Heroes murdering innocent children (that they were meant to rescue)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 635 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

A lot of players see surrender as a non-option.
In many PF/DnD games 'every' fight is a fight to the death. The bad guys rarely try to run away. And if they try the PC's kill them anyway. On those extrememly rare situations when a bad guy surrenders, the PC's usually kill him anyway.
So if even the good guys kill their prisoners and every fight ends with one side or the other all dead, then...

Why would they ever seriously consider surrenduring?


Sorry for earlier.

1) Don't cover the PCs's collective asses too much.

2) The PCs have a curse that will kill them? ask the players if they want their characters to die and/or if they want to start over.

3) Let the Players/PCs decisions matter and don't retcon too many things.


As a side note, maybe they wondered why the bad guys just didn't butcher everyone during the night they sneaked in.


IT seems that there are two issues.
Did they party role play correctly….
I can make an argument that from a LG pov, the fire balling of the children was unfortunately collateral damage of war.
Did the DM role play correctly?
I understand why he did what he did, but I believe he should have gone with what happened, and move on from there.
Now what happens?


Honestly, I think the problem is that you retconned things so they didn't have to face the consequences. You actually made it so they made the right call, instead of the morally destructive but understandable one. Now, socially punishing them for what they did will feel very contrived, since they saved the day.

The Paladin should lose his powers. He knowingly allowed the kids to be attacked. Unless IC the caster suprized him with the spell. Keep in mind that since the Paladin probably doesn't have spellcraft, he doesn't know what the first spell was that got cancelled was and that it would have hurt the kids.

I think a big part of the problem is that you have a different idea of where you want the players to go and how you want them to behave than they do. You want them to be Heroic. They want to be gritty. The styles will clash and until that disconnect is resolved you will have issues.

I think the only issue I have with the players behaviour is that instead of calling the bluff and letting the gnolls kill them, they personally stuck the knife in.


Not only should the paladin lose is powers, the entire party should suddenly discover that the healing spells of NPC priests of good and lawful deities suddenly cease working on them. I mean, this was a reprehensible action, on par with the vileness of long-term, dyed-in-the-wool malicious villains. The kind of thing MOST bad guys have to work down to.

('Heroes' enter temple looking for curse removal and/or simple healing)
Temple Priest: >initiates casting< (Nothing happens, priest gets funny look on his face.) "Ah, that's that, then; you need to leave. Now." Gestures towards temple guards, who begin advancing.

Party: "What do you mean?"

Priest: "I mean get out!"

Rinse and repeat at every temple dedicated to good and/or lawful deities.

Gods are omniscient, yeah? THEY KNOW what the party did, and intervene to prevent their priests from using their divinely-granted powers to benefit these chaotic/evil bastards.


Alitan wrote:

Not only should the paladin lose is powers, the entire party should suddenly discover that the healing spells of NPC priests of good and lawful deities suddenly cease working on them. I mean, this was a reprehensible action, on par with the vileness of long-term, dyed-in-the-wool malicious villains. The kind of thing MOST bad guys have to work down to.

('Heroes' enter temple looking for curse removal and/or simple healing)
Temple Priest: >initiates casting< (Nothing happens, priest gets funny look on his face.) "Ah, that's that, then; you need to leave. Now." Gestures towards temple guards, who begin advancing.

Party: "What do you mean?"

Priest: "I mean get out!"

Rinse and repeat at every temple dedicated to good and/or lawful deities.

Gods are omniscient, yeah? THEY KNOW what the party did, and intervene to prevent their priests from using their divinely-granted powers to benefit these chaotic/evil bastards.

Ah so you plan on having RD frustrate his players some more when they're already kind of pissed and have them summarily execute all of the priests and templefolk devoted to the gods of good and law?


This seems like a bad all as a GM. Punishing your players because they don't roleplay the way you want them to is very childish, and changing the very mechanics because they didn't solve it the way you wanted them to is even worse. I feel like i'm playing a video game, and after i successfully stole a car with no one around, I still get the police showing up because the game has stealing a car flagged as alert cops, even if no one is around to witness it.

If the PC's kill everyone and no one witnesses it, they get to spin the tale however they want. Maybe the PC's came pon the gnolls as they were burning the children.

