|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been bugging me for a long time really.
For a setting with an actual god of redemption in it, that particular example of Good at its best doesn't seem to get much love, or at least it feels that way much of the time. Whenever I've asked "where are the non-evil _____ tribes when they have free will and Sarenrae exists", the general answer is along the lines of "that's what the PCs are for", but that doesn't really get a lot of love either.
Most of the time redemption is mentioned in APs, it seems it's to say that so-and-so is beyond it or that characters interested in pursuing redemption for an NPC are just taking the bait for a trap.
I got to thinking about Council of Thieves recently, specifically the matter of
I read that AP after we wound up not playing it and went with Kingmaker instead. I remember thinking that that would have been an awesome opportunity to finally getting to have a PC that managed to redeem a character, and that certainly presented an interesting opportunity that my character concept for CoT certainly would have pursued. But thinking on it further it likely would have blown up in his face like most every other attempt in the past I've made with my characters simply because the possibility of it suceeding wasn't even mentioned in the text.
And that's the frustrating thing. Far too many GMs simply will not deviate from the text, so if the possibility isn't mentioned, it isn't there for them.
The one actual NPC that I can think of that actually had redemption written in as a possibility was actually
This isn't confined to the APs either. My all-time favorite fey, the Forlarren, was presented in Tome of Horrors(where I first learned of it) as a creature ripe for this sort of thing. It was as if that creature had been made for the sort of player that would be interested in redemption rather than just Detect Evil-Smite Evil. Then in Bestiary 2 and all of that richness and possibility is lost because it's now presented as a gleefully evil creature that's all about the evil, and where before there was depth there's now just a mechanical debuff.
Could we see more support to let good characters interested in redeeming evil characters, be they player race or monster? I mean surely there's enough room in Golarion for that form of play as well, right?
Could we have opportunities to have a hand in the redemption of a fiend? Could we have opportunities to lead orc tribes out of the darkness of their evil cultures? Could we see redemption actually given full attention and love once and a while rather than just lip-service?
It would just be nice to be able to play a good character in an AP, ask WWSD?, and actually have a decent shot at it working.
|
|
In Legacy of Fire I redeemed to Gnolls that the party captured (the entire arc of my character is that he's a summoner who is redeeming a genie who was once a mighty warlord, and now geased by Sarenrae to be bound to a pious soul).
In Kingmaker my players have redeemed quite a few characters (and murderated a few more), even graduating such NPCs to PC status. Furthermore Spoilers ahead regarding BBEG and other plot points:
1) The PCs need to tame some spirits of the land, and join with the land itself in a series of Fisher King style rituals.
2) They need to learn her back story which I've changed slightly and will reveal in due time.
3) They can't compromise on Goodness for convenience. I've been keeping track of their corrupt behaviors as rulers (which are few and far between), and as long as they maintain the NG status of their kingdom that will have an effect on the land and by extension Nyrissa.
4) They can't just act like a band of violent thugs when they finally reach her palace at the end. Talking, succeeding at amazing diplomacy checks and figuring out where her heart is (Hint: Briar) will redeem Nyrissa. She'll sacrifice herself in order to end the threat of the Blooms.
That said redemption is a big part of great stories, and meeting an NPC and having forgiveness and respect actually give the PCs a tangible benefit would be wicked.
|
|
In Legacy of Fire I redeemed to Gnolls that the party captured (the entire arc of my character is that he's a summoner who is redeeming a genie who was once a mighty warlord, and now geased by Sarenrae to be bound to a pious soul).
In Kingmaker my players have redeemed quite a few characters (and murderated a few more), even graduating such NPCs to PC status. Furthermore Spoilers ahead regarding BBEG and other plot points:
** spoiler omitted **
That said redemption is a big part of great stories, and meeting an NPC and having forgiveness and respect actually give the PCs a tangible benefit would be wicked.
Go figure, Legacy of Fire and Kingmaker are the two stalled APs I mentioned. (can't read the spoilers, just in case we do ever go back to it)
I'd love to have an experience like that LoF character at the very least.
|
Mikaze, redemption is something that require player and GM input. The example of redemption in CotCT is one that I disliked as it was "nuked from orbit" from the PC point of view. It was in character for the NPC and a reasonable part of her behaviour but the PC had little warning or chance to influence that.
In Kingmaker you have the possibility to redeem some of the NPC tribes and guide toward a better life several of the named NPC, but there is no way in which that can be made a pivotal point of the adventure by the adventurer writer.
Lines of the kind "if the adventurers do X, Y will automatically turn to a better life" from my point of view are bad. What if the PC do that by chance? Aren't interested in redeeming someone and them not doing that will break the flow of a section of the adventure? What if they are evil (a possibility in Kingmaker)? If the GM will only go "by the book" and follow slavishly the text of the AP getting unwanted conversion is as bad as not having the possibility to convert anyone.
In Kingmaker 1 there is a "bolt from the blue" conversion for one NPC. In my campaign the events did go very differently and he acted protectively, contacting the PC and warning them of danger (going in the full description of the event would be too spoilerishely).
My players are giving a chance to learn a better way of life to one humanoid tribe and probably will do the same with others.
