So i have a plan for my PCs to go tracking down a crazy evil mad person for the sake of the good of the world. I plan on having a scenario where the Paladin is forced to commit an evil act, or have himself, and the rest of the PCs cast into a swirling red abyss (portal) that leads to Hell. (Mind you there are other options for the paladin to take but they will be difficult to spot) Is this a bit too cruel as a GM, am i playing my BBEG too evil, or am I doing it baby bear style and be just right.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Usually forcing a paladin to fall is looked down upon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very evil. But done right it is the BBEG being evil, not the GM, and bringing the BBEG to justice becomes personal.
Just don't strip the paladin of all abilities with no chance for redemption - that would be cruel GM'ing.
But don't forget that some players may opt for the portal (whether as a kamikaze crusade, or because he "thought that where the story was going").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There’s two ways of doing this. One is to be a “Richard’ and give the pally a ‘fail or die’ choice.
The other is to sit down with the paladin’s PLAYER, discuss this OOC in general terms, and see if he’s cool with it. Many players would jump at a chance for a heroic death or maybe even a chance to play the angst-filled fallen Paladin or even that Anti-paladin.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I plan on having a scenario where the Paladin is forced to commit an evil act, or have himself, and the rest of the PCs cast into a swirling red abyss (portal) that leads to Hell.
*Sigh*.
Don't do this.
Seriously... Don't do this.
Making a paladin violate his code is a totally cliche "bad GM" move that will NOT endear you to your players.
Forcing a paladin into a no-win situation is, IMAO, a terrible thing for a GM to do. People who choose to play paladins generally want to be white-hat good guys. Presenting a paladin's player with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" dilemma is sloppy encounter design at best and simply being a jerk at worst. And if you do go down that path, you're only going to sow ill will between you and your players.
I just don't get why so many GMs seem to want to screw with paladins like this. (Other than simply being a jerk, of course.)
A well-played lawful good character of any class will look at the situation you present as a false dilemma and will come up with something creative that does not break their code-- including self-sacrifice if it comes to that.
If I were playing this paladin I would probably refuse to commit the evil action (as I'm assuming we're talking about random murder or some such thing) and get prepared for my one way trip to Hell.
My point being, it's rarely wise to put any player (paladin or not) in a situation where they are forced to make a decision they don't want to make or the entire campaign gets derailed. B/c, in my experience, nine times out of ten, the campaign gets derailed and the game ends shortly thereafter.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah this is going to end well
and since sarcasm does not translate well in the written word I will just say that this is a terrible idea
Of course what you are having the BBEG do is evil and sadistic, even if done to a non-paladin.
It is only a nasty move on your part if the party is not powerful enough to have a chance of surviving and perhaps even triumphing in Hell, in which case the message you are sending is that one way or another you want to get rid of the paladin.
But if the party being cast into Hell is the next phase of the adventure and not their doom, go for it. If I were playing a sufficiently powerful paladin, I would probably enjoy getting to fight all those devils.
Well here is the scenario. A noble's son has been kidnapped and the part has been hired on to track down and bring him back. In one of the fortresses that some of the clues has led them to, in the "final chamber" is a small boy tied to a chair, along with a scrying mirror.
"As you enter the room, you hear the sounds of a child sobbing and muffled cries of help through the rag in his mouth. The scrying mirror comes to life as the man you have been seeking appears, again his face cloaked in shadow."
The room itself is maybe a 25'x 25' room but the the platform is only leaving 20'x 20' of standing room. The remainder of the room is a pit of doom, with a small 5' rope bridge to use to cross into the room safely. The exit to the room is directly across the room with the same rope bridge set up.
"Ahh! It's about time you guys showed up. the shadowed man exclaims. I was getting bored waiting."
At this time the man pulls a lever on his end of the scrying mirror and the doors close (Iron door Hardness 10 120HP) and is flush with the walls of the room leaving nothing to stand on and the rope bridge falls in the pit.
"Now we have party! And for the party trick. You see that boy is the last boy that I have before that pompous noble's kid. But i want to see your resolve in finding him and bringing him home safely. I am behind the door in front of you with the whiney little brat. You there! Holy Knight! If you slay that boy in the chair I will unlock the door and the boy is yours. Become tainted like the rest of the world. If not, (he pulls another lever) the floor beneath you all of you will fall away into that swirling red mist to certain death. I assume mostly, I'm not entirely sure what it does. (maniacal laughter) But should any of you attempt to do this for your tin can friend, I will drop the floor and you all die anyway. Including that brat in there. (another section of the floor drops.) I'd say you have about 30 seconds to aclompish this task of yours holy man. Time's ticking!"
Now what the party doesn't know is that the swirly red mist is a portal to Hell. everyone in the room will be teleported to Hell. Now they can escape from this, but it will be difficult. So with the boy in hand they must find a way back. There will be many options out of Hell as i have planned for it. But if they kill the kid i have planned for that too.
Now is that too evil? Having the threat of a possible TPK (party doesn't know its a portal) or an atonement?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The title of the thread says it all: You're not asking whether an NPC of yours would be committing an evil act by forcing the paladin to commit an evil act, are you? You're asking if YOU would be evil if you do this.
That's the problem right there. You have no concept of what the word "evil" means, in real life, so how can you be expected to understand it as a game concept either?
If I were your player, I would immediately realize that this is not the campaign, and you are not the GM, for me to run a paladin and I would choose whatever "evil" option you have created for me that is sure to guarantee my paladin's death. I would roleplay that admittedly metagame decision by having him choose a "good" heroic death rather than break his vows, disappoint his god, and become evil - for a paladin, this is easy, since he is absolutely unequivocally certain that death means eternity frolicking in his deity's version of heaven.
Then I would roll up a fighter and not have to worry about crap like his in your game anymore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stop thinking about this in-character or from a roleplaying perspective
consider instead how the player of the paladin will react to what you are trying to do
|
In first edition when our group played Temple of Elemental Evil, I was playing a paladin. Due to bypassing Nulb and blundering our way though a secret door in the temple, I found myself fact-to-face with Zuggtomoy at level 4. I told the rest of the party to run, drew my sword and charged her. I was killed in two rounds. The party was able to retreat and avoid bugbear patrols and get out.
Paladins are about self sacrifice and never compromising. If you present the only option as commit evil or die, most will choose death of there isn't a plan C.
well i do want the moral dilemma. I not going to kill the party if the paladin break his vows but i am going to make a neat little bit out of it. I always try to cause moral dilemmas or drama to enhance role play but i never actually go out of my way to kill the character.
I don't actually find the idea as disturbing as some find it. Hard moral choices are often a part of the fantasy genre.
I would, however, probably speak to the player about it privately first. I wouldn't necessarily give him exact details, but I would let him know that I was pondering forcing a drastic moral choice on his character, and would he be okay with that?
yea i have other options. But i only provided the two main options. The rest of the party can be searching for a way out while the monologue is going on. There are options so i'm not immediately condemning them to death. I leave that to traps and monsters, not role play scenarios.
Yeah...that would totally be a craptastic adventure.
As someone who really enjoys playing Paladins, the old moral quandry gig gets old fast. I always choose death or the hardpath or whatever. Thats what paladins do, and they should do it without hesitation. In your scenario Dwarfakin, I wouldn't kill the kid. And if anyone in my party tried I would prevent them. I would let us all go to hell with the (in character) hope of returning and saving the other child. As a player I would know this is very unlikely to succeed and will most likely result in a TPK.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A no-win scenario specifically designed to torture a paladin.
Are YOU evil for designing this scenario?
No, but you'd be a total jerkwad if you ran it.
If I were playing the paladin, I'd walk over to the mirror and shatter it. If that meant a trip to Hell, so be it.
Of course, if I was a player in your group (regardless of whether or not I was playing the paladin), I might very well quit your group then and there. Because deliberately setting up one of your PCs to fall is very much a jerk move.
I wish I had something less harsh to say, but I don't.
As someone who really enjoys playing Paladins, the old moral quandry gig gets old fast. I always choose death or the hardpath or whatever. Thats what paladins do, thats what the should do. In your scenario Dwarfakin, I wouldn't kill the kid. And if anyone in my party tried I would prevent them. I would let us all go to hell with the (in character) hope of returning and saving the other child. As a player I would know this is very unlikely to succeed and will most likely result in a TPK.
An this is how i expect my paladin to react. I've seen his role playing enough to know how he would react.But i have ways where they can fight there way out of Hell. Devils are also LE. While unlikely, the party could potentially make a deal and get teleported back. I got options. I know the job of the GM is to create an enjoyable game with interesting scenarios. Not necessarily trying to kill the PCs.
Does it really seem like a no win scenario?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Putting a Paladin in a position to lose their powers is much like destroying a Wizard's spellbook. It's never a popular thing.
Yes, it is true that the Paladin's code and restrictions are toothless and meaningless if they are never challenged, but so is the Wizard's spellbook limitation, if you never actually have an enemy try to steal, sunder or otherwise destroy it.