I feel like robbing the PC's off their choice and punishing them because you don't like what they did, is about the worst thing a GM can do. I would find it hard to respect anyone as a GM if i learned they altered the encounter because the PC's acted in a way they didn't like.


Alitan wrote:

Not only should the paladin lose is powers, the entire party should suddenly discover that the healing spells of NPC priests of good and lawful deities suddenly cease working on them. I mean, this was a reprehensible action, on par with the vileness of long-term, dyed-in-the-wool malicious villains. The kind of thing MOST bad guys have to work down to.

('Heroes' enter temple looking for curse removal and/or simple healing)
Temple Priest: >initiates casting< (Nothing happens, priest gets funny look on his face.) "Ah, that's that, then; you need to leave. Now." Gestures towards temple guards, who begin advancing.

Party: "What do you mean?"

Priest: "I mean get out!"

Rinse and repeat at every temple dedicated to good and/or lawful deities.

Gods are omniscient, yeah? THEY KNOW what the party did, and intervene to prevent their priests from using their divinely-granted powers to benefit these chaotic/evil bastards.

LOL

be careful. "Good Rolepplayers" (those who can play well) you sure you want a Paladin to become an AP? Becuase that is what could happen here.


Kakitamike wrote:

If the PC's kill everyone and no one witnesses it, they get to spin the tale however they want. Maybe the PC's came pon the gnolls as they were burning the children.

Please explain how a Paladin is ever in a situation where his actions have no witnesses, given his god is aware of his actions at every given moment, as well as his intentions (not just his actions, but what he intended to happen).

Please cite rules mechanics, not vague hand wavey 'in certain game worlds' fluffery.


I didn't read page 2 so forgive me if this was answered already, but why were the children kidnapped and taken away? I just question the motive of taking them away rather than killing them in front of their helpless parents (or something similarly evil). Were they going to be ransomed or something? It also leads to the motive for wanting to capture the PC's at the bridge. These are things any character of mine would question, and affect my actions.

Seems as if the PCs knew the diabolist, and had little reason to doubt he would follow through on his actions. As a PC I wouldn't wholly accept the terms offered, but that's where bargaining power comes into play. Bargain two of the PC's for the kids, with the other 2 PC's covering for treachery from safety.

I personally wouldn't have retconned the scenario. PC's want to kill kids in order to end the big threat? I would caution them out of character but if that's what they want to do so be it. Live with the consequences (which could be varied and many). There were witnesses, after all (plenty of gnolls not with the main force evidently, in scouting or rear watch positions). If they get captured they could bargain this information to possibly save their skins ("we didn't kill no kids! it was dem stinkin heroes!").

I wouldn't punish the PC's for their actions, but there are certainly ramifications.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
And then the party gets to be Steve McQueen and engineer "The Great Escape" after they are captured. Come on, what's cooler than a jailbreak?

And you remember what the outcome of the great escape, pritty much everyone f%@@ing dead. And that is why surrendering is idiotic.


Nicos wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
I mean, RD has set up so much epic potential for heroism here, and instead they try to "break the game."
Do not get me wrong, Ravindork campaing seems to be very funny and epic, but maybe his players do not want that kin of campaing.

Excuse me, mr Villian, can you give us a few minuites why we discuss how to foil your plans, err... we mean consider our options?


hoshi wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
And then the party gets to be Steve McQueen and engineer "The Great Escape" after they are captured. Come on, what's cooler than a jailbreak?
And you remember what the outcome of the great escape, pritty much everyone f@~~ing dead. And that is why surrendering is idiotic.

They did it because the first duty of a captured officer is to escape. They knew they would most likely die, but they took the risk because it was their duty.

Sure, the PC's can shirk their duty, but it is a much better story if they are willing to give their own lives to safeguard the lives of the innocent.

The Americans and the British in "The Great Escape" could have just stayed in the POW camp until the war ended and they were returned to their families - but what a boring movie that would have made.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

This may be a little off topic, but I'm curious to know what the small town was doing to repel several attacks by what sounds like a platoon of gnolls using military-grade equipment, heavy cavalry, a tag team of varsity level devils, Baron Mordo and a pack of adorable, cuddly hyenas. Who lives in this village and what fortifications do they have in place that kept the Hamatulas from bamfing willy-nilly up and down the block, wearing pedestrians like a pair of hell-spawned coat racks? Why isn't this town a smoking crater? It doesn't sound like the adventurers were even needed to sort this out.

