this adventure as I did, what we need to determine to move the current scene forward, and just for me to really grasp your preference. Because while you've stated it clearly, I want us to be on the same page about what and how exactly I will change Tink's presentation moving forward.

[secretID]

I had already almost finished a very long thing about familiars when I saw your second post. I just finished it quickly and didn’t edit, so read at your own risk. Maybe the only relevant thing is I should probably flesh out both Jimmy's patron and Tink, and discuss that with you if HoD hasn't concluded.

 

I think you’re operating under assumptions about familiars that could be true for a particular familiar but need not be true, and are only true at the player’s option. You talk about slavery versus “contractually-obligated” service, about feelings, and about opinions about “self-sacrifice.” Therein you understandably see alignment and interaction issues. But I don’t see any basis in RAW or RAI for your ideas about the nature of familiars and the relationships with them.

We only know a these relevant things about familiars:
- “a spirit”
- “a celestial, fey, or fiend,” at the player’s choice
- “acts independently,” but “always obeys”
- “can communicate”

I don’t think we have any idea what a “spirit” is. We have no reason to assume that they have typical human perspectives, or personalities at all. We don’t even know if they all feel physical pain; we certainly don’t know that they all have emotions and preferences. We have absolutely no idea why these spirits are familiars, so there’s no basis at all for assuming them to be “contractually-obligated” servants. As I said, given what we know, I think just about everything is on the table: damned, enslaved, and tortured soul; perfect, self-sacrificing zealot; sycophantic masochist; insensate automaton; etc., including more human-like personalities. I don’t think there’s anything cheesy (“convenient”) about any of those options.

I’ve been very lazy about thinking about Jimmy’s patron and familiar, but I tend to think of familiars as loyal and devoted soldiers, which already would be a more human personality than necessary. It’s not “slavery” to order a soldier to do their job. I don’t think a general for a good cause does anything remotely evil by ordering a volunteer army to perform a very risky assault.

As I think about it now, I guess the volunteer solider idea makes less sense in the case of a wizard’s familiar, but it makes perfect sense for a warlock. I don’t know why we would assume that Tink, sent by Jimmy’s patron, is some kind of hireling, or even a feudal servant.

Even if we could assume that every familiar is an employee, or maybe indentured servant, and every familiar has common human feelings and attitudes, I don’t know why one would resent being used as Jimmy has used Tink. Jimmy hasn’t done anything strange at all, IMO. He hasn’t even, e.g., used Tink to block an enemy, IIRC. Has Tink even been harmed? With your approach, that the default familiar “wouldn’t like being ordered into self-sacrifice,” as you’ve characterized it, it seems like the typical familiar would live in resentment for doing the basic jobs of familiars, scouting and helping in combat. If they’re “contractually-obligated,” did they not read the bold print?

But again, the main point is that there's no reason at all to imagine a familiar as a servant under an obligation as opposed to various other conceptions. I think there are tons of interesting options – options – for familiar personalities and relationships that I’ve just never explored. E.g., what if Tink is enslaved by Jimmy’s patron, but Jimmy doesn’t want to treat him as a slave, but Tink’s other potential assignments would be even worse, etc.? But those are all options.

In a normal campaign, I guess a DM would likely ask me to flesh out Jimmy’s patron and probably his familiar. If we had realized that you would be DMing Jimmy for so long, maybe we would have done that, and maybe we should now. Jimmy is my first warlock, and as I said, I’ve almost completely neglected those things, in part because he already has lots to work with in RP. You may have seen my recent Inn post for another Chainlock, whose familiar has much more of a personality. I’ll try to think more about what I might like for Jimmy.

(One issue is that I really regret making him a hexblade. If I could do it over, I’d give him a celestial patron. He would be a reluctantly reformed criminal, and his familiar would regularly encourage and scold him.)

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

The reason the characterization of a sentient's personality shouldn't be handwaved in my opinion is that tasking your familiar with complex challenges requires them to take independent action. To resolve your familiar's independent actions I need to establish their behaviour….Allowing the player to choose their prefered default behaviour and personality for their familiar is pretty beneficial since these are not specified as choosable by the Find Familiar spell.