In my experience, *some* Paladin players have exactly zero interest in dealing with the consequences and restrictions of the Paladin's code and the possibility of falling from grace as a story element. It's just a fighter-with-kewl-smite-powerz for these players, and they will argue that it's brutally unfair and mean to hold them to the standards written up in their class description. They give a bad name to the rest.
And evil is a squishy thing, up to GM fiat anyway. If a Paladin kills an innocent to save a world, is the act what counts, or the intent? Is like a Constantine moment where God chooses to forgive one evil act, because it was done to prevent a greater evil? Does the Paladin get points for willingly abandoning his Paladin status, for *knowing* that he will lose his grace, and doing what has to be done to save the world anyway? And is that sacrifice cheapened if the god-in-charge-of-such-things chooses to allow him to atone or regain his powers? (Does it count as a sacrifice if you know you can get it back?)
There's a saying that one isn't truly a Samurai until one has been Ronin three times. (Suggesting that the true value of honor is only appreciated by those who have known the bitter taste of dishonor.) Perhaps in falling, the Paladin learns a lesson in humility and self-sacrifice that many 'perfect' Paladins, who would allow worlds to die before giving up the ability to smite evil and a saving throw bonus, have not yet learned, in their hubris and selfishness.
I'd talk it over with the player. He might be *excited* to explore a fall and potential redemption arc. Discuss expectations. Does he want a total do-over, with full Paladin powers re-instated after a quest and atonement dealie? Does he actually like the idea of playing an 'ex-Paladin,' able to, through a Wish spell or some accelerated alternate experience, to transform his 'ex-Paladin' levels one by one into Ranger or Barbarian or Fighter or Cavalier levels, through some sort of 're-training?'
It's his story too, after all.
He might embrace the fall, if it's *awesome.* (and he is then allowed to bring in a new character at the same level, rather than be 'punished' by having to bring someone in 2 levels lower or with NPC WBL or something)
fair enough.
|
|
Does it really seem like a no win scenario?
Unless you have someone with wall of stone prepared to make a new floor that won't drop, yeah. Any way to bypass the trap by magic will be seen via the scrying mirror and the floor will drop. disintegrate/passwall the door? Floor Drop. Someone else kills the kid? Paladin attacks them and floor drop. Paladin kills kid? Fallen. Smash window? Floor Drop. Really the only way out for everyone is Teleport. Cince it's a standard action cast, if everyone is touching then they might be able to get out. Maybe, depending on how fast the floor drops.
well the scrying mirror can only see a certain amount of the room. If the rogue and his ring of invisibility are behind the mirror. Then by all means thats something. What he does from that point is up to him. If the Druid is spending the majority of his time in the walls and floor cause he turned into an earth elemental and can swim through the wall, around the pit of doom and into the room where the BBEG is and pulls the "stop the dropping floor" lever. From what i've seen my party do and i know how clever they are, those scenarios wouldn't surprise me. Like i said they have options out of this no-win, they just have to be clever.
Here's the relevant question that I'm still not sure about:
When/if the party falls into Hell, is that a "Game Over, TPK" scenario, or do you have an epic adventure planned where they have to overcome incredible odds to fight their way back home?
Because if it's literally "Paladin falls or the entire party dies," then yeah, that seems like kind of a dirk move. That said, I don't buy into the Paladin-coddling that I'm seeing a lot of here (I say this as a fan of Paladins). If you want to play a Paladin, that means that you're willing to take the moral high ground even if (and especially when) that means making your life harder... a LOT harder. A Paladin is basically Superman in D&D form - he always does the Right thing, with a capital "r."
Honestly, I think the biggest problems I've encountered playing paladins has to do with the alignment tendencies of other characters. Paladins simply cannot work with some types, and many types of behavior will make working with a Paladin so frustrating as to recommend as re-roll, frankly. So I think an important question to consider here is: Would the REST of the party be likely to take up the BBEG on his offer? Would they be willing to risk getting trapped in Hell in order to protect the life of an innocent? If so, then the question isn't really about whether or not you're screwing the paladin, it's about whether or not you're screwing the party. If, on the other hand, the other PCs would be likely to say, "Sorry kid, we don't have time for this. Say hi to the deities for us," then they probably shouldn't be working with a Paladin in the first place.
Now, I note that your BBEG dialog specifically calls on the Paladin to commit the atrocious act - that's probably a bad call. Make it a choice for the entire party. The Paladin will still oppose it, but it's no longer entirely on him - it becomes less of a "singling out the paladin" situation and more of a "just how righteous is this party" thing. That's much more interesting as an rp situation, and much more likely to create some interesting results.
Does it really seem like a no win scenario?
Well, either I send me and all my friends and a child to hell... or I kill an innocent child and lose all my paladin powers and also fail a quest. These options suck. Most of the fun options are removed by the guy watching us with a door drop switch next to him. If he was watching and I could blow up the door while he screams "What!? No!" then it would be much more enjoyable, but it feels like if I do anything but kill the child or tough it out he'll just pull the switch.
Moral dilemmas are awesome and I love it when there are legitimate options I can make, but this one doesn't give me that vibe. Paladin's have a lot on the line for making drastic decisions, its actually one of the big things I don't like about them. I like being able to make those choices. Paladin's don't give me a feel that its an option, and having a big red target put on me for those decisions for playing the class I least like to make those decisions with is sort of awkward.
Its also important to remember what's obvious to you might not be obvious to everyone else, but I don't know your party.
you know sending the party to "hell" isn't necessarily a "bad" thing I personally have had some pretty awesome adventures down there when my parties decided that they were just going to "jump through that portal" lol. but yeah thats just my opinion XD
Depending on the game and DM I might gladly dive into hell screaming "Adventure!" but in most games I've been in the other players would just give me a bad look I think.
"Kill this boy or you all fall to your doom (no save)" is about as fair as "you all fall to your doom (no save)", IMO -- in some campaigns that would be fine, but in an "average" campaign I'd probably avoid that kind of thing.
If the players all know that this is the kind of game you like to run and they're all into it, go right ahead. But if you don't think they'd enjoy that kind of game, what's the point?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if the fact that one of the PCs is a paladin actually matters. As long as the party isn't made up of evil characters, I'd think most groups would balk at the idea of murdering a child in that type of situation, whether they had a paladin among them or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's assume that the GM (not dwarfakin, just a general GM running this situation) did put this forward as a true no-win situation.
In normal circumstances, I assume that the GM is at least moderately capable and would not construct a truly no-win situation, and would expect a deus ex machina regardless of the paladin's choice.
And if it turned out it really was "fall or you all die"? I would rather know that was the case so that I could never play with that GM again.
I'm not really sure why this bothers so many people. Have you really been in so many games with horribad GMs that put you in actual no-win situations that, when being confronted with a situation that looks like it's no-win, you automatically assume that it is?
I guess if you were doing this with a group of players that were strangers to you it might be questionable, but with a table of friends who know each other and the GM, I feel like such a hubbub about this is pretty silly.
Depending on the game and DM I might gladly dive into hell screaming "Adventure!" but in most games I've been in the other players would just give me a bad look I think.
I'd be in free-fall right next to you, ready to spit in Shaitan's eye.
well the portal to hell opens up an adventure. Should the paladin choose not to harm the boy, but save him, they will all be teleported to hell where they must find a way out. Which BTW there are many. In addition, the deity that the paladin worships, will send an angel to help them trek through plains of hell and help get them out as a reward for being pious and not failing his vow.
That being said, i didn't really think this as a no win situation.
If it came down to it and the paladin (or the party) seemed to feel (in-character or out) that it was a no-win situation, then you pull out the "deity reassures the paladin silently that 'all will be well'" card.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well the portal to hell opens up an adventure. Should the paladin choose not to harm the boy, but save him, they will all be teleported to hell where they must find a way out. Which BTW there are many. In addition, the deity that the paladin worships, will send an angel to help them trek through plains of hell and help get them out as a reward for being pious and not failing his vow.
That being said, i didn't really think this as a no win situation.
While the scenario isn't a no-win (because there is a portal as opposed to certain death), many players would feel that the scenario is a no-win (since they don't know there's a portal). And they might resent that.
I suggest making it possible for the players to realize the swirling red mist is a portal, perhaps through knowledge checks or some sort of arcane writing on the floor/ceiling/etc.
|
The question is, who is being evil: the BBEG or you the DM?
It's you.
You are the one who wants to explore the paladin's moral choice, by a fall (spiritually) or fall (literally) scenario.
Why would the BBEG be interested in the moral agonising of one out of a group of enemies? Does the BBEG know the members of the group personally? Does he know the paladin? Is he his long lost evil twin, and the paladin is the reason mummy doesn't love him anymore?