Also, how did the wizard learn about the kidnappings in less than 10 minutes? Did I read that wrong? Does his brother have a Twitter account?


hoshi wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
I mean, RD has set up so much epic potential for heroism here, and instead they try to "break the game."
Do not get me wrong, Ravindork campaing seems to be very funny and epic, but maybe his players do not want that kin of campaing.
Excuse me, mr Villian, can you give us a few minuites why we discuss how to foil your plans, err... we mean consider our options?

BBEG started the parley, did he not? He knew he was in a tactically dangerous situation being stuck on a wooden bridge over a perilous chasm with a handful of decent henchmen and a plethora of fodder between him and powerful heroes. His trump card is the hostages, so he plays his trump card to presumably buy himself some time to get his troops off the bridge where his greater numbers will better serve him (and possibly trapping the PC's on said bridge). Of course he will give them a few minutes. He wants them more than the PC's do!

The PC's shouldn't give him those few minutes, however, unless it is to strengthen their own position or to secure the hostages (by negotiating better terms since they know the BBEG to keep his word once it is given). At least that's my take on the scenario. YMMV.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:

Dabbler's got some good points there. Why should the DM punish the players for driving them into such a desperate situation in the first place? Why didn't the DM take a moment to think about this?! The DM has only himself to blame for putting the players in a "hopeless" situation!!

As an example of DM mentality conflicting with PC mentality, I knew my players really were more roll-players than role-players last time I was DM, so I didn't bother them with "trivialities" after the first four times they said "GET ON WITH IT" instead of actually going along with the narrative. However, I didn't act like a childish **** (unlike some DMs) and go backstabbing them out of frustration for them playing the game in a way that they liked and I didn't.

Adding to this, most DMs I know (including myself) don't do Saturday Morning Cartoon type villains (goblins and some ogres are possible exceptions), but actually menacing, effective ones. Only a bumbling moron would give a surrendered party a chance to get away, and bumbling morons don't make for good BBEGs, right?

You've never considered that there are mediums between the two extremes... like the otherwise brilliant BBEG who still has an occaisional Achilles heel that's ego driven? Who has cravings for a worthy audience every now and then?


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
hoshi wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
And then the party gets to be Steve McQueen and engineer "The Great Escape" after they are captured. Come on, what's cooler than a jailbreak?
And you remember what the outcome of the great escape, pritty much everyone f@~~ing dead. And that is why surrendering is idiotic.

They did it because the first duty of a captured officer is to escape. They knew they would most likely die, but they took the risk because it was their duty.

And maybe the players are trying to roleplay their characters, not make a movie?

Not saying that blasting the children was the right thing, but if I were in their position I would not see how giving up everything would improve anything. You're asking them to play the "heroes" who give up everything to do the right thing, but that's not what they're trying to play.

Yes it is very touching when someone will give up everything to do the right thing and it is outstanding when it works out in the end; however I will never expect that someone should be that way nor will I even expect that they should pretend to be that way. It's a difficult thing to do, even more difficult when you've seen hard work go in vain. To demand such a thing is to be a sanctimonious, controlling hypocrite.

Silver Crusade

I would have left it as planned, no retcon. The bridge falls and the children are killed.

Eventually the truth would come out that they PCs were responsible for the deaths of the children.

The Paladin should not loose his powers due to the retcon. Neither would I punish the characters as you've changed the story to make their actions more heroic.

Next time, let the morality be what they choose to do, not change it to suit what they should have done.

It will create more in game roleplaying as player have their characters come to terms with their actions.

Those that have issues can keep their alignments, those that are good with what they have done, take a step towards what alignment their actions support.

No good aligned character should have been happy with killing the children. Neutral should have at least has some remorse...

And if the players change the planned campaign based on their actions then that is part of being players and their power over the game.

Adapt and evolve the storyline, punishment of the characters comes from the story, community and the gods, not necessarily the GM ;)


Your player's shouldn't be punished. They should have to deal with the consequences of their actions. If that means their characters are punished so be it.

Liberty's Edge

Caineach wrote:

Honestly, I think the problem is that you retconned things so they didn't have to face the consequences. You actually made it so they made the right call, instead of the morally destructive but understandable one. Now, socially punishing them for what they did will feel very contrived, since they saved the day.