"They aren't cannibals, they are man eaters." :-)
[really in English there isn't a difference between the two terms? In Italian cannibale is someone that eat a member of its species while antropofago is someone that eat a member of the homo sapiens species]
To sum it up, the problem is one of GM - players interaction and can't be solved by a few rows of text in a module.
|
|
Go figure, Legacy of Fire and Kingmaker are the two stalled APs I mentioned. (can't read the spoilers, just in case we do ever go back to it)
I'd love to have an experience like that LoF character at the very least.
The end of Chapter 1 in Legacy of Fire actually has two (possibly three) potential redemption plotlines, one of which is called out as such in the GM text. There are other possibilities in the same vein later on, too.
Seeing as it's the Sarenrae focused AP, this makes a whole lot of sense.
|
|
Lines of the kind "if the adventurers do X, Y will automatically turn to a better life" from my point of view are bad. What if the PC do that by chance? Aren't interested in redeeming someone and them not doing that will break the flow of a section of the adventure? What if they are evil (a possibility in Kingmaker)? If the GM will only go "by the book" and follow slavishly the text of the AP getting unwanted conversion is as bad as not having the possibility to convert anyone.
I'm not requesting anything so codified(in fact, over codifying role-playing is a real pet peeve). I don't want to see strict if ____ then _____ equations or some sbusystem of Outreach Points vs. Disenfranchisement Points. Just some material in characters' personality info and maybe some hopeful possibilities thrown out there that could inspire GMs that otherwise might not even consider the possibility.
That and maybe give redemption focused PCs some real meaty plot points and subplots to pursue, fully integrated into the actual AP.
Go figure, Legacy of Fire and Kingmaker are the two stalled APs I mentioned. (can't read the spoilers, just in case we do ever go back to it)
I'd love to have an experience like that LoF character at the very least.
The end of Chapter 1 in Legacy of Fire actually has two (possibly three) potential redemption plotlines, one of which is called out as such in the GM text. There are other possibilities in the same vein later on, too.
Seeing as it's the Sarenrae focused AP, this makes a whole lot of sense.
Now I'm really sad that Legacy of Fire is stalled. Especially since my PC in that was a Sarenraen.
So apparently support is there in the material here and there, I've just had rotten luck linking up with it as a player.
Still, glad it's not as bleak as it seemed earlier. Thanks.
|
|
I'm not requesting anything so codified(in fact, over codifying role-playing is a real pet peeve). I don't want to see strict if ____ then _____ equations or some sbusystem of Outreach Points vs. Disenfranchisement Points. Just some material in characters' personality info and maybe some hopeful possibilities thrown out there that could inspire GMs that otherwise might not even consider the possibility.
As a GM of Kingmaker I will say that, especially in the first book, you have exactly that kind of information on several NPC.
To cite some example character added in Alexander Kilcoyne 6 players conversion but build on the lines of several NPC in the module (I use Kilcoyne characters to reduce spoiling informations):
‘Silent’ Valkeri Sothale
The youngest of the inhabitants of XXXXXXX, Valkeri is an 18 year old orphan from Restov. Formerly a street tough, he had to flee the city after a mugging went awry and the authorities had a true reason to pursue him. He is frequently mocked and jeered at by the other XXXXXXX, who make a joke of his inability to speak by nicknaming him ‘Silent’.
Valkeri had his tongue cut out by XXXXX after Valkeri questioned his orders too many times regarding the taking of prisoners; now Valkeri maintains a facade of fear around XXXXX, allowing the Lieutenant to believe that he has truly been cowed.
In reality, Valkeri is looking for the first opportunity he has to ram his blade into XXXXX’s throat and flee the XXXXXX service; this group XXXXXXX are too cruel for him- deep down he never truly wants to hurt anyone, except XXXXXXX; and his soul is brighter than the other XXXXXX.
Celthric ‘Handsome’ Kilburn
Celthric Kilburn is a young fallen noble, once very handsome; but his nose has been broken and his face is covered in bruises and scars. Celthric was a minor noble in northern Brevoy, but lost his fortune in a series of foolish investments, ended up frittering and gambling the rest away until he was forced to take to Banditry to survive.
However, a few weeks ago XXXXXXX caught Celthric stealing a few copper pieces from the XXXXXX’s loot; and reported Celthric’s transgressions to XXXXXXX; who mercilessly beat Celthric senseless, knocking out his teeth and ruining his good looks. Since then, Celthric has made no secret of his enmity towards XXXXx; planning to XXXXXXXX. With a little encouragement, he could be persuaded to act even more rashly. His cruel nickname was given to him by XXXXXXXX, who he hates with almost equal passion.
Reading those descriptions I get some inspiration on how I could have them react if given the possibility to repent and live a honest live.
Evens some "monster" has that kind of character description, so they are more than carton cut adversaries.
In the latter modules there is a scattering of characters so well detailed. The need of more mechanical information about higher level subjects reduce a bit the space available for extended descriptions of their characters and motivations, but I see enough to give me ideas and open up possibilities. Simply you need to have a GM that accept the hint and build on it and players interested on working on that.
Creative Director
|
As folks have mentioned, Legacy of Fire has quite a few redemption themes in it—not always for monsters, though. But we tend to put themes like that in here and there quite often... whether or not players or (perhaps more importantly) GMs take up those threads and run with them is the tricky spot.
AKA: It's really important to let your GM know you're looking for the chance to redeem some of the bad guys/monsters in a game, since the basic assumption is that it's all combat. And at the same time, you should let your fellow players know this as well, since, frankly, they'll probably be the biggest obstacle toward redemption. Especially if there's monster-hunting crusaders in the group... and most groups usually have at least one of those...
This seems largely a problem the OP has with his GM. In the kingmaker game I played in, our group included a paladin of Serenrae and we went out of its way to offer redemption to the bandits. We ended up with almost a dozen friendly bandits living with us at Olegs trading post and a local tribe of Kobolds happily worshiping the Dawnflower.
I've read posts from another Kingmaker group who actually redeemed the Staglord and made him a minor noble in their kingdom.
I've just started running Skull and Shackles and its made clear the text that just about the whole crew apart from the officers are potential friends to the PCs if they work hard enough at it and find the right buttons to push. All the APs have ample opportunity for redemtion themed PCs and parties if the GM is aware that that is the players goal and is willing to work with them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Half glad to hear there were a lot of opportunities in Kingmaker, half frustrated that it sounds like we missed a lot of them. And the one I did get blew up in almost the worst possible way. After that, most of the party said "no more surrenders, no more second chances". Pretty much killed most of what I wanted to do with that character.
Thing is, I made sure to communicate what this character was about before starting. I just thought I hit a bait-and-switch written into the text.
And it sounds like most everyone on board for Skull and Shackles is going relatively amoral, so probably no real chance of playing a truly redemptive character there.
Sorry for the complain thread. Just been down about the game lately. Feels like there's so little support for the game I've wanted for years, then it turns out it's there and I just can't get to it.
Strongly considering trying to get one opportunity I think we missed back in Jade Regent.
Then when he gave her a proper burial afterwards, he finally saw a holy symbol on her representing Pazuzu. He threw it away and continued with the burial, offering what prayers he could.
Just recently he realized resurrection could bring her back through the feathers. He's wrestling with that idea and what he learned about her now.
I get the feeling we missed a couple of other opportunities too, but one just would not stop fighting in a melee that had half of us near death's door and the other I couldn't reach in time to spare him, in a situation that probably really did call for finishing him off. Too late to tell now.
I mean, gotta get lucky sooner or later.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've been frustrated a couple of times when it seems as though the AP authors have deliberately blocked redemption plotlines. The GM can fix this, of course, but why is it happening in the first place?
The final module says outright "It may look like you can redeem the BBG, but you can't."
The first two modules make an effort to get you acquainted with Aldern Foxglove, but the scenario plays out in a way that makes him next to impossible to save. My player did it anyway, but significant GM intervention was required. My player was quite upset at the way the game fostered a connection between Aldern and the PCs and then blocked his natural responses to that connection.
This happens again in module 6 with the woman corrupted by the sword of sin--the module flatly denies that you can do anything to help her.
You would think that if an NPC's heart has been taken from her, and you have her heart, you should be able to help her. While the module doesn't say this is impossible, there is zero support for it. There is an "after the AP" epilog which suggests the BBG's redemption but, frustratingly, there is no interaction with her at any point in the arc, which is not how PC-driven redemption should work.
Conceptually I really like the Crimson Throne example given above--we cheered when we saw it as it seemed like such a departure from the standard practice--but it's not as strong a redemption theme as I'd like because it happens totally offstage.
My husband and I take turns GMing the APs. We are both *very* inclined to try to redeem or recruit or rehabilitate enemies, and there have been some good games arising from that, but it does feel quite often like we're fighting against the written material. It sometimes feels to me (_Shackled City_ was the worst for this) that good can be corrupted but the Paizo writers don't really feel that evil can be redeemed. Falls from grace are all one-way. That describes a world too unpleasant for me, frankly. If there are corrupted angels there ought to be redeemed devils.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot about Shackled City that reflects its status as the first AP we ever did. We learned a LOT from it, and one of those things we learned was that saying "you can't redeem someone" without having a good reason is unnecessarily limiting.
Re: Rise of the Runelords
As for the champion of greed... that was a necessity brought on by a lack of space. That's something I was never really happy with having to do, and in the upcoming hardcover, she's got a LOT more about what happens if you manage to save her. In fact... saving her rather than killing her is kind of what the adventure expects, since that way she'll be able to help the PCs with the REALLY tough encounters still to come.
Re: Kingmaker
As for why corruption of good as a theme appears more often than the redemption of evil—that has to do with the fact that corruption of good is a GREAT theme for a story's antagonist, while redemption of evil is a GREAT theme for a story's PROtagonist.
In an adventure... the only characters we have no control over and don't talk about at all are the protagonists—those are the PCs.
Could we do an adventure where a bad guy is trying to become a good guy? Where a demon is trying to redeem itself? Absolutely. That doesn't really make a good villain, though.
In any event, the challenge of putting a redeemed demon has been issued. And I'm already percolating on a way to make that happen in an upcoming AP that we'll not be announcing for another few months...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any event, the challenge of putting a redeemed demon has been issued. And I'm already percolating on a way to make that happen in an upcoming AP that we'll not be announcing for another few months...
Oooh I really hope that means we're getting Mendev/Worldwound and not Numeria AP announcement this paizocon!
Sorry for the complain thread. Just been down about the game lately. Feels like there's so little support for the game I've wanted for years, then it turns out it's there and I just can't get to it.
Hey, I feel your pain. I started a thread a bit like this.
I'm new to PF and trying to find an AP or module that's well-suited to actual good deeds as opposed to killing bad guys. Something where the characters feel like they've actually made a difference.
I postulated that mabe Golarion was meant to be more suited to your Conan or Grey Mouser characters than more heroic types.
My husband and I take turns GMing the APs. We are both *very* inclined to try to redeem or recruit or rehabilitate enemies, and there have been some good games arising from that, but it does feel quite often like we're fighting against the written material. It sometimes feels to me that good can be corrupted but the Paizo writers don't really feel that evil can be redeemed. Falls from grace are...
I'm new to PF and I'm getting this vibe too. The bad guys are mostly there to be butchered; you can't deal with them or reason with them, let alone redeem them.
I was even starting to feel that - with it's heavy horror elements - the PF setting was tending towards being a 'cr*psack world' as per TV Tropes. Not as bad as Warhammer or Midnight true, but it gives off a bit of a feel of 'you can never beat the big bad guys, a minor delay is all you can really ever achieve'.
Especially as some of the villains have tragic pasts and really seem ripe for this kind of stuff.
Weirdly enough, I recall some great moments in the videogames I've played:
In Mass Effect, Shepard shouting down her nemesis Saren: 'You can still do this... if you have the guts!'
'Thank you, Shepard!' *Saren blows his brains out*
And in Planescape:Torment, Nameless confronting the literally-fallen angel Trias, with the line 'Have you forgotten the face of your father?' (mere seconds before zealous vigilante Vhailor kills him!)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My players tried really hard to redeem
They enlisted a Cayden-ite patriarch of a Varisian Caravan who helped create a distraction so that they could bust her loose. I did try to help them plan it out, but they were really thinking linearly, so a few rolls later and a couple of errant crossbow shots later they were running for their lives.
I had given them a sort of Atonement Ritual that they went through. It was a Cayden ritual that was for breaking the pact that Lamashtu had with Nualia, granting her freedom...
She would have become a recurring villain if not for the dedication of two players.
We've been frustrated a couple of times when it seems as though the AP authors have deliberately blocked redemption plotlines. The GM can fix this, of course, but why is it happening in the first place?
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Conceptually I really like the Crimson Throne example given above--we cheered when we saw it as it seemed like such a departure from the standard practice--but it's not as strong a redemption theme as I'd like because it happens totally offstage.
My husband and I take turns GMing the APs. We are both *very* inclined to try to redeem or recruit or rehabilitate enemies, and there have been some good games arising from that, but it does feel quite often like we're fighting against the written material. It sometimes feels to me (_Shackled City_ was the worst for this) that good can be corrupted but the Paizo writers don't really feel that evil can be redeemed. Falls from grace are...
It is easier to fall into temptation than it is to rise out of corruption, even more so in Fantasy genres. The easy way will almost always have some measure of appeal to it because it is often more convenient.
It is not so much that evil can not be redeemed, but a person has to want to be redeemed to a large extent. As a real life example someone who is on drugs, but is willing to go to rehabilitation will have a better chance of recovery than someone still enjoying that lifestyle.
PS:No, I am not saying people that people who use drugs are evil.
The point is simply that you have want it. It in this case "it" is the water someone is trying to lead you to drink.
I'm new to PF and I'm getting this vibe too. The bad guys are mostly there to be butchered; you can't deal with them or reason with them, let alone redeem them.
Eh... depends on the situation, really. And upon your players- I ran the first couple volumes of Kingmaker three times. Two of the groups simply slaughtered the Sootscale Kobolds. The third made friends with the little guys and actually had a unit of Kobold sappers in their eventual army.
I was even starting to feel that - with it's heavy horror elements - the PF setting was tending towards being a 'cr*psack world' as per TV Tropes. Not as bad as Warhammer or Midnight true, but it gives off a bit of a feel of 'you can never beat the big bad guys, a minor delay is all you can really ever achieve'.
Arguably true of any fantasy universe which either includes immortal demons and evil deities or simply lacks a defined ending to its story. How many times has Superman beaten Lex Luthor? How many face/heel turns has Magneto made in his career?
One of the problems, I think, is that there are no mechanics to track such a change of heart; it is all role-playing.
Because the combat elements are clearly defined in the game mechanics, they are easily worked into adventures and published.
Minor interaction has some mechanics... Diplomacy checks for altering attitude or gathering information, Intimidate checks for temporarily gaining assistance, Bluff and Sense Motive for persuasion and suspicion... but mostly these are on a per-encounter basis (although changing the attitude of an NPC can be campaign-long).
Redemption requires perseverance on the part of the redeemer, and that requires a way for the GM to track progress (and the occasional backsliding). The lack of a mechanic for tracking that progress puts it off the radar for many GMs, or at least makes it an after-thought.
So what kind of mechanics are needed?
First, a way to identify suitable candidates. Some characters are going to be out of reach.. for story reasons, mostly, but not always. So being able to identify the ones where "I can still feel some good in your heart" is important. Perhaps a trait or feat, or a Sense Motive skill task would be a good start.
Second, a way of tracking the effort, the result, and any progress. This requires some type of score to track "how evil" or "how good" a character is at any time.
Third, you need a way to change that score. Diplomacy checks, based on the Influencing NPC Attitudes, might be a way to start. Or, a system like the Romance/Rivalry one in the Jade Regent adventure path is an alternative.
Fourth, once you know how good or evil a creature is, it should influence how difficult it is to change that creature's outlook. Depending on the mechanism chosen for how to make a change, this might indicate the number of successes required (for Diplomacy checks) or "how deep a hole" you have to dig out of to get to Neutral with a method more like the Romance/Rivalry from Jade Regent.
In the end, I do think that having some mechanics to refer to would help make it feel more accessible to more GMs.
Hm, I guess that explains why Mikaze didn't continue his fantastic campaign journal for Kingmaker. :(
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^^^^ Eh, there was a lot more to it than that. It wasn't really the GM's fault though, I wanna be clear on that. I'm still hoping we can go back to that campaign some day.
Could we do an adventure where a bad guy is trying to become a good guy? Where a demon is trying to redeem itself? Absolutely. That doesn't really make a good villain, though.
Evil characters already seeking redemption would make for an excellent NPC good characters would see as well worth protecting or enabling though, or if need be to guide properly if they're currently "doin' it wrong". There's really a lot that can be done with that general character seed.
In any event, the challenge of putting a redeemed demon has been issued. And I'm already percolating on a way to make that happen in an upcoming AP that we'll not be announcing for another few months...
This has me really excited. :)
I'm really glad to hear about the upcoming change in RotRL too!
In Mass Effect, Shepard shouting down her...
One of the reasons I love Mass Effect so much is that Paragon Shepard hit a lot of notes that I dearly want to get out of my good characters. S/he was a good character that genuinely felt good and actually had a positive effect on the setting and other characters.
And the character was absolutely no less badass for being captial "G" Good either. S/he didn't fall victim to the cynicism that seems pretty rampant these days that insists that idealistic Good has to be dumb or ineffectual.
There's some bitter irony there. It was a videogame that finally let me play the Good character I had always wanted in tabletop games. Go fig.
In the end, I do think that having some mechanics to refer to would help make it feel more accessible to more GMs.
I can't help but push back against this. Just feel like the actual roleplaying has gotten too codified already, both from a GM and player perspective. Character depth, nuance, and their interactions with each other being replaced by or completely shackled to numbers would kill the mood entirely for me, even more so if certain classes are favored more by such rules regardless of actual personality, behavior, and actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the character was absolutely no less badass for being captial "G" Good either. S/he didn't fall victim to the cynicism that seems pretty rampant these days that insists that idealistic Good has to be dumb or ineffectual.
This is a pet peeve of mine, too. I get really furious when I see people spouting these brainless catchphrases like "Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb".
No, it isn't. Playing a good person actually is hard work, much harder than being evil or just indifferent. The hard choices fall mainly down on the side of good characters, because doing the right thing means having to take responsibility for your actions.
That being said, Paragon Shepard surely had min-maxed his/hers diplomacy skill. <g>
This is a pet peeve of mine, too. I get really furious when I see people spouting these brainless catchphrases like "Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb".
I sincerely doubt anyone knowingly quotes Dark Helmet as an authority on anything...
No, it isn't. Playing a good person actually is hard work, much harder than being evil or just indifferent. The hard choices fall mainly down on the side of good characters, because doing the right thing means having to take responsibility for your actions.
I agree. But this feeds back into the issue with published adventures- the process of redeeming a character is inherently open-ended, difficult, and beyond the scope of making sure the goblins (for example) don't burn the village down and eat everyone.
Can Nualia be redeemed? Perhaps. Can the Cinderlander be taught to forsake the hatred that has governed his entire life for quite some time? Perhaps. Can Enga Keckvia be directed toward a productive life? You can always try.
But any in-game mechanism to deal with it is going to perforce be arbitrary, and arbitrary is one thing a quest for redemption should never be.
Can the Cinderlander be taught to forsake the hatred that has governed his entire life for quite some time? Perhaps.
Ah... but then again, he isn't even evil, to begin with :)
I sincerely doubt anyone knowingly quotes Dark Helmet as an authority on anything...
You'd be surprised how often people quote it here on this board when they try to defend their "evil is cool, hurdurdur!" philosophy.
I agree. But this feeds back into the issue with published adventures- the process of redeeming a character is inherently open-ended, difficult, and beyond the scope of making sure the goblins (for example) don't burn the village down and eat everyone.
Can Nualia be redeemed? Perhaps. Can the Cinderlander be taught to forsake the hatred that has governed his entire life for quite some time? Perhaps. Can Enga Keckvia be directed toward a productive life? You can always try.
But any in-game mechanism to deal with it is going to perforce be arbitrary, and arbitrary is one thing a quest for redemption should never be.
The amount of work involved in that is the reason why so few groups try to redeem villains, IMO. That and the fact that the quite layered backstories of said villains are seldomly known to a group before fighting them.
Redeem, accept, forgive and nuke from orbit. Shattered hopes taste so much better.
Matter of opinion not to be accepted as a universal truth ^^
There's some bitter irony there. It was a videogame...
It's hugely ironic, I agree.
I know it's another rant entirely, but there are videogames that now present compelling moral dilemmas and decision points, and make you emotionally attatched to the characters involved. Many of these have come to the fore at a time when I feel that tabletop RPGs have tried to adapt the simplicity of MMOs. I felt the rot set in during 3.5, and 4E felt like a fight-only boardgame to me.
Sure, you can role-play in any system - but so often I feel, as someone here said, as if I'm fighting against the written material.
Pathfinder, I think, deserves a bit better. Even a sidebar or two about how to handle certain encounters differently. I'm so sick of reading 'potentially intriguing NPC fights to the death'.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes when you read in an NPC's tactics for Morale "This guy fights to the death," that's the wordcount creeping in. We COULD put in more details on how they react to being captured, and we try to do that as much as we can, but doing so would force us to spend less time talking about that NPC's history and personality in the first place... which makes them less interesting to redeem. It's a catch-22.
Fortunately, Pathfinder has something that video games do not—GMs. If you as a player want to be able to have the chance to redeem Bad Guys... Tell your GM. Most GMs won't even think this is something that the PCs want since the game's got close to 4 decades of fight fight fight built into it.
That and the fact that the quite layered backstories of said villains are seldomly known to a group before fighting them.
This.
My feeling is always 'if the PCs don't learn or discover something, it may as well not exist'.
It wouldn't take much work in a published adventure to at least offer some suggestion how they might get such information into the PCs hands. Maybe offer some reason, like an NPC Boon, for people who make the effort to redeem a villain, something they wouldn't get if they just butchered them.
In all the games I've played, it's the NPCs we interacted with beyond combat that made an impression and stayed with me. If they can do this in videogames now, they can sure do it in tabletop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes when you read in an NPC's tactics for Morale "This guy fights to the death," that's the wordcount creeping in. We COULD put in more details on how they react to being captured, and we try to do that as much as we can, but doing so would force us to spend less time talking about that NPC's history and personality in the first place... which makes them less interesting to redeem. It's a catch-22.
Appreciated, James - but the odd sidebar could make us feel like we're not 'fighting the system'.
Take the latest AP module. I kinda feel that if the challenge is 'get a treasure map off the skin of a lady pirate', and the PCs only options are 'kill her and take her stuff', then that's a missed opportunity for all manner of stealth-based or diplomatic options...
We can change that if we're of a mind, but the written text tells us plainly that we can't do it. Why not present alternatives as an option?
|
Creative Director
|
Sometimes when you read in an NPC's tactics for Morale "This guy fights to the death," that's the wordcount creeping in. We COULD put in more details on how they react to being captured, and we try to do that as much as we can, but doing so would force us to spend less time talking about that NPC's history and personality in the first place... which makes them less interesting to redeem. It's a catch-22.Appreciated, James - but the odd sidebar could make us feel like we're not 'fighting the system'.
Take the latest AP module. I kinda feel that if the challenge is 'get a treasure map off the skin of a lady pirate', and the PCs only options are 'kill her and take her stuff', then that's a missed opportunity for all manner of stealth-based or diplomatic options...
We can change that if we're of a mind, but the written text tells us plainly that we can't do it. Why not present alternatives as an option?
Sidebars are usually the FIRST things to go... either to have their text repurposed and melded into the flow of the adventure, or just going away entirely, since they eat up a lot more space on a page than their words would indicate.
But that said... the core game DOES encourage GMs to adjust the game as needed for their game and their preferences. I'm not sure how much use repeating that sentiment over and over in adventures where space is always at a premium could be. Again... there'll be a lot more redemption themes in an upcoming AP, and that might be a good place to put some of that stuff in there...
... but those themes are very much NOT a part of Skull & Shackles. One of the decisions we made early on in that AP was that the Players are playing pirates. It's the closest we've come (and likely the closest we'll EVER come) to publishing an AP for evil characters. As such... themes of redemption (and extra word count dedicated to those themes) aren't really appropriate for Skull & Shackles. We'll continue giving lots of NPC background (if only because that stuff is fun to read—that's a goal that should NEVER be forgotten when you're writing an adventure: Make it fun to read), so that if you DO want to work in some redemption you'll have the info you need to make that NPC more robust in your game...
...but that's not the intent of the villains of Skull & Shackles.
That and the fact that the quite layered backstories of said villains are seldomly known to a group before fighting them.This.
My feeling is always 'if the PCs don't learn or discover something, it may as well not exist'.
It wouldn't take much work in a published adventure to at least offer some suggestion how they might get such information into the PCs hands. Maybe offer some reason, like an NPC Boon, for people who make the effort to redeem a villain, something they wouldn't get if they just butchered them.
In all the games I've played, it's the NPCs we interacted with beyond combat that made an impression and stayed with me. If they can do this in videogames now, they can sure do it in tabletop.
This is on the GM. I have often made it possible for the players to get information, if they try to get it. Shackled City and AoW had a lot of background information with no way to get it to the PC's as written. I often suggest in-game that the PC's try X. If they were interested they could normally get more information. The AP's are better at presenting interactive NPC's than SCAP and AoW.