I get the impression that there is no connection between the two. I can see no motivation for the BBEG letting the party defeat him just because one of them kills a child! If the paladin does just that, why would the BBEG give up? How is this a win for the BBEG when he'll just get killed by the pally as soon as the BBEG voluntarily opens the door?
None of this makes sense for the BBEG. It's just you messing with the player of the paladin.
I bet a stack of gold pieces that high that you would not have created this scenario if there wasn't a paladin in the party. It just proves that there is an irrational urge to mess with paladins just because they exist. It is bad DMing. It is not fun for the player. It is a jerk move.
Does that answer your question?
Good now I don't feel so bad from all the flak that I've been getting. They will be able to identify portal given the checks are made. I didn't design it to be no win, but i wanted it to feel like it. But through all the flak and hate that i have received, I may give more obvious hints that all is not lost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, if the Paladin knows the choice is a portal to hell, with a chance to kill a lot of baddies and maybe get out, fine. But that’s not how you’re presenting it. If I was in a bad mood that nite, I’d simple say “I choose #C” gather my stuff and walk out.
Or have my Pally say“I choose C!” and go for the guy.
Remember the following – you are presenting a lose/lose/lose as even if they do “take the plunge and all die” the likelihood is that the BBEG kills the kids anyway.
So, where’s the “win”? Only *YOU* know there's a win. The PC's don't and the players don't.
A cool way of handling this might be a message while the Pally is doing his morning prayers “You will be presented with a hard choice. To do one is to fail. To do the other is to pass unto hell”
Dwarfakin, the fallacy of your scenario is, if I was the paladin, is the reasonable assumption the BBEG is LYING. IE. I kill the kid and the BBEG laughs and says he was lying and he as no intention of honoring the 'deal'.
That is what I am going to assume so - no deal. The BBEG primary motivation is to make my paladin fall - kill the kid and everything is hunky dory now? Nah... I'm not buying it.
Chances are good your paladin may consider the same thing - the BBEG is lying and is not going to honor any deal.
The way i read it (I know it's diferent, but from the information that the characters get) It sounds like, kill the boy, or you all die. That sounds like the boy dies too.
If I where playing the paladin that would sound like a no win and I wouldn't like it. If they find a way out however, that would feel awesom.
If it was, "you all jump to your doom or I kill this boy here" I'd jump. So maybe that isn't moral dilema enough.
Just wondering, what would hapen if a other character where to kill the boy?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not all DMs are dicks to paladins, but there are so many who are that every player rolling up a paladin will be wondering, 'Will this DM will be a dick?'
But he crosses his fingers and hopes.
Then the DM says, 'Murder the innocent boy or it's a TPK!'
Yeah, cheers! Here we go again....!
I like moral dilemmas and having choices, however I don't like lose-lose situations. From my point of view when my choices are go into the mystery portal to hell and killing an innocent child and lose my class features its lose-lose. Its not really a choice.
I think lose-lose is usually not fun. Especially if your options include getting yourself killed, or if both options get you killed. Its hard to play then. Edit: I should add that you can do it right, but I rarely see that. Its also a deal of presentation.
Saying its okay if it happens in real life is a terrible excuse. In real life we don't fight dragons and if you stab someone 99% of the time you aren't getting away with it by saying he's a bad guy.
How is going into the bowels of Hell because you refused to compromise on morality a "lose" situation? That's an opportunity for some bad-a$$ heroics right there.
Old and busted: GMs who make it hard to play a paladin
New hotness: Paladin players who think it's unfair that the GM ever makes them consider the requirements of the Paladin code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bad collaborative storytelling is usually either-or options. Good collaborative storytelling allows there to be multiple creative ways to deal with the problem.
I take it that murdering the child, then casting resurrection later is not an option? Because that would be, what, wrong?
I take it that there are no casters with illusions that could cover for stealing the child?
I take it that the entire party is not using fly spells?
I take it that one person can't be flying, rescue the boy, while the rest of the party dimension doors to the other room and beats the crap out of your protagonist?
I take it that the party face can't negotiate with the unseen BBEG?
I take it that nobody has disintegrate for the door?
I take it nobody can polymorph the child into a flying creature?
Time stop? Anybody?
And, if they don't have these resources, is it really plausible that the party will survive a trip to Hell?
If you go through with this scenario, I want you to be very forgiving of creative solutions like these and other ones and let the players escape your no-win scenario...
I take it that murdering the child, then casting resurrection later is not an option? Because that would be, what, wrong?
Well, in a word... YES! Do you want to know why? It's that word that you use in the first sentence: "murdering."
Jeez.