The Paladin should lose his powers. He knowingly allowed the kids to be attacked. Unless IC the caster suprized him with the spell. Keep in mind that since the Paladin probably doesn't have spellcraft, he doesn't know what the first spell was that got cancelled was and that it would have hurt the kids.

I think a big part of the problem is that you have a different idea of where you want the players to go and how you want them to behave than they do. You want them to be Heroic. They want to be gritty. The styles will clash and until that disconnect is resolved you will have issues.

I think the only issue I have with the players behaviour is that instead of calling the bluff and letting the gnolls kill them, they personally stuck the knife in.

Generally, if a party member cast Black tentacles in a area it is assumed he say so.

"Don't go there, I am casting black tentacles" "stay back I will cast fireball" and so on.
Casters asking other party member to keep clear of a area so that they can cast area spells are a standard thing.

Then there is the question: if the paladin didn't know that his companion were casting damaging area spells on the bridge, why he hasn't moved on it to draw some enemy attack, in an attempt to save the children?

From what I get the paladin action was "I stay with my companion to protect them". I.e. he has chosen to defend some able combatant while leaving the innocent to be slaughtered.

Robodruida wrote:


I can make an argument that from a LG pov, the fire balling of the children was unfortunately collateral damage of war.

Lawful Good? LN ok, but I fail to see the good part in accepting collateral damage on friendly fire, especially when there was no attempt to avoid it.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Generally, if a party member cast Black tentacles in a area it is assumed he say so.
"Don't go there, I am casting black tentacles" "stay back I will cast fireball" and so on.
Casters asking other party member to keep clear of a area so that they can cast area spells are a standard thing.

Then there is the question: if the paladin didn't know that his companion were casting damaging area spells on the bridge, why he hasn't moved on it to draw some enemy attack, in an attempt to save the children?

From what I get the paladin action was "I stay with my companion to protect them". I.e. he has chosen to defend some able combatant while leaving the innocent to be slaughtered.

Robodruida wrote:


I can make an argument that from a LG pov, the fire balling of the children was unfortunately collateral damage of war.
Lawful Good? LN ok, but I fail to see the good part in accepting collateral damage on...

A few lost souls to achieve the greater good the gods shall shelter them henceforth.

Now fireballing them wasn't good perse but seeing as it was the LN character who actually toasted the kids it makes sense, besides doesn't the paladin's code actually include a provision for traveling and working with evil people if it will accomplish a greater good so the whole idea of lesser evils is already established?


gnomersy wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Generally, if a party member cast Black tentacles in a area it is assumed he say so.
"Don't go there, I am casting black tentacles" "stay back I will cast fireball" and so on.
Casters asking other party member to keep clear of a area so that they can cast area spells are a standard thing.

Then there is the question: if the paladin didn't know that his companion were casting damaging area spells on the bridge, why he hasn't moved on it to draw some enemy attack, in an attempt to save the children?

From what I get the paladin action was "I stay with my companion to protect them". I.e. he has chosen to defend some able combatant while leaving the innocent to be slaughtered.

Robodruida wrote:


I can make an argument that from a LG pov, the fire balling of the children was unfortunately collateral damage of war.
Lawful Good? LN ok, but I fail to see the good part in accepting collateral damage on...

A few lost souls to achieve the greater good the gods shall shelter them henceforth.

Now fireballing them wasn't good perse but seeing as it was the LN character who actually toasted the kids it makes sense, besides doesn't the paladin's code actually include a provision for traveling and working with evil people if it will accomplish a greater good so the whole idea of lesser evils is already established?

The greater good being what? The PC's safety and convenience? Killing an evil enemy with whom they had already made a deal-with-the-devil?


Mabven the OP healer wrote:

The greater good being what? The PC's safety and convenience? Killing an evil enemy with whom they had already made a deal-with-the-devil?

Uhhhh killing an evil enemy who has willingly joined in with the kidnapping and murder of townspeople for what as far as I can tell was no reason whatsoever.


The evil enemy did not kill the children, only kidnapped them. The mass murder was done by the Lawful Good paladin's compatriot, without any interference from said paladin.