This is why I was concerned about the personality/feelings impacting efficacy; this seems to indicate that you usually do factor them significantly. I see that you’re fine foregoing that, though.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I don't think that I want to be beneficial enough to just allow the familiar to take optimal actions in the absence of their master's orders. That's why I was simply trying to establish Tink's default behaviour as "taking minimal risk and focusing on self-preservation". Opting into that behaviour was my way of being beneficial

I think there are significant limits to a familiar’s independence, but that they should come from INT limitations and general communication limitations, unless the player wants the personality to be an issue there. I do appreciate you watching Jimmy’s bottom line, but the ritual is so cheap that he’ll ask Tink to err on the side of risk, short of simple foolishness.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I personally figured Tink's personality in this case didn't matter much, and for the most part, it's pretty arbitrary and close to your standard imp, just with the adage of unbreakable loyalty.

I just wanted to remind you that in no way is he an imp, though that’s his most common form. Sometimes he’s in pixie form instead, but of course he’s never either; he's a "spirit." I’ve never imagined him being at all imp-like in personality. I would almost certainly pick celestial or fey instead of fiend.

Re Tink’s spider drop, I’d like him to fly above Darce, just out of blindsight range, then transform to fall down on him. BTW, this ended up much more complicated than I (or Jimmy) had considered, and I would have had no complaint at all if Tink had done something completely different, using his judgment.

[Mindsiege]

You're completely correct that I've been using some pretty specific assumptions about what I think familiars are inside the game when it's not strictly defined in any sort of universal worldbuilding. Since this is the WM, I'm very open about choosing any kind of setting that helps you tell Jimmy's story.

The reason I opted for the characterisation that I used is because my understanding is that familiars are spirits, but they do inhabit physical bodies. Whether owl, imp, or sylph, their hardware dictates that they are forced (or chose) to be trapped into a mortal frame. So yes, they should feel pain. What they think about suffering inside of a mortal shell though should be entirely up to their lore.

I never thought that convenient lore is cheesy. But obviously there are plenty of ways we can make a familiar be okay with putting the master first and to accept suffering in order to prevent the master's suffering or just to further their goals. While I think that limiting the suffering of your underlings (mortal or not) is a good-aligned quality, I did take notice of Jimmy's militaristic flavour and opting to value efficiency over benevolence is not necessarily evil-aligned, so that all checks out. I won't be able to view it as something else than convenient/optimized though, because it is. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I paid attention to the choices that Jimmy made while handling Tink, but I didn't document them and would have to look them up. It's not really important for anything, but he did very clearly put himself first and Tink did get himself into avoidable danger, even within the scope as a scout. It wasn't anything out of line, but I thought I could use it to add a little flavour when I tried filling in the gaps.

About fleshing Jimmy out more, I also view this as something optional. Specifically, in this shared game world I don't want to act too imposing on backstory stuff. What I needed to settle by setting off this discussion is that Jimmy is aware of the behaviour that I was planning to use for Tink's independent actions, so that you as a player have more control over the outcome of such actions. I haven't run for any sentient familiars yet, or that's something I might have brought up I don't view this as a matter of running the game long, because it could even come up in the first encounter of an adventurefar earlier, and I wouldn't have necessarily tied it to fleshing out all this lore stuff. If that's something you'd like to do though, I think it will be fun and add to the RP.

About your one note, I do use a character's personality to extrapolate their behaviour. In case of familiars though, I think this is only supposed to come up in the absence of orders and when the choice between two actions isn't obvious in terms of efficiency. So specifically, no matter what we decide on for Tink, it will always be very situational if his personality even makes a difference. The more complex and more independent the task though, it will become a factor, though not a factor of efficiency, just for the sake of adjudication.

As an aside, I loved Punxel's familiar post in the Inn. I was about to give RPXP, but before I could it was already spoilerbuttoned.

About Jimmy being a Hexblade, I actually think it comes with its own charms. The concept of snatching a dagger and surprisingly coming into power definitely has a lot of angles to explore, though your idea with the redeeming criminal also sounds fun.

I wish I had edited out the part about Tink being close to a standard imp. I don't think that's what I actually did when I chose his personality, thinking about it more. I did know about him being interchangeable with his pixie form, and that definitely did flow into my RP. I think what I meant to say was that there is something impish (the adjective, not the race) to his characterization, but I think that came about mostly because I saw similar traits in Jimmy. Either way though, I know that I RP imps very differently than Tink.

