It's fine, Marie, like I said I know you were doing it in good faith, it's just it was gettnig a little irksome for me and I thought I'd tell you before it gnawed at me more. Thank you for taking it so well, that's very nice of you :)

And yes, I guess my comparison with a normal-ish, contemporary boss sucked, I own that xD I suppose I was looking at it from what I believe would be the more early-modern attitude to guns: just another tool, nothing inherently weird about them. But that's one big assumption on my side, and come to think of it, probably very wrong. And I don't want to go into the nuances of "a feudal lady is not a modern boss" because it's my fault in the first place, for making the bad comparison. So I'll just concede the point.

Let's wait to see what Ignatius will do. As for Anne, I'll keep her seething silently, as opposed to seething outspokenly. That's already a lot of progress in anger management for her :P

Sorry to have annoyed you, and I appreciate being told!

Yeah, the conception of human-specific killing weapons as unremarkable tools thing is a very modern U.S. Republican invention - the far Right love them some past projection. If one looks at the indigenous folks' human-killing weapons, they're highly individualised and in high-status cases may even be considered individuals themselves if they've "outlived" several owners and gone around wide trade circuits, gathering credit/reputation and spirit-stuff. Hunting weapons like Marie's long gun get the same high reverence as other hunting tools, often being personal property  (of which the natives have little, most stuff being held in common). They may be decorated like their straps and bags, the better to please game spirits. As such semi-holy, semi-symbiotic-to-owner items, they can used to kill humans, though ideally it should be in an honourable fashion, with the shot party being painted and having arranged his hair to indicate he is a combattant and scalpable if you dare/can get that far.


Hopefully Nat'll come and share some food and consider working for the Church once he's informed there was a solemn vow against random murderin' involved in re-arming the lady.
This message was last edited by the player at 10:08, Sun 29 Jan 2023.

...realised you might have been talking about colonial attitudes to killing natives, which yes, was considered a normal elite use of human-specific firearms, if not so much that the concept of the weapon would be elided to a tool.

A pistol and the related ability to murder one's perceived or accepted social inferiors (or peers in a formal manner) is a high-status thing, and period pistols are often gorgeously decorated and would be nigh-unfenceable, unless to the English. Killing locals is still a very bad idea in contexts without the entire Imperial machine to back one up, however, since Native comprehension of allegiance is tribal, and if one French is an Enemy, all of them are, and the right thing to do with Enemies is to honourably torture combatants to death and enslave/beat and adopt non-combatants...

Going to leave the above as it is for transparency, but proffering apologies for the "period locality in general" Well Actually up there in place of a colonial upper-class minority view, because yes, the upper classes have always had at least symbolic tokens of lethal violence. They're specifically weapons, because that's what drives the status, but normal. Apparently it takes two days of being laid low by health issues whilst RPoL is slow for me to forget how to human.  >_<


Thank you for putting up with me being an obnoxious nerd and know I am restraining myself from rambling about said Republican myth and tangenting on to the bread rant.

Hi Everyone,

I'm delighted that in the GM's absence you have (OOC and IC) created and, I believe, largely resolved an existential threat to the existence of this game.

You vindicate the notion that time invested up front in setting the scene and expectations pays off in the long run (you chose the game; I chose you; others were rejected; things WORK, despite inevitable bumps).

Please carry on. I've managed to recommission my old machine faster than expected, so I am back online without interruption. As mentioned earlier, Feb and March will be busy for me, so you should expect to see me online around 2x per week.

Glad your tech problems got resolved.

Glad you're back, GM. I wouldn't go as far as to say they're resolved, only posponed. But, carry on we do.

Are you sure it's a good idea to poke Anne right after walking our on her, Ignatius? What's your expected outcome?

That she will witness the document written by the priest.

It probably won’t matter if she doesn’t. Nat accepts the high probability that none of them will ever see Montreal again. He’s pretty sure that Anne will get them all massacred before long.