So, Evil guy kidnaps children, and the good thing to do is to kill him and the children, because kidnapping is more evil than murder?


Why do DMs hate Pallies? Why do players not understand how to play Pallies? Would someone please think of the Pallies already!


loaba wrote:
Why do DMs hate Pallies? Why do players not understand how to play Pallies? Would someone please think of the Pallies already!

Did the paladin have spellcraft?


Robodruida wrote:
loaba wrote:
Why do DMs hate Pallies? Why do players not understand how to play Pallies? Would someone please think of the Pallies already!

Did the paladin have spellcraft?

I've seen conflicting reports, so I can't confirm or deny it. All I know is, it is a hell of a sucker punch that a Pally didn't intervene in the name of saving the children. I'd love to hear the players take on all of this.


He does not need spellcraft. Once the spell was successfully cast, and the area was filled with strangling tentacles, he should have given the wizard one chance to dismiss it, and if the wizard refused, the paladin should have attempted to restrain and render the wizard unconscious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's evil that the paladin did nothing. However it wasn't good that he did nothing. Honestly I wouldn't socially isolate them. Rather I would have exorcists follow them around trying to remove the demons they shelter within their black souls. (trolololololling players)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah...right.

Then we'd have the wizard player registering an account on these boards and whining "We have a lawful stupid paladin in our group, he's soooooo dumb" and we'd have another opportunity for a wonderful alignment thread.

In my head I'm reading another thread as I read this one. It's a thread where a paladin is complaining about how a GM set him up to lose his power.

"My GM gave me an impossible situation and it's not exactly fair. I can't rescue the children by any means, and if I do nothing they die, if I do something they die. Then our wizard throws a spell and the GM rules I lose my powers."

By the way, I already know the counter-arguments that there was a lot they could do, although personally I would have walked away from the encounter (with children involved, I probably would have walked away from the game.)


DanQnA wrote:
By the way, I already know the counter-arguments that there was a lot they could do, although personally I would have walked away from the encounter (with children involved, I probably would have walked away from the game.)

I too find the child angle more than a little distasteful, especially when you consider the DM has likely said "you can surrender, in all probability losing your gear and your freedom, and the children will live."

Man, that sucks rocks. Just say'n.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cos1983 wrote:
Your player's shouldn't be punished. They should have to deal with the consequences of their actions. If that means their characters are punished so be it.

That's what I meant.

Just checked the sheets. The paladin DOES have ranks in Spellcraft.


This may have been said before. But personally I wouldn't have changed the children into illusions retroactively. I would have let the PCs murder all of their adorable, scared little charges. And let the scenario play out from there.

EDIT: To further elaborate, as a DM you should ALWAYS account for the possibility of the worst case scenario. You should have been prepared for the possibility that all of the children might die. Ultimately it wouldn't matter if the BBEG or the PCs murdered the children. The children died, end of story.

The NPCs in the village will know this due to the lack of children. The PCs MIGHT be able to lie and say that it was out of their control. Or they might get caught in the lie.

Furthermore, ALWAYS make sure what your party feels about children, sex, drugs, and sometimes slavery, before starting a campaign. To avoid anything that might be too gruesome for some players.

But yeah, if I was DMing, the PCs would be left with a number of charred little bodies.

Liberty's Edge

loaba wrote:


I too find the child angle more than a little distasteful, especially when you consider the DM has likely said "you can surrender, in all probability losing your gear and your freedom, and the children will live."

Man, that sucks rocks. Just say'n.

Really? I mean, maybe I'm just thick-skinned, but that strikes me as a perfectly reasonable mission/puzzle. I mean it's not like the PCs tried a clever well-thought out solution and the GM fiated it to fail, making those their only two options. That would indeed be a dick move on the GM's part.

But no, they leapt immediately from the (challenging, but by no means insoluble) problem to the 'solution' of killing the children themselves. That's...well, like I said, I've played complete monsters who wouldn't have done that.

Scarab Sages

Robodruida wrote:

IT seems that there are two issues.

Did they party role play correctly….
I can make an argument that from a LG pov, the fire balling of the children was unfortunately collateral damage of war.
Did the DM role play correctly?
I understand why he did what he did, but I believe he should have gone with what happened, and move on from there.
Now what happens?

