One of my players moaned at me what should I do?


Advice

101 to 140 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Mark Norfolk wrote:

whether or not some of us like this game is of no consequence..it's the Paladin's player who matters....and he's not having fun.

Cheers
Mark

And it might not be the only one who has problems with the game, others may have but not mention them yet.

I have played in games like the OP is running (where there is no hope, where every and any choice you make will make you feel evil), of course it was nWoD so i was more prepared than i would be if i was playing a DnD game, and a lot of players had complaints but only i voiced my problems, you know why? because the other players didn't want to hurt the feeling of the GM by telling him that they don't like his game.

So i will say it again, ask your players if they are enjoying this type of game, if they honestly do then simply ask the paladin player to sit this game out.


johnlocke90 wrote:

Not to derail the conversation too much but . .

Game of Thronse spoiler:
I'd argue that Ned Stark was either lawful stupid or lawful naive. He was given plenty of opportunities to see that he needed to think out his position better, and plan a strategy. A paladin in his position could have still done something else. I'd say Barristan Selmy is closer to a paladin in GoT; bound by oath to support thethrone, doing the best good where he can.

With that said, I don't especially like situation the OP presented, but it has the makings of a great story line. I agree that the paladin should be treated like every other character. I'm not a fan of lose/lose situations. However, some of the problem is also in storytelling (in addition to the player's expectations). If the player is on-board this could still be a great plot. The paladin can still confront and redeem his son, which would be awesome to see played out. (if the player is onboard)

In retrospect too, if I were playing the paladin, I would have abandoned the pursuit of the mystery-group, and saved my wife. This is often a trope in fantasy fiction stories where the hero needs to stop pursuit of the villain to rescue his love (who is tied to the train tracks and the locomotive is speeding toward her).

I personally like GoT type games. One of the longest homebrews I ever ran used elements similar to that series. In that game a ranger actually took center stage, kind of like a Jon Snow role, but he could have easily been a paladin.

More Game of Thrones spoilers, well kind of:
In that campaign, the PCs ran into situations where.

Their general was assassinated and they had to deal with the turmoil.

The ranger actually fell in love with an assassin. He won her to their side of the conflict. Killed her masters. Had a child. She dies in a similar way because he chose to complete a mission rather than act on rumors that she was in danger.

The ranger (and other PCs) had to hide or protect family members from increasing assassination attempts as they rose in political power.

The ranger was surprised to be nominated as their new leader because of his reputation with the legion.

The PCs often had to negotiate diplomatic situation with leaders who had varying interests. In one case, a PC was betrothed as part of a treaty.

And through it all there were plenty of battles as they led armies and took on the leaders of opposing armies.

I've actually been mulling over a Galactia type campaign. Refugees or slaves from an evil non-human empire, trying to find a way to a rumored homeland through a dangerous world while being pursued by their former masters.


Well its all good and well to say the Paladin is getting the 'Game of Thrones' treament, but if the rest of the party is getting Dr Seuss then you are picking on the Pally.


Shifty wrote:
Well its all good and well to say the Paladin is getting the 'Game of Thrones' treament, but if the rest of the party is getting Dr Seuss then you are picking on the Pally.

Exactly. The same rules need to apply to the whole party. The OP needs to ask himself if he is treating everyone at the table the same.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bodhizen wrote:
With regard to the situation with his son, that could make for a very powerful redemption quest for your paladin, with commensurate rewards, one would hope.

Here's the problem with that scenario. I'm sure that many folks here would compare it to Luke Skywalker's redemption of his father Anakin. There's just one hitch with that.

The only thing that made Anakin's redemption acceptable storywise was that his death was the price of it. Otherwise a living Anakin Skywalker would still be made to book for countless atrocities on a level that would have made the Gestapo blush, including things such as the slaughter of the room full of children in Episode 3.

The Paladin's son is more than just a "I really hate you Dad because you abandoned us" trope. You simply don't become an Anti-Paladin merely from a flip of angst. You become one by wholehartedly and deliberately embracing the foulest standards of evil. (Anakin's murder of the young Padawans would qualify as the graduating test of such a class) Ignoring that in the idea that such a character can be "redeemed" is something reserved to only the most superficial of storytelling styles.