And yes, poking Anne a bit is deliberate. His male pride is a bit stung after being dressed down in front of everyone.

But does it make sense, though? Is it a reasonable expectation, to ask her to witness a contract with a third party right after unilaterally breaking the original contract with her?

In other words, does he fancy a second dressing down?

In reply to Anne Pecaudy de Contrecoeur (msg # 329):

Actually, I had been thinking of having Fr. Joseph ask Anne to witness the contract -- since it might be an issue between her and Ignace, I regret now that I did not. Legally, I think the witnesses should be French subjects, which in these circumstances would mean Anne and Lisette. I must admit I do not know just what witnessing rules were for 17th century French contracts; I am improvising from modern Anglo-American usage.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:14, Tue 31 Jan 2023.

In reply to Fr. Joseph de la Tour (msg # 330):

I'm not sure to what degree Lisette, being a black woman, is considered legally able to enter contractual obligations.

But you haven't actually addressed what I've said, Joseph. Anne has zero reasons to do this.

Oh, is Lisette legally a person? It was never cleared up from Marie's enquiries and could have been either way given both parents were captives; I was wondering what would happen if she'd got the gun...

['new post' error] If it's all right to say, I think the gentlemen - one semi-spitefully, one in all innocence - are expecting Anne to sign legal documents because she was just yelling about/threatening using the laws of France to the letter, even in a context (threatening to kill someone's cousin in front of them) where the legal 'thief' could not be expected to comply. In context of/with her current feelings, she has no reason to whatsoever, but to the letter of the law, she has no reason not to.

Legally, a contract was terminated due to untenable working conditions not allowing its fulfilment in the form set out, ceasing to exist: legally, the new contract has noting to do with Anne except that she's the nearest authority.

Meanwhile, Marie is keen for someone to invent the Snickers.

edit: nervous clarification, paragraphing
This message was last edited by the player at 07:23, Tue 31 Jan 2023.

Since she was threatening with legal retaliation against the party who's just breached his contract, now she has to witness another contract? Frankly I don't think that makes sense. Actually she has all the reasons in the world to want nothing to do with the party in breach of contract. She has no reasons at all to believe it's going to be any different this time, and he would also not be working for her, so she also has no reasons to care, let alone want to.

The law doesn't know that, though? The threat was never referred to a lawyer, on account of being made in the middle of nowhere. The law knows Anne is a legal authority by existing.

She can just say "no, screw you," though? You don't have to and I'm not pushing you to, but that is an option available. We can get a cool picture-signature from Next Winter Dreaming, even. Refusal does make Anne look hypocritical, but that doesn't mean anything except Nat gets a little petty satisfaction and de la Tour gets a look of gentle confusion...likely Anne won't even notice.

I would like to note OOC that the Frenchmen very much did defend Anne, but from the real threat (Anne marking the party as Enemies to the Objiwe) rather than the one she perceived (Marie's restraint being a prelude to physical harm rather than avoidance of it). I don't know where to go with that fact IC, but would like to push it across the table so it's on top of the pile for the player's use in Anne's arc, whenever/if the realisation proves useful therein.

I'm really starting to feel like I'm working with a totally different logic here and I am honestly starting to feel a bit frustrated. Is someone besides Marie interested in talking this out, or shall I just do my thing and post and consequences be damned?

Interfering only - I really hope - to be useful, but Nat's player is in a game of mine and has been busy of late, though he might be around at our lunchtime and ~3am. The good Father is mostly around at that 3am slot, too. I believe it is good to do what makes one feel least frustrated.

Personally, although we are all trying our best, I really would like some GM input - not to take sides or ban realistic squabbling, mind, just to know what's going on with the NPCs/feel less like it's some PCs in a box, which amplifies intra-party issues. Also I want to know what Marie's found out about our hosts and feel immersed in the camp, that's also a thing.

Lisette, as Anne will know, is a subject and a free citizen of New France, so her mark would make her a valid legal witness to a contract.