Are you really sitting here typing out that you think a LAWFUL GOOD character would condone fireballing hostages, innocent children hostages to boot?

REALLY?

REALLY REALLY??


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It'll keep them warm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mabven the OP healer wrote:


The Americans and the British in "The Great Escape" could have just stayed in the POW camp until the war ended and they were returned to their families - but what a boring movie that would have made.

... and I'm sure their surviving families would have enjoyed the movie with you Mabven.

There is an inherent conflict in playing this game between having your characters behave as if they are truly alive, and playing your characters to pursue some cinematic "awesomeness" that is cinematic because it virtually never happens in real life without seriously horrible consequences.

If there is one thing that causes me to find myself in a role play quandary, it is exactly this conflict. "Should I do this because it's awesome? Even though it's clearly not something a wise, intelligent, self-aware sentient being would EVER EVER do?"


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Build the man a fire, you keep him warm for a night.

SET the man on fire, you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Seriously, though, the players and their character's didn't do anything wrong here. PCs are not going to hand over their stuff to a bunch of gnolls and barbed devils; ain't gonna happen. From their point of view (and mine as well), the kids were already dead.

The SEALs had a saying back in the 80s when they started to be tasked with hostage rescue operations: sucks to be a hostage. The reason being that despite them not trying to get the hostage killed, for several years of training cycles, the hostage (s) died at least half the time. Whether from the operators playing the role of the abductors, from a stray round, from injuries sustained while being questioned by the abductors; it wasn't a good idea to be a hostage.

Should the Paladin have done something different? Yes. Should his character be punished? No. Because you, Ravingdork changed the rules. By making the kids on the bridge to be illusions, it doesn't matter what their reasons were; you made them heroes, despite their actions.

Master Arminas


gnomersy wrote:


Ah so you plan on having RD frustrate his players some more when they're already kind of pissed and have them summarily execute all of the priests and templefolk devoted to the gods of good and law?

I'm sorry, I missed the class session explaining how I should sympathize with people who jump to fireballing hostages instead of attempting to do something useful...

Srsly, these guys are reading like NPCs from the Book of Vile Darkness. Why WOULDN'T the deities on the light of righteousness start withholding their divine aid?


Alitan wrote:
gnomersy wrote:


Ah so you plan on having RD frustrate his players some more when they're already kind of pissed and have them summarily execute all of the priests and templefolk devoted to the gods of good and law?

I'm sorry, I missed the class session explaining how I should sympathize with people who jump to fireballing hostages instead of attempting to do something useful...

Srsly, these guys are reading like NPCs from the Book of Vile Darkness. Why WOULDN'T the deities on the light of righteousness start withholding their divine aid?

Because their actions weren't evil? At worst, their actions were neutral. Had the kids actually been on the bridge, an argument could be made that they committed an evil act--but RD already changed that, and by him changing that the actions of the party are not evil.

Master Arminas


Alitan wrote:
gnomersy wrote:


Ah so you plan on having RD frustrate his players some more when they're already kind of pissed and have them summarily execute all of the priests and templefolk devoted to the gods of good and law?

I'm sorry, I missed the class session explaining how I should sympathize with people who jump to fireballing hostages instead of attempting to do something useful...

Srsly, these guys are reading like NPCs from the Book of Vile Darkness. Why WOULDN'T the deities on the light of righteousness start withholding their divine aid?

In case you didn't notice, the gods are already making the PCs (and players) lives miserable.

Dark Archive

Kill em all, then just raise dead the kids, easy way out.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:


The Americans and the British in "The Great Escape" could have just stayed in the POW camp until the war ended and they were returned to their families - but what a boring movie that would have made.

... and I'm sure their surviving families would have enjoyed the movie with you Mabven.

There is an inherent conflict in playing this game between having your characters behave as if they are truly alive, and playing your characters to pursue some cinematic "awesomeness" that is cinematic because it virtually never happens in real life without seriously horrible consequences.

If there is one thing that causes me to find myself in a role play quandary, it is exactly this conflict. "Should I do this because it's awesome? Even though it's clearly not something a wise, intelligent, self-aware sentient being would EVER EVER do?"