The Exchange

Wind Chime wrote:

I promised not to force him to fall which I haven't, none of these choices were fall or fall.

Nonetheless you messed with him more im betting than anyone else at the table, the clas has a target on it's back that few DMs can resist


johnlocke90 wrote:
It sounds like your campaigns aren't very fun to play a lawful good character in.

I agree, it sounds like your trying to break good characters or faith for your own diablical plan to fart in his general direction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have an issue with...

Wind Chime wrote:
For example the paladin was on a mission and got an message that his wife was dying, he choice to continue the mission for the greater good (ignore the message) so I killed of his wife...

This paladin on a mission doesn't have friends (clerics or other paladins) back home who could heal/save his wife? How long did it take the message to get to him? How long would it take for him to return home? And no one in his paladin order/church could save her in all that time.


LazarX wrote:
Bodhizen wrote:
With regard to the situation with his son, that could make for a very powerful redemption quest for your paladin, with commensurate rewards, one would hope.
Some good stuff.

This is a very good point. Others mentioned earlier that the son's conversion also seems too quick too which is a problem story wise. I'm hoping this is still a new development in the plot, and the son hasn't taken that final step into the blackguard.

This could be corrected by finding that the son is in the company of blackguards as they are trying to turn him, convincing the son of the father's betrayal. The paladin would need to overcome several blackguard strongholds in search of his son.


Valandil Ancalime wrote:
I have an issue with...
Wind Chime wrote:
For example the paladin was on a mission and got an message that his wife was dying, he choice to continue the mission for the greater good (ignore the message) so I killed of his wife...

This paladin on a mission doesn't have friends (clerics or other paladins) back home who could heal/save his wife? How long did it take the message to get to him? How long would it take for him to return home? And no one in his paladin order/church could save her in all that time.

that's very true, wouldn't the families of paladins get speacil aid or something? Or are they just not good enough for that kind of treatment.


LazarX wrote:
Bodhizen wrote:
With regard to the situation with his son, that could make for a very powerful redemption quest for your paladin, with commensurate rewards, one would hope.
The only thing that made Anakin's redemption acceptable storywise was that his death was the price of it.

I think this demonstrates a lack of imagination. As a few off-the-cuff story seeds, the paladin can defeat the son, who escapes for a rematch in round two, where he's again defeated and is then set along a lengthy path toward redemption (echoes of Rocky II for the cinematically inclined). The paladin can work toward destroying the entire organization that is the corrupting influence upon him on the path toward redeeming his son (like Luke and company bring down the Empire in Star Wars). There's a lot more than just Anakin's death that makes the story worthwhile; if not, it never would have held up to audiences. Heck, you could even incorporate twelve Herculean tasks for the paladin or his son related toward the redemption epic. The point is, it has potential and may be useful to the original poster.


Mark Norfolk wrote:
whether or not some of us like this game is of no consequence..it's the Paladin's player who matters....and he's not having fun.

THIS


Wind Chime wrote:
... So I was wondering what do people think is the perfect scenario for the paladin to shine without any moral quandary what so ever? ...

The classics. Evil outsiders, evil dragons, and/or evil undead.


I like your style, and gritty settings myself, but next time, maybe a warning before beginning the campaign about the mood that you intend to give it would be a good thing.

Also, I always feel you can have two different ways of playing the game. (most game a a mash-up of those, but tend to be heavily loaded on one side or the other.)

1) The GM create a story for the characters - the reward is for the player to see his character overcome challenges and shine.

2) The Players and GM togethers create a story for the sake of the story - the characters are tools to craft an interresting narrative - the reward being the global narrative. As tools, character may suffer or even (in the most extreme cases) die for the story to be good.

Both ways are very fun and I don't think one is better, but the second one is the best way to get a tragic, hopeless, game-of-throney campaign to work properly. And you MUST explain to the players that if they want to enjoy the game, they have to get in this way of thinking.

