The guy at the Admiral's Way seemed deeply drunk and less likely to be aware of his surroundings.
Hm, I thought the man was retching because he felt ill witnessing the victim or, potentially, the murderer.. Counting in the fact that the blood is still pouring out of the corpse - means it's just happened!
The guy at the Admiral's Way seemed deeply drunk and less likely to be aware of his surroundings.
Hm, I thought the man was retching because he felt ill witnessing the victim or, potentially, the murderer.. Counting in the fact that the blood is still pouring out of the corpse - means it's just happened!
Possibly.
I do believe the bloodied footprint was heading toward the Fisher's Wharf, though, right?
I also wondered if they wanted us to think the man was retching because of something to do with the crime, but it was too obvious and he was really just drunk and the bloody footprint was a better lead. Then I worried that that was what they wanted us to think and he'd have valuable info after all. So I ended up voting to walk over to him, but actually hoping that others would choose the footprint instead! The more I think about it, the more I think I chose suboptimally, given that the guy may have nothing to do with anything whereas at the very least the maker of the footprint passed by very soon after the crime if they're not the killer, so my resolution for tomorrow is to mull it over for longer before casting my vote .
But fingers crossed no matter which way we go we'll be able to get to the bottom of this very serious incident, and there are just different routes we can take to get there.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
What we know - 1. Killer is of medium size based on strike point of the anchor. 2. Killer is extraordinarily strong based on the use of the anchor as a weapon. 3. Killer did not rob the victim. 4. Death was recent as blood is still flowing out of the victim.
There are witnesses to question at the Admiral's way and Fishers Wharf. Dispatch officers to question people in both locales.
Next steps:
Cast "Speak with Dead" on the victim and ask them 1) who killed them and 2) why? If they don't know ask them to 3) Identify themselves 4)describe the killer in detail, and 5)where the killer went next.
What we know - 1. Killer is of medium size based on strike point of the anchor. 2. Killer is extraordinarily strong based on the use of the anchor as a weapon. 3. Killer did not rob the victim.
Unless magic is involved. You have to change some of your assumptions in Law & Order: Baldur's Gate. We don't know if the lute belongs to the elf, and though money wasn't the motive, we don't know if something else was taken.
What we know - 1. Killer is of medium size based on strike point of the anchor. 2. Killer is extraordinarily strong based on the use of the anchor as a weapon. 3. Killer did not rob the victim.
Unless magic is involved. You have to change some of your assumptions in Law & Order: Baldur's Gate. We don't know if the lute belongs to the elf, and though money wasn't the motive, we don't know if something else was taken.
Yes but why wouldn't Speak with Dead be the first thing you do?
With that attitude there wouldn’t be murders anymore. But there are, so we have to assume there are limitations on what either Speak with Dead can do or how available it is. Our investigator isn’t a spellcaster, or lieutenant Hanthorpe already cast it to no effect (standard procedure at BGPD)
How to get around things like Speak with Dead is a bit of a topic in D&D; considering how prevalent Speak with Dead is in the EA it is a little odd they don’t address it here.
With that attitude there wouldn’t be murders anymore. But there are, so we have to assume there are limitations on what either Speak with Dead can do or how available it is. Our investigator isn’t a spellcaster, or lieutenant Hanthorpe already cast it to no effect (standard procedure at BGPD)
How to get around things like Speak with Dead is a bit of a topic in D&D; considering how prevalent Speak with Dead is in the EA it is a little odd they don’t address it here.
It's the same reason in the D&D movie that they didn't make Doric (the Druid) or Edgin (The Bard) spellcasters - even though both are primary spellcasting classes - it breaks too many challenging scenarios when you can just magic out of them.
In the case with Speak with Dead though you would just have to remove the persons jawbone or head to take it off the table. I think it's unfair to ask us to accept the rules of this world and the logistics of how magic affects day to day life - but then also ask that we ignore them when it's not convenient.
Wouldn't it make more sense to write - although it would be more challenging - within the established rules of the world and how they would affect everyday events?
Like in the case of a murder you would have people on the force that would use magic to determine what happened, just like we would take DNA samples and fingerprints.
Otherwise - we are not dealing with Baldur's Gate but a snapshot of Victorian England and this is actually a Sherlock Holmes esque scenario.
Personally I like piercing the tongue, like Cicero, a little less messy.
There’s nothing obligating the dead spirit to return and answer though, isn’t it like resurrection it’s voluntary on their end
As far as stopping magic from breaking all the challenges you make, all you need in High Fantasy is more magic. It can get out of hand if everyone isn’t careful
Personally I like piercing the tongue, like Cicero, a little less messy.
This is actually a really good way to deal with this. If they have had their tongue pierced by a cold iron implement (nail, awl, etc) then Speak with Dead will not work on them. It also sets up possible evidence for later.
This way you are being respectful of the world rules but also acknowledging that criminals have evolved to get around them.
Voted for interrogating the barfing guy, as drunk or not he was close to the crime scene and we don't know what details he might have seen that will be relevant later.
But the anchor thing - could this be a crime connected to Umberlee in any way? Why "anchor" an elf bard to a fountain? Where did the anchor come from?
I chose the retching guy. Maybe it was an accident (the ropes of a port crane carrying anchors have broken) ? A sorcerer's wild surge ? A suicide ? The elf was cursed (like in "final destination") ? Maybe the elf broke the guitar of an ogre bard (the lute did not belong to the elf) ?