It is something a wise, intelligent, self-aware, self-centered (read neutral and evil alignments) sentient being would never do. But a Paladin, whose entire ethic is based around defending the innocent despite great risk to himself? He would do what it takes to save the lives of innocent children, even if it means marching unarmed to certain death, or even killing his friend who has decided to strangle them to death with a spell, when he could have just as easily walked away.


master arminas wrote:
Alitan wrote:

Because their actions weren't evil? At worst, their actions were neutral. Had the kids actually been on the bridge, an argument could be made that they committed an evil act--but RD already changed that, and by him changing that the actions of the party are not evil.

Master Arminas

From my reading of the encounter, at the time the party decided to nuke the bridge from orbit, they had no idea those were illusory children: they just decided 'the hell with it, let's just kill 'em all' and completely disregarded their orders, their mission, their alignments, and their heroic ideal status.

Just because it turned out that it wasn't the kids on the bridge doesn't make their action not-evil.


master arminas wrote:
Alitan wrote:
gnomersy wrote:


Ah so you plan on having RD frustrate his players some more when they're already kind of pissed and have them summarily execute all of the priests and templefolk devoted to the gods of good and law?

I'm sorry, I missed the class session explaining how I should sympathize with people who jump to fireballing hostages instead of attempting to do something useful...

Srsly, these guys are reading like NPCs from the Book of Vile Darkness. Why WOULDN'T the deities on the light of righteousness start withholding their divine aid?

Because their actions weren't evil? At worst, their actions were neutral. Had the kids actually been on the bridge, an argument could be made that they committed an evil act--but RD already changed that, and by him changing that the actions of the party are not evil.

Master Arminas

So if burn an adorable little tyke alive then go back in time and swith the tyke with an illusion while everyone's focused on me I'm good? Afterall when that fireball hit the lids were real it was merely through divine intervention, presumably allowed as the kids souls were now in the afterlife that allowed them to retroactively become an illusion, possibly with unexplained nightmares of burning to death ...

Hmmm maybe it wasn't divine intervention at all maybe the wizard who dropped them off was using them as a distraction AMD saved the kiddies himself narrowly avoiding the fireball those idiots threw at the hostages.


Liam Warner wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Alitan wrote:
gnomersy wrote:


Ah so you plan on having RD frustrate his players some more when they're already kind of pissed and have them summarily execute all of the priests and templefolk devoted to the gods of good and law?

I'm sorry, I missed the class session explaining how I should sympathize with people who jump to fireballing hostages instead of attempting to do something useful...

Srsly, these guys are reading like NPCs from the Book of Vile Darkness. Why WOULDN'T the deities on the light of righteousness start withholding their divine aid?

Because their actions weren't evil? At worst, their actions were neutral. Had the kids actually been on the bridge, an argument could be made that they committed an evil act--but RD already changed that, and by him changing that the actions of the party are not evil.

Master Arminas

So if burn an adorable little tyke alive then go back in time and swith the tyke with an illusion while everyone's focused on me I'm good? Afterall when that fireball hit the lids were real it was merely through divine intervention, presumably allowed as the kids souls were now in the afterlife that allowed them to retroactively become an illusion, possibly with unexplained nightmares of burning to death ...

Hmmm maybe it wasn't divine intervention at all maybe the wizard who dropped them off was using them as a distraction AMD saved the kiddies himself narrowly avoiding the fireball those idiots threw at the hostages.

RD said in another thread that the mage was/is only level 9. Now how a level 9 can use mass teleportation in the first place...


Scroll of Teleport crafted at CL 12. Easy Peasy. Or just 3 uses of teleport at his own level (it's a 5th level wizard spell, he is 9th level. 3 uses for: teleport half the party, teleport back, teleport other half of the party.)


Since Ravingdork did retroactively change them into an illusion, then the party didn't fireball the children. The children didn't die, and you cannot, I say again cannot punish the characters because they didn't solve this encounter the way you wanted them to.

Now, if RD had forced them to accept the consequences of their actions, and the children had been killed by the fireball, certainly the characters would suffer in game. From the parents of those kids up to the court mage of the Emperor whose nephew just got char-broiled. But he didn't. He changed the rules, and made their actions no longer evil.

Master Arminas


1) teleport to the party

2) teleport part of the party

3) come back for the rest

4) teleport rest of the party

5) leave

that's five uses.

101 to 150 of 635 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Heroes murdering innocent children (that they were meant to rescue) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.