I, for one, would love to play that Paladin - the character is in a very good place to tell a great tragic story. Maybe a little positive feedback after the game, like, "wow, man, your character is really fantastic - making that choice was not easy, and what you did made the story we are telling each other so much better." or something along that line.

But, maybe your players just want to play option 1. That's cool too, and they have the right to want it and to feel betrayed if you had 2 in mind but they got into the game not knowing it and thinking they would get 1.

Maybe taking some time, before next game, to talk about what you hope to achieve and asking feedback from your players would stop the "moaning" - if they want to get into a type 2 game, good, now everybody knows what they are in for, and if they don't want it, you may switch to a type 1 game.

What wont work, I think, is to have some players in a type 1 mood along with some players in a type 2 mood. Seriously - that will be bad - and players may even come to dislike playing with each others.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

Silver Crusade

Let the pally know that his son walked upon the streets where people he saved spoke highly of him and the help he provided. Following his father's steps to kill him, the son slowly begins to understand what doing the greater good means. This initiatic journey also slowly increases his grief toward these people that the pally father helped while his wife was dying alone; conflicting him between jealousy and understanding.

When the son finally meets the father, he's so depressed and angsty that he secretly renunces his antipaladin way, and attempts to convince his father to "do the right thing" by killing him to right the wrongs he did. Because after all, he did this all his life, and letting him go would mean more crimes.

There, the pally has two choices :
- Kill his son, performing a "good" act but ultimately the worst.
- Spare his son and let him go free, asking for his pardon and begging him to renunce the evil ways.

Since the pally will go for the right choice (and I hope you will make it subtle enough that he will feel like playing his character like he always does), he will be REWARDED. His son understands and renunces his evil ways. Time freezes, a great, warm light veils the paladin's eyes who hears a voice in his head telling him he did the right thing, and lived as a true, worthy champion despite the numerous hardships. He may now rest with a warrior's sleep, and he shall be rewarded for his sacrifices.
And there, the paladin's gods performs a miracle. His wife is revived and waits for him in his house, healthy. No one remembers her sickness and death nor the antipaladin son's victims, who are back to their everyday life as if nothing happened. The paladin and his son remember everything, but this one learns that doing the right thing deserves reward, and becomes a proud paladin dedicated to do the right thing like his father.

Meeting with her husband which she left some months ago, the wife is happy but surprised to see him MUCH MORE happy to see her alive, not understanding why... and as he weeps manly tears, she is ready to give him a birthday gift; an old longsword she found under an old shrine dedicated to his God in the forest, in a spot she found by mistake and oddly couldn't remember.

SAY HELLO TO YOUR HOLY AVENGER, MOTHAF**&A !

The Exchange

LazarX wrote:
Bodhizen wrote:
With regard to the situation with his son, that could make for a very powerful redemption quest for your paladin, with commensurate rewards, one would hope.

Here's the problem with that scenario. I'm sure that many folks here would compare it to Luke Skywalker's redemption of his father Anakin. There's just one hitch with that.

The only thing that made Anakin's redemption acceptable storywise was that his death was the price of it. Otherwise a living Anakin Skywalker would still be made to book for countless atrocities on a level that would have made the Gestapo blush, including things such as the slaughter of the room full of children in Episode 3.

The Paladin's son is more than just a "I really hate you Dad because you abandoned us" trope. You simply don't become an Anti-Paladin merely from a flip of angst. You become one by wholehartedly and deliberately embracing the foulest standards of evil. (Anakin's murder of the young Padawans would qualify as the graduating test of such a class) Ignoring that in the idea that such a character can be "redeemed" is something reserved to only the most superficial of storytelling styles.

This a remarkably narrow view from you LazarX. I usually get all sorts of outside the square from your posts, so this one truly surprises me.

As a counterpoint to your Anakin Skywalker story, try reading some David Gemmel. His Drennai novels in particular are filled with anti heros who've done some horrendous things in their past, only to be redeemed in the novels through their sacrifices to save others. His Waylander character is a perfect example in fact.

