Hey folks,
So I am running a Mythic campaign for a party of evil characters. Awhile ago they pissed off their quest-giver the Queen, and she trapped them in Hell. She is seeking to create powerful warriors to fight a greater evil then herself that is prophesied to come, so her object is either to have the party escape Hell stronger, or have her devil minions trap them and strip away their mythic power for her to use herself in the battle to come. While she dislikes some of the party members and would prefer to live, she will allow them to eventually kill her if that is their wish and they are capable of stopping the greater evil.
Recently they attacked a soul forge in order to make an item to help them break the magic stopping them from plane shifting out of Hell. An encounter with a Mythic Pit Fiend [and some bad rolls for them and some good rolls for me turned] turned into their npc healer dead, 2 party members unconscious, 2 party member's surrendered, and 2 stealthy cohorts sneaking away.
Party list is as follows;
Warmonger [Brawler 14/Guardian 7]. He's a CE Orc bent on freeing himself from the Queen's rule and killing her for binding him to servitude in the first place.
Viis [Wizard 14/Archmage 7]. He's a Neutral Damphyr who recently found out he was a reincarnation of an ancient wizard of great power. This discovery led him to re-evaluate his plan to dispose of the Queen and instead to swear loyalty to her. This change in attitude is something she's aware of.
Denat [Gunslinger 13/Champion 7]. He's a alignment less Pale Stranger thanks to the Beyond Morality mythic path. Denat is a strange creature who seems only to live for the taste of battle. As such his loyalties are constantly in question and he's too much of a wild card.
Wilder [Druid 14/Heirophant]. She is a NE Half-orc [reincarnation druid] and the only party member who has never planned some sort of sedition towards the Queen. In truth she was only sent to Hell by the Queen as to keep her loyalty a secret.
So here's what I'm polling the internets for... What should I do with them? Their capture was unexpected [a player not listed didn't show for game and so they were 1 member down]. Idea's are welcome. Some of what I considered is;
Their captors are rivals with the Queen's minions, so may not turn them over right away.
Enslave them, then let them break out.
Take them to have their power stripped, give them chances to escape.
Have allies from their past arrive to rescue them.
Play [and watch] Firefly instead.
Thanks folks!
Enslave them!!! Make it a plot twist! The greater evil could offer them a contract, it helps them escape hell and they must help it overthrow the queen, or they can stay in hell and find their own way out.
+1 on the plot twist. It will create some interesting player interactions. Seems you have 2 who would jump at the deal, 1 who would refuse outright and 1 who would agree only to be a double agent.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Force them to sit in the comfy chair while hitting them with the fluffy pillows.
Actually, I really like the plot twist idea as well.
What does death mean in Hell? Isn't it the case that when you die when you aren't on your home plane, you don't really die, but you are brought back to your Plane of Origin? You can use that.
Or, you can just have dead wake up alongside the captured characters inside a dungeon being tortured to death, revived, then tortured to death again (Hey, you brought up Firefly!). Put lingering curses, taints, mutations, and aberrations on them--personal gifts form the Queen Niska. Give them Regeneration, so you can torture them more. Roleplay it, and get meaner and meaner with them. Make them stew in their own hateful bile until they finally escape or get thrown in some communal oubliette like they say meanders under the castle of Baalzebaal.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Is death a consequence in your game? Or just a financial hit? I would spin something like the ruler of a plane/section of hell gains a % of your soul for the priviledge of being raised (if not done by a PC) all part of the contract package deal of their tour of hell. If anything, it adds to their list of debts they owe.
But then that's just me. I prefer PC death to have story significance especially of we are talking about major players. At least I hope the PC's are at level 20+.
Also the party seems to have really mixed goals and motivations. Are they supposed to be a team, resolve this Highlander style, or something else?
I would either have the PCs made servants outright. This way they can plan their escape/revenge/rematch...maybe with the the help of other slaves/servants. Or the PCs get hired by the other side.