That said, the fight and the idea of a new contract are hopefully just devices to reach the real story goal: to showcase the characters' mettle and generate some healthy interpersonal tension.

At this juncture, the characters will each realise they have 2 choices: forward or back. The Ojibwe are going forward and taking all the canoes. Back, for the Europeans, at least, means retracing on foot through the woods to last human settlement passed, Pointe de Moulin--a journey that will take several hours and carries significant risk (river crossings, getting wet in the frigid temperatures, getting lost, wild animals, bandits...).

So, to resolve the current dilemma, I would focus the dialogue not on how the characters renegotiate the contract (i.e. their relationship with each other)--but on their individual motivations and the existential threat that each character faces if things fall apart right now. Anne loses her fortune, Ignatuis loses his dream of independence, and Fr. La Tour loses his holy purpose. Whether through inner monologue, dialogue or action the characters should recognise that they're dependent on each other for now.

I meant this lunch stop to serve a bit of character development, but you've outdone yourselves again.

To Nat, Anne has shown herself hot-tempered and high-handed in her actions, perfectly in character for a woman of quality in a primitive setting, but dangerous. Thus, he is not willing to go forward in her employ. YET he wants that money. And he does feel an obligation to Joseph and Lisette and even Anne.

The new contract with the Jesuit gives him a third way. Whether it is witnessed or not is of little consequence to him really. He expects all of them to vanish among the Ojibwe in the trackless forests. But he does get some petty joy in putting Anne on the spot.

Anne would know indeed, I didn't :P So thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure of her actual legal status.


So if it doesn't matter if she witnesses or not, why does he ask her? And if he is so sure we're all going to die, why does he care about the money? And how is this "putting Anne on the spot"? If anything, you're just giving her a fresh opportunity to give you an earful.

I mean, it's your character, none of my business I suppose. But in terms of understanding the stakes, either I'm not getting you at all, or you're just moving the goalposts: I want X, I don't care about X, but give it to me, but I didn't really want it...

Ach, I suppose a kick in the arse is sort of GM input...Marie does not like Next Winter Dreaming, by the way.

Yay, Lisette's a person! Technically more of one than Marie, to the French.

Anne, your questions are already answered: he asked her to see if she'd do it or prove herself a hypocrite (putting her on the spot). He cares about the money 'cause he has kids who'll inherit it if/when he dies, so long as the law recognises that it's his. The information is all there, none of it unreasonable.

Maybe it is well to move along? The Objiwe will go off with the priest and lady's luggage if we don't...

Nat is teasing Anne a bit by asking her to witness his new contract. It’s just a poke, tongue in cheek, a character quirk. And yes, the money has always been for his family, for his independence if he comes back. He wants it badly, else he never would have signed on.

Ah, since it's been a while in real life - Anne, you were getting into the boat before the locals left without you, as is the priest, that's why we got our hurry on.

In reply to Marie Whitespruce (msg # 342):

In all honesty, I thought I was standing on the shore the whole time (and I never got the memo that the natives had left), but since Lisette was being so nice helping me off the boat I didn't want to contradict that narrative. Move me to wherever I need to be, L'Hiver.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:28, Wed 08 Feb 2023.

We were indeed on the shore: I think "alight" was just onto the box to embark, or a mistake like when people mix up ancestors and descendants. Now we're paddling away, so hopefully everyone got on...

Kind of disappointed Marie hasn't managed to get any names/sense of the native party's dynamics yet, but she's done her maximum socialisation for the day and will probably go hide under a bush once all make camp in the evening. Hmm.

In reply to Marie Whitespruce (msg # 344):

Since Marie is obviously the best suited to socialize with/learn about the Native contingent, I hope she will overcome her instinctive caution and mingle a bit. However, that is obviously up to Marie and the Ojibwe. Fr. Joseph can't even speak a word of Ojibwe so far.