In his Sipstarssi series, the king of Atlantis (forgotten his name) does horrendous things through most of his life in his madness brought on by the power of Sipstarssi, but he works tirelessly in his later years to reverse all those horrors and becomes a kind of hero for many of the characters in that series.

Characters don't have to die in order to deem themselves. In fact, many great stories are written about those evil characters working for their redemption.

Cheers


Wind Chime wrote:

I promised not to force him to fall which I haven't, none of these choices were fall or fall.

This is such a cop out. You have presented him tons of fall or fall scenarios, you just haven't made him fall mechanically. The player still feels like his character can never do anything good, which is true because you punish the party even when they succeed. You don't allow them to ever win. It's fine if you decided that you wanted to play non-heroic fantasy but it's not the assumed mode of play for Pathfinder, at all, as evident by the officially published material.

What you either don't understand or pretend to not understand is that you as a GM is the one that decides what happens and which "outs" there are in a given situation. You not only present them with the situation but also how to resolve it and what the consequences will be, and you are essentially saying to him "ruin the backgound of your character or ruin the campaign" over and over again by presenting him with stupid, pointless fall or fall scenarios like his wife dying while he's at a critical point in the plot.

All of this sounds like tons of stories I think most of us have heard about vindictive/dickish GMs who just like the players losing all of the time and twisting every choice into a punishment for the characters. It's staggering to think that you thought that this is the type of campaign that the players wanted after you had agreed to not force the paladin to fall.


Trikk wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:

I promised not to force him to fall which I haven't, none of these choices were fall or fall.

This is such a cop out. You have presented him tons of fall or fall scenarios, you just haven't made him fall mechanically. The player still feels like his character can never do anything good, which is true because you punish the party even when they succeed. You don't allow them to ever win. It's fine if you decided that you wanted to play non-heroic fantasy but it's not the assumed mode of play for Pathfinder, at all, as evident by the officially published material.

What you either don't understand or pretend to not understand is that you as a GM is the one that decides what happens and which "outs" there are in a given situation. You not only present them with the situation but also how to resolve it and what the consequences will be, and you are essentially saying to him "ruin the backgound of your character or ruin the campaign" over and over again by presenting him with stupid, pointless fall or fall scenarios like his wife dying while he's at a critical point in the plot.

All of this sounds like tons of stories I think most of us have heard about vindictive/dickish GMs who just like the players losing all of the time and twisting every choice into a punishment for the characters. It's staggering to think that you thought that this is the type of campaign that the players wanted after you had agreed to not force the paladin to fall.

As I mentioned if the Paladin had gone to his family he would of found another lead, the player knows enough of my style to know that's what would of happen even if the character did not. So the player had to decide what the character thought was more important his family or his holy mission. Now either way the paladin would not fall as going to his family was good act inspired by love and completing his mission was a good act inspired by duty.

If the Paladin killed the prince he would of fallen but as I mentioned above killing the Prince would have had as bad consequences as not, so the non-fall option was as good as the fall option and the paladin choice wisely. The paladin did try to persuade the Prince not to take the city but failed because the Prince believed it was his divine duty to retake the capital. But if he had instead tried to sneak into the city and then investigated what happened there (mad king, poison etc) he would of stood a much better chance of persuading both sides to a compromise. Now I didn't suggest that approach as an option but that doesn't mean I would of stopped them from trying it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Quote:
One of my players moaned at me what should I do?
Aim for the head and double tap.

From the thread title I thought that it sounded oddly sexual.


magnuskn wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Quote:
One of my players moaned at me what should I do?
Aim for the head and double tap.
From the thread title I thought that it sounded oddly sexual.

I am ashamed that I laughed at that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's so much the 'mechanical' consequences but the fact that the 'narrative' consequences are that $#!t happens to his PC. All the time.

If there are ways out then there need to be clues that lead to that option. It shouldn't be hidden.

Look, you need to talk to your players to see if they're enjoying your campaign and not to us. Our opinions don't really matter and you can't use them to somehow justify your gaming approach if your players don't like it. You can't say "Suck it up!" because the Paizo forum said they like your game style.