CalebTGordan wrote: Force them to sit in the comfy chair while hitting them with the fluffy pillows. Torture from the inquisition is just mean, man. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Prisoner exchange?
Plot twist sounds fun too.
Either give them a chance to escape with their gear, give them a chance to escape with better gear, or end the game.
Generally, taking away choices and gear is shitty.
Would you want to play a game where your character was a hostage?
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote: Either give them a chance to escape with their gear, give them a chance to escape with better gear, or end the game.
Generally, taking away choices and gear is s~$@ty.
Would you want to play a game where your character was a hostage?
Yeah, I mean press-ganged onto a pirate ship with no gear would really suck...er. :D Agree, it is sucky, but it also can be done well, if the players are good with it and good storytelling.
Yeah, let them go.
Last game where the GM said I was a prisoner, I got up, picked up my stuff and told him "call me when I get to play my character again".
Yup.
They lost an encounter. They should be penalized.
You're gonna have to kill one of the PCs. Probably Warmonger, considering he's the most hostile to the Queen. His mythic power is drained away for her, as she had planned. You could also kill any of the others if you have a good justification and/or if you believe the player is not entirely happy with his/her choice of PC.
Let a player know in advance you'll kill his PC so he can prepare a replacement character.
Twist: the NPC who kills the captured PC will turn out to be the replacement character. So now as their captor, this NPC can either:
a) side with the Queen, and get the party back on track to prepare their escape, while belittling them for being so incompetent; or,
b) say that he/she killed the PC to comply with the Queen but secretly plans to overthrow her, and he/she needs the help of the PCs to do it so he/she's helping them out of their cell before their execution orders come up.
Not killing one of the players seems a bit out of character for HELL.
Devils like contracts and the PCs are desperate, what would they be willing to sign away for their freedom?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Secret Wizard wrote: They lost an encounter. They should be penalized.
You're gonna have to kill one of the PCs. Probably Warmonger, considering he's the most hostile to the Queen. His mythic power is drained away for her, as she had planned. You could also kill any of the others if you have a good justification and/or if you believe the player is not entirely happy with his/her choice of PC.
Let a player know in advance you'll kill his PC so he can prepare a replacement character.
Twist: the NPC who kills the captured PC will turn out to be the replacement character. So now as their captor, this NPC can either:
a) side with the Queen, and get the party back on track to prepare their escape, while belittling them for being so incompetent; or,
b) say that he/she killed the PC to comply with the Queen but secretly plans to overthrow her, and he/she needs the help of the PCs to do it so he/she's helping them out of their cell before their execution orders come up.
Not killing one of the players seems a bit out of character for HELL.
Wow... you must go through players really fast. Not winning=death?
Seriously, your first line of text... "They lost an enounter. They should be penalized."
Jeebus.
Losing is bad enough.
Being punished for losing is just... Republican.
Let them slink away and recover.
Or listen to Secret Wizard, and reward failure with TPW.
Well, if my players get knocked down by, say, goblin raiders, maybe they can negotiate.
If my players get knocked down by sharks, they will certainly die. All of them.
Now, if my players get knocked down by INFERNAL SPAWNS OF THE UNDERWORLD, just to maintain immersion, I'm going to flay at least ONE OF THEM alive. Otherwise, it's not really INFERNAL SPAWNS OF THE UNDERWORLD, right? It's a fricking saturday morning cartoon villain.
Losing something is to be expected in character when you get your butts kicked in Hell.
If you're very, very fortunate, the Archdevil / whatever local boss doesn't take advantage of its superior bargaining position too terribly much. After all, if the characters were beaten so soundly with all of their gear, the gear probably isn't very good from the local boss' perspective. Excepting talismans, larvae or the like - currency type items used on the Lower Planes are probably considered as "payment for services rendered, including not turning your rear ends into larvae/lemurs/etc. because we beat you".
Their souls, however ...
P.S. