Fugue Rules Take II Unclear Grammar

[perseid]

The grammar of the revised fugue plane rules is unclear. Specifically "You are allowed to know information leading up to your death, such as where you were and why you went there, but this does not include the actual PvP / PvE encounter or anyone involved in it." This is ambiguous as to whether it's forbidden to remember people who were present in the PvP encounter when recalling the details leading up to the PvP. The significance is for scenarios such as if someone (we'll label them A) is in a room with five people and two of them (B and C for this) end up killing that person. The current wording makes it unclear if A is able to recall that during the conversation and interactions leading up to the conflict B and C were present in the room or if the death imposed amnesia means that A is obligated to forget the presence of B and C entirely throughout the scenario.

[Dr. B]

I agree that this needs clarification.

[Aradin]

Hi, Spyre used the phrasing I suggested in the revised rule. The intention behind that phrasing is that if B and C were in the room with everyone else for a good long while before the conflict broke out, you'd remember they were there, but not if they suddenly showed up and killed you. There's sort of two distinct scenarios here; the first in which a group of people are together for a while and one of them turns hostile, and the second in which you happen to run into a hostile person. You'd remember B and/or C in the first scenario, but not in the second. The general idea (at least in my mind) was that the longer you've spent with a person before that fatal pvp/PvE, the more likely you are to remember them. If you were with them all day? Yes, though the actual event is fuzzy. If you were adventuring and found a hostile Drow in a dungeon who killed you? No, you remember you went to that dungeon to collect dragon blood and died but don't remember to what or who.

There's probably some good way to make all of that succinct with absolutely no ambiguity but it is very late for me and I not am thinking smart very good. Might have an idea tomorrow.

[Scylon]

My understanding of this is if:

You went hunting out in the wilderness, came across a warlock and he killed you, you don't remember it. Just you were out and about.

You went into the underdark on a raid, you would recall the fact you were going on a raid, but not who killed you or how.

You were in a tavern for hours with some people, and one of those people killed you, you'd recall being in a tavern with that person, but not them killing you or how.

If you are assassinated, you won't remember it. just maybe where you were going, or if you were in a location for a long time.

[Morgy]

My understanding of this is if:

You went hunting out in the wilderness, came across a warlock and he killed you, you don't remember it. Just you were out and about.

You went into the underdark on a raid, you would recall the fact you were going on a raid, but not who killed you or how.

You were in a tavern for hours with some people, and one of those people killed you, you'd recall being in a tavern with that person, but not them killing you or how.

If you are assassinated, you won't remember it. just maybe where you were going, or if you were in a location for a long time.

This is how I understand it. It seems clear enough to me.

If you're in doubt if you should or shouldn't recall it, then play it safe and have your PC's memory severely blurred of the last 10 minutes of RP or something like that.

[Amateur Hour]

General rule, which seems implied by everything else, including the stated intent of the rule:

You must forget enough information to make your testimony alone inadequate to determine that a particular person or group of people must have killed you. If you had a good long conversation with people in the Nomad before they suddenly became hostile and killed you, you could tell a guard that the last thing you remember before waking up in the graveyard with the mother of all headaches is talking to those people, which then incentivizes the guard to go question those people about what they did and saw. You'd remember roughly the same if you talked to those people in the Nomad then left and were immediately mugged in the Cultural District by an unknown attacker, or if you were all surprise-attacked by someone coming into the Nomad with a grudge to settle.

This whole thing also creates RP opportunity, so a win all around for the server.

[MalKalz]

My understanding of this is if:

You went hunting out in the wilderness, came across a warlock and he killed you, you don't remember it. Just you were out and about.

You went into the underdark on a raid, you would recall the fact you were going on a raid, but not who killed you or how.

You were in a tavern for hours with some people, and one of those people killed you, you'd recall being in a tavern with that person, but not them killing you or how.

If you are assassinated, you won't remember it. just maybe where you were going, or if you were in a location for a long time.

Bingo.

[chris a gogo]

What about immortal races like imps.
They don't "die" when killed rather they are banished so are they also subject to the rule of forgetfulness.

[Aradin]

What about immortal races like imps.
They don't "die" when killed rather they are banished so are they also subject to the rule of forgetfulness.

I can confidently say, though a DM is welcome to back this up, yes - everyone should follow this rule regardless of race. There's no loophole, no one is exempt. This is a rule whose aim is to foster a positive roleplay environment between players, it's not really based in lore.

[DM Poppy]

What about immortal races like imps.
They don't "die" when killed rather they are banished so are they also subject to the rule of forgetfulness.

If you enter the Fugue. The rule applies to you