Come back and let us know how it went...

Cheers
Mark


One thing we need to remember is that in most books the Paladin is a tragic hero. That most of the time he loses all to save the world. He might die in battle right after he kills the main bad guy. Or he survives the battle but loses he friends. But you can reward him too. If he dies let his name live on in later games, people remember him talk about him. Or if he lives he can train the next line of paladins, becomes an messenger for his god. I know it is hard for an player to go for the tragic hero but if it is done right it will be something that the group will talk about for along time.


Question; do the other characters get the same level of crap in there story? The same hideous decisions with no right answer that affect them personally? I don't object to such scenarios (I'm all about grey morality) but if the Paladin is the only one suffering, then you really need to reconsider why he's the one getting all the crap sent his way. And start throwing him some major bones to make up for the situation.


yes the whole party should be making decisions that are morality gray


were i in pally's shoes, i'd simply come to you and ask: 'since there is no point in playing a good character in this world, may i retire this one and play a more fitting character? i'm thinking a CN master summoner...'

were i a more confrontational sort, i'd likely backhand you and leave.

though, thats mostly because i personally play tabletop games to escape incredibly gritty life. going from the frying pan back into the same would rustle my jimmies something fierce, especially in the situations you've presented.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The OP has not made the paladin lose his powers and that is to his credit. It doesn't mean that the choices he did give didn't have their own problems, though!

He has also shown that he realises that something is wrong and wants to put it right! That displays a good attitude. It's quite brave to suffer the slings and arrows of our criticism, and his posts throughout this thread have avoided an overly defensive tone, and that shows him in a good light as well.

He has come in for criticism here (including from me), and he deserves some criticism.

I'd be interested in what Wind Chime makes of all our...er...'advice'. : )


JonGarrett wrote:
Question; do the other characters get the same level of crap in there story? The same hideous decisions with no right answer that affect them personally? I don't object to such scenarios (I'm all about grey morality) but if the Paladin is the only one suffering, then you really need to reconsider why he's the one getting all the crap sent his way. And start throwing him some major bones to make up for the situation.

Well the rest of the party do get some pretty nasty situations too deal with. For example the rogues main side quest was promoting his father in the election to decide the king of the remnant (think of the Holy Roman Emperor elections). The rogue found the body of a serving maid and a rather grotesque torture chamber whilst snooping around the electors castles (rogues make the worst guests). This meant that he had to choose whether to ignore the find, black mail the elector or seek some sort of justice.

But I have to admit that I haven't done anything as nasty as killing the paladin family to any of the other players and the much more neutral morality of the other players gives them more choice in what they do in the nasty situations I throw at them. If I am being honest I kind of want the paladin to get his hands dirty which is probably the root of a lot of the unfairness on my part.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Ya know, I was thinking Wind Chime was a bit hard on the pally, but then I reread his OP:

Quote:
I have apologized to him and he is still willing to play. So I was wondering what do people think is the perfect scenario for the paladin to shine without any moral quandary what so ever?

So--cool. You listen to your players and adjust (but without compromising your dedication to storytelling). Good on you, seriously. That is harder for a GM to do than said, sometimes.

I would turn around and ask this question to your paladin player -- not looking for specifics, mind. But ask him what specific goals he has, or existing enemies he wants to deal with. Build your idea for his shining moment around his existing goals, rather than inventing necessarily a new threat or scenario.

This could revolve around redeeming his son--while that still offers some grey area possibilities depending on the son's story, creating a scenario where he has a good chance of success could be really satisfying hopefully to both you and the player.

Sounds like there's a lot of political stuff in the world so you might be able to create opportunities to do stuff like discover a shapeshifted demon manipulating political events, or something along those lines (I think I'm repeating a suggestion someone else made, but ah well), or prevent an assassin from killing a good man. Something like that. You might also ask your other players for ideas as well.