... but those themes are very much NOT a part of Skull & Shackles. One of the decisions we made early on in that AP was that the Players are playing pirates. It's the closest we've come (and likely the closest we'll EVER come) to publishing an AP for evil characters. As such... themes of redemption (and extra word count dedicated to those themes) aren't really appropriate for Skull & Shackles.
I fully appreciate a pirate AP is not the ideal place for a redemption theme, James (though I'm sure some pirates did change their ways in real life).
I was more angling for a non-combat solution for Isabella; the NPC kinda cries out for one. I can certainly see rogueish characters finding imaginative ways to get a peek at her tattoos...
I do think this has improved since _Shackled City_--which has tons of backstory that is *extremely* difficult to give to the PCs even if you want to. My husband has run this twice. One group didn't try hard to get the info, and never had a clue who they were fighting, which sucked a lot of the interest out of the game. (You do not want the player reaction to the Big Reveal to be "Huh? Who?") The other group (me) tried very hard, and we found that having that information tended to break the AP badly. And even then, fully half of the bad guys were meaningless names to me all the way through. The Pathfinder APs have handled an information-seeking player, on the whole, a lot better.
It would be nice, though, if when there is an NPC with interesting backstory, there were a means provided, however briefly, for learning it. The BBG of Kingmaker book 1 is problematic this way. The BBG of book 6 is a lot better as book 5 provides an NPC who knows the story and may tell it--that's well done and I'd like to see more of it. (I know that putting anything in module X to support X+1 is problematic. But so nice when it does happen!)
In the meantime, my 2 bits of advice to GMs about redemption, and interaction with villains in general:
(1) Let the players know it won't break the AP if they want to capture, question, or try to redeem villains. They may avoid doing it out of misplaced concern for the GM.
(2) Never run an AP until you have all the episodes on hand. Then you can put in the missing information links a lot more readily. In our Kingmaker game the PCs knew about the final villain from midway in book 2, and it REALLY helped that I had read the whole AP by that point. (I frankly would not be interested in running Kingmaker without this kind of player information; I think book 6 really works much better if you see it coming. But for the players to see it coming, the GM has to know it's coming, and you canNOT rely on the little blurbs in previous books!)
|
|
... but those themes are very much NOT a part of Skull & Shackles. One of the decisions we made early on in that AP was that the Players are playing pirates. It's the closest we've come (and likely the closest we'll EVER come) to publishing an AP for evil characters. As such... themes of redemption (and extra word count dedicated to those themes) aren't really appropriate for Skull & Shackles.I fully appreciate a pirate AP is not the ideal place for a redemption theme, James (though I'm sure some pirates did change their ways in real life).
I was more angling for a non-combat solution for Isabella; the NPC kinda cries out for one. I can certainly see rogueish characters finding imaginative ways to get a peek at her tattoos...
I haven't read the AP, but they can't get her drunk and copy it while she sleep half comatose? Or poison her with a sleeping drug?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If she's the chick on the cover of book 2, there's really not that much of the map anyone walking down the street can't see. You'd think if you had a map tattooed on your body to keep it secret, you'd wear more clothes to cover it up; seems counterproductive to dress like that. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was a bit disappointed with the expected/written resolution for Isabella as well, although IMO there's enough info available to the GM to extrapolate other possibilities — I know I certainly would.
While I've only read about half the APs, one that stands out to me as having particularly good potential for redemption themes is the first part of Serpent's Skull. While none of the other shipwreck survivors are evil per se, many of them could end up working for enemy factions. The NPC bios, and even some of the encounters on the island give a plethora of potentially redemption-oriented sub-plots.
In our game, the cleric (disguised as an old woman) befriended Aerys and helped her thru detox and recovery. She also was encouraging of her writing and they became fast friends. Now that the party is off the island, the party has used their influence to help her line up more gainful employment with either the navy or a merchant line.
In my game, I made him something of a lecherous coward who has slowly been coming around because of his longing for one of the PCs and the examples they've been setting.
In our game he was rather weak and cowardly, but in the end sacrificed himself bravely to save one of the PCs. The dryad (with whom he'd felt a kinship) was so moved by his death that she reincarnated him and he remained on the island with her when we departed.
In our game, I RP'd her as a wanton woman who really doesn't think beyond her next meal or 'conquest'. After initially trying to insult one of the female PCs, they ended up becoming bosom-buddies, and she's slowly coming around. Initially, half the party wanted to kill her when they found out she was a daughter of the Red Mantis, whereas now she's practically a member of the party.
However...
In our game, Ieana was an actual archaeologist who had gotten possessed by an evil spirit (Yarzoth) that was trapped within an ancient artifact she had unearthed during a dig. This made the final confrontation at the end of part 1 much more interesting since the party didn't want to kill the presumably good wizardess along with the evil serpent priestess.
I'm sure that I'm missing a few other possibilities from SftSS, but you get the idea. :)
I just noticed Mikaze mention the Forlarren, and now I need to see their write up in the Tome of Horrors just to compare.
As folks have mentioned, Legacy of Fire has quite a few redemption themes in it—not always for monsters, though. But we tend to put themes like that in here and there quite often... whether or not players or (perhaps more importantly) GMs take up those threads and run with them is the tricky spot.