About your last orders for Tink against Darce, that's what I'll use to move ahead. To be honest, I didn't mean to make it complicated. Mostly I meant to clarify Tink's behaviour (because I need that to resolve anything unforeseen), the ruling on Tink's shapeshifting, and also what Jimmy would be able to know about darkling physiology and the colony's pest population. Any of those Really just may. It might not even come up. I'll have to figure that out once I resolve it.may play into the outcome of Tink's shadowing of Darce. If you think it's more fitting to leave it to Tink, I don't mind at all resolving it like that instead. I wasn't pushing for Jimmy to make a different plan necessarily, I only was making sure whether you were aware of the parameters that I think Jimmy would have been aware of. I'll get to writing the update today or tomorrow.

[secretID]

Sure. I think the spying was inherently complicated in ways I hadn't considered.

Yeah, stumbling onto the magic dagger does work. I guess the whole idea of a sentient weapon patron has always confused me. What does it want? The subclass rules don't offer much. They refer to the Raven Queen, but the lore on her appears sparse.

I guess a weapon would favor violence, which is at least a little interesting, as Jimmy prefers to avoid it. It may just want to have a presence around conflict, the way the Raven Queen wants a presence around “memories and strong emotions, typically associated with loss and tragedy,” to collect them, according to the wiki.

Tinkerbell could still be anything. I think fey makes the most sense. If he were a devotee of the cause, then I guess he and Jimmy might have minor conflict about whether and when to fight. He could be an enslaved or indentured servant of the sentient weapon…? That was a really weird sentence. Maybe the weapon – of which Jimmy’s dagger is just a pale copy – steals souls, and Tinkerbell is a past victim. Or Tinkerbell could be a former warlock, like Jimmy – this is Jimmy’s future.

I am worried that the more interesting I make Tinkerbell, the more I turn Jimmy’s roleplay inward, which will make him less fun. I think that’s one reason why people often use a disgruntled employee personality – a little comic relief without too much distraction.

I’m interested in any of your thoughts on this.

[Mindsiege]

Generally, I think your Hexblade weapon can have any flavour that you want, of course. Depending on what you want the weapon to be lorewise, the ways it can be designed to influence your character are pretty much infinite, most likely compulsion, visions, dialog, or any of the other ways that warlocks are affected by their patron. Warlock patrons are generally something difficult to flesh out, because patrons have an inherent tendency of overwriting or at least interfering with the character's own motivations by imposing theirs.

I have researched the Raven Queen in the past but I haven't fully implemented a Raven Queen warlock as of yet. Memories are her jam though, that's for sure. So rather than combat necessarily, the weapons purpose could be to witness. You could write the dagger as compelling Jimmy to witness whatever particular narrative element you want to steer Jimmy towards with the dagger as a character-external plot device. Generally I agree though that adding internal conflict will draw some of the RP internal. So maybe keeping it to light nudges that Jimmy only minorly notices could suit Jimmy's narrative better?

Same with Tinkerbell. When their relationship dynamic starts influencing Jimmy, it might take Jimmy's attention off of the things that you want him to focus on. However, you could probably still go with the idea of a Completely off-topic, but I do have a WM adventure in mind with a sentient weapon called The Souleater as the adventure hook. I'm not sure when I'll ever get to play that though. soulstealer. I think making Tinkerbell a former warlock could work even without taking too much attention off of Jimmy. Maybe his change into a servant reduced his soul into becoming "less", transfering almost all of his lifetimes memories to the Raven Queen. Then you could have Tink drop a lore tidbit in your next downtime post, and suddenly Jimmy gets a whole new appreciation for his weapon, mostly that he is messing with things outside of his paygrade. The condition of being reduced into a servant would probably be Jimmy's death. Hopefully that's nothing that will ever come up during Jimmy's adventuring career, but the mere knowledge could act as an additional character drive, possibly giving Jimmy a reason to uncover new magical secrets to the point where he hopes to rid himself of the pact "eventually". Narratively that point might be better left out of his reach, but it could make for spicy decision-making moments. I'm not sure though if you would want to add power-hungry to the greedy aspect that Jimmy's concept has already due to his ill mother. Either way, Tink can serve as a passive reminder without being too active in the narrative. And how exactly that defines his and Jimmy's character dynamic could be pretty flexible. Disgruntled minion is definitely one of the tropes for good reasons.

Originally Posted by secretID

Sure. I think the spying was inherently complicated in ways I hadn't considered.

I assume that you considered that the invisibility would make spying on Darce near trivial? At the least, setting your minion onto Darce would probably fall back negatively on Boanagh if the right connection is drawn upon discovery. And after Jimmy's last post that could be credible. But again, I'll have to resolve your last post first, and that's something I'll get to doing right now.