Wind Chime wrote:
If I am being honest I kind of want the paladin to get his hands dirty which is probably the root of a lot of the unfairness on my part.

the problem inherent in that is that paladins can't usually "get their hands dirty" without falling, since most people see the paladin code as a pit of banana peels on top of a cliff. if they do anything even remotely dubious most DMs will plunk them down to weaker fighters.

so mad props for not instafalling your paladin, but you gotta realize the wringer you're running him through is fall or fall--you're just not actually letting him fall (I'd've been riding a tidal wave of entrails and the shattered spines of my enemies WAY earlier than he's put up with).

questionable stuff is pretty much the opposite of what paladins do and stand for. the fact that you're twisting his arm for actually playing his class and alignment seriously is kinda mean, for lack of a more fitting but non-insulting word.


Wind Chime wrote:

I have a paladin player in one of my games and he had a rather big go at me this session. When I gm I gm a game that is pretty morally relativist but I agreed with the player in advance that I would never throw a fall or fall scenario at him. But what I have been doing instead is providing optimal greater good scenario's. For example the paladin was on a mission and got an message that his wife was dying, he choice to continue the mission for the greater good (ignore the message) so I killed of his wife and turned his son in an Anti-paladin set upon destroying his father for his betrayal (he believed his father could lay on hands heal her).

There have been several offer examples like this including murdering an innocent prince to stop a war (he didn't thousands died) and recurring villains he wouldn't let the party kill. So when he moaned at me about not letting him have one untarnished moment of glory (paraphrasing a great deal) I could kind of understand where he was coming from. I have apologized to him and he is still willing to play. So I was wondering what do people think is the perfect scenario for the paladin to shine without any moral quandary what so ever?

I have to ask - and this is for other's benefit as well as your own - do you set up similar 'opportunities' for your other players? Is a Wizard ever asked to abandon a quest to come back to his Master/Academy and if he doesn't he'll be refused any additional spells from there on out? Does your Barbarian ever lose his Rage because he followed the laws of a town? Do you even set up similar moral quandries for Clerics?

I ask because all too often, a player running a Paladin seems to become an opportunity for GM's to have a go at them directly in ways that they would never even consider for their other player characters... its a mindset that's easy to slip into because of the inherent code (which I think is a bogus part of the class anyway), but its an incredibly unfair one when you look at the group as a whole.

I'd say the Paladin controversy is about 50/50 players making life miserable for their group because of their strict adherence to 'the code' and GM's acting unnecessarily punitive towards Paladins whether they realize it or not.


Wind Chime wrote:
Well the rest of the party do get some pretty nasty situations too deal with. For example the rogues main side quest was promoting his father in the election to decide the king of the remnant (think of the Holy Roman Emperor elections). The rogue found the body of a serving maid and a rather grotesque torture chamber whilst snooping around the electors castles (rogues make the worst guests). This meant that he had to choose whether to ignore the find, black mail the elector or seek some sort of justice.

While the rogue was campaigning to elect his father emperor, he found blackmail material implicating a potentially useful but emotionally unconnected NPC who he was spying on anyhow. This is bad for the rogue how exactly?

If that's your prime example of a supposedly "nasty situation" that you've thrown at other players then of course the paladin is going to be pissed.

Shadow Lodge

Roberta Yang wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:
Well the rest of the party do get some pretty nasty situations too deal with. For example the rogues main side quest was promoting his father in the election to decide the king of the remnant (think of the Holy Roman Emperor elections). The rogue found the body of a serving maid and a rather grotesque torture chamber whilst snooping around the electors castles (rogues make the worst guests). This meant that he had to choose whether to ignore the find, black mail the elector or seek some sort of justice.

While the rogue was campaigning to elect his father emperor, he found blackmail material implicating a potentially useful but emotionally unconnected NPC who he was spying on anyhow. This is bad for the rogue how exactly?

If that's your prime example of a supposedly "nasty situation" that you've thrown at other players then of course the paladin is going to be pissed.

Agreed. I read the above and thought, "Get back to me when the rogue discovers that his father was doing the torturing and/or disowns the rogue and dies as a result of his actions."