AKA: It's really important to let your GM know you're looking for the chance to redeem some of the bad guys/monsters in a game, since the basic assumption is that it's all combat. And at the same time, you should let your fellow players know this as well, since, frankly, they'll probably be the biggest obstacle toward redemption. Especially if there's monster-hunting crusaders in the group... and most groups usually have at least one of those...
Problem is, I just talked to my DM yesterday about the upcoming Rise of the Runelords we plan to have, telling him me and the guy playing our Cleric would want the chance to redeem some villains through some hard work. His response was "don't expect anything", or in others words, he's likely not even going to give me and my pal a chance or worse, he'd let us do it only to get backstabbed in the end. Even if I convinced our other players (one's character is a Chaotic Good Gunslinger, the other is a Lawful Neutral Ninja), he'd probably not change his mind given his usual attitude. What the heck should I do? Just roll with it despite the bad call by him?
Because I'd want at least something that doesn't blindly go by the book and actually gives the villains more depth and personality (and chances to shine via getting character development) than just making them into generic irredeemable Saturday Morning Cartoon Villains who get brutally butchered like cattle by our heroes :(
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play a certain type of character that the GM isn't interested in supporting, you've basically got 3 choices.
1) Play the character anyway, hope the GM changes his mind (perhaps after you make a few more impassioned pleas), and prepare for a disappointing game.
2) Play a different type of character and save the first idea for another game.
3) Find a new, more flexible GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been following this thread interestedly for a while, so I guess it is my chance to jump in.
Yes, GMs make all the difference. One who is flexible and role-playing oriented would make or break an attempt to role-play a redemptive scenario. No matter what is "written", it is your game, so play it like you want. I'm planning on running Skull & Shackles, despite my misgivings with walking the "evil" line, but I sure want someone to try to save Isabella.
However, I have to chime in with the OP that I would love to see more included redemptive themes as well. One of the things I have loved about Pathfinder adventures is that there have been many scripted ways to succeed without kill-kill-killing everything in sight. I haven't read or run all the APs (my husband calls some, I call others), but I like the alternative game mechanics that pop up in many adventures.
A good romantic subplot or two would be fun as well... very traditional narrative trope, to turn to good because you find true love.
Or would it just be too uncomfortable for most men (and I'm assuming most players are men) to role-play? I don't think my friends would have a problem with it at all. Speaking of which, this thread seemed to have more female input than most I read, going by names and comments at least.
in my Rise of the Runelords game, I was frankly surprised by the actions of my players in Book 1. They regularly dealt coups de grace to unconscious villains. While I expected that fate for the monsters, I was kind of surprised that they did that to Nualia herself and her human companions.
Re: female players and redemption: When I ran Burnt Offerings, my female player was the most bloodthirsty of all! And she was playing the paladin!
The problem is many GMs seem to be straitjackeded into running everything by the book, with no deviation, leaving no room for redemption if it's not specifacally mentioned. You can argue untill you're blue in the face and they will not budge. And that's not getting into attitudes toward redemption. One messagedboard I read had a similar discussion to this where one player wanted to redeem some Orcs, leading to another poster basically telling the other 'you're retarded', 'you're ruining the game' and 'Orcs and other creatures like them are filthy and evil and are just there for us to kill, end of story'. Then another poster agreed with the above and said 'if you want to play a traditionally evil character, play a drow, because their so much better'.
(sorry about the tangent, that just stuck in my mind regarding many players thoughts on redemption)
I'm a men and I absolutely love role-playing. I think it's the bread and butter of the game :)
|
|
Mikaze: You share a lot of the same frustrations I do. This doesn't happen in every group I play with, but it happens in a lot of them, and I think I see why.
Simply put, redemption successes tend to be the result of one or two high-Charisma characters' efforts and it blatantly puts the spotlight on them. Some players do not like this even in moderation, because it means their character is spending time mostly twiddling around idle.
Of course, the opposite extreme of redeeming every enemy gets silly too, but I try not to aim for that (some of them are vile enough to easily satisfy Sarenrae's "and purge the unsalvageable with fire" motifs).
Nonetheless, I've seen many players are vehemently opposed to this kind of activity. If one PC tries to achieve a redemption, they'll go out of their way to sabotage it. They'll have their character make needlessly violent threats to creatures that are clearly not going to be swayed in a receptive way by such, or engage in macho posturing and pick fights with people who probably could have been talked down, and come up with supposedly witty one-liners to justify why they did so. They would do this even in the face of overwhelming evidence that a peaceful solution is the more Good thing to do, because the peaceful solution gives them little to do while the violent solution lets them Do Stuff.
It is extremely frustrating to encounter this. I know why it happens, but it nonetheless makes me sigh and go "why even bother with all the lore about redemption if nobody's going to use it".
One messagedboard I read had a similar discussion to this where one player wanted to redeem some Orcs, leading to another poster basically telling the other 'you're retarded', 'you're ruining the game' and 'Orcs and other creatures like them are filthy and evil and are just there for us to kill, end of story'. Then another poster agreed with the above and said 'if you want to play a traditionally evil character, play a drow, because their so much better'.
That sounds just like the stuff Mikaze has to deal with all the time. ^^