Seriously, the other PCs' family members should be dropping like flies and they should be accused of heinous crimes and not allowed in polite society. Then we're talking fair.

The Exchange

Roberta Yang wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:
Well the rest of the party do get some pretty nasty situations too deal with. For example the rogues main side quest was promoting his father in the election to decide the king of the remnant (think of the Holy Roman Emperor elections). The rogue found the body of a serving maid and a rather grotesque torture chamber whilst snooping around the electors castles (rogues make the worst guests). This meant that he had to choose whether to ignore the find, black mail the elector or seek some sort of justice.

While the rogue was campaigning to elect his father emperor, he found blackmail material implicating a potentially useful but emotionally unconnected NPC who he was spying on anyhow. This is bad for the rogue how exactly?

If that's your prime example of a supposedly "nasty situation" that you've thrown at other players then of course the paladin is going to be pissed.

Had the rogue found the torture room in daddy's home it would be closer to the poking a pally gets


Andrew R wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:
Well the rest of the party do get some pretty nasty situations too deal with. For example the rogues main side quest was promoting his father in the election to decide the king of the remnant (think of the Holy Roman Emperor elections). The rogue found the body of a serving maid and a rather grotesque torture chamber whilst snooping around the electors castles (rogues make the worst guests). This meant that he had to choose whether to ignore the find, black mail the elector or seek some sort of justice.

While the rogue was campaigning to elect his father emperor, he found blackmail material implicating a potentially useful but emotionally unconnected NPC who he was spying on anyhow. This is bad for the rogue how exactly?

If that's your prime example of a supposedly "nasty situation" that you've thrown at other players then of course the paladin is going to be pissed.

Had the rogue found the torture room in daddy's home it would be closer to the poking a pally gets

Heh - only if the Rogue's decision affects whether or not he ever gets to use sneak Attack again...

Silver Crusade

I must admit that, when I read the story about the rogue's father/torture, I fully expected his father to be the torturer. When it turned out that he wasn't I wondered how this was meant to show that the DM was just as harsh on the others!


The rogue's situation is actually a good example of a dilemma where there's a real decision to make and every outcome is neither perfect nor awful. Try giving the paladin more decisions like that, instead of the "Do you let thousands die that you could have saved, or kill an innocent man [in which case thousands still die and it's still your fault]" or "Your wife dies offscreen because you went on an adventure, your son spontaneously turned into hitler, and your dog committed suicide".

In the opening post, Wind Chime, you said you were offering the paladin "greater good" choices. But that's not what you've actually done. Instead, you've offered the paladin "lesser evil" choices - or, to be even more precise, "slightly less completely terrible and grimdark in every way" choices.


Wind Chime wrote:


As I mentioned if the Paladin had gone to his family he would of found another lead, the player knows enough of my style to know that's what would of happen even if the character did not. So the player had to decide what the character thought was more important his family or his holy mission. Now either way the paladin would not fall as going to his family was good act inspired by love and completing his mission was a good act inspired by duty.

If the Paladin killed the prince he would of fallen but as I...

So why exactly is it unreasonable for him to complain then? It seems that his character gets the most crap thrown at him and every important decision will lead to some sort of defeat. When was the last time you didn't attach a negative consequence to the party's success? It's understandable if bad stuff happens if the party screws up, but I don't even see the point in playing a character fighting for good if anything you do will turn out bad in the end.

Silver Crusade

Heh, I bet even the paladin's dog left him...!

I think the way forward for the paladin is to take a dip into the Blues Singer PrC.

The Exchange

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Heh, I bet even the paladin's dog left him...!

I think the way forward for the paladin is to take a dip into the Blues Singer PrC.

Sounds like the foundation of a Country Western song :)

Grand Lodge

Wrath wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Heh, I bet even the paladin's dog left him...!

I think the way forward for the paladin is to take a dip into the Blues Singer PrC.

Sounds like the foundation of a Country Western song :)

Somebody call Hank Williams!

101 to 140 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / One of my players moaned at me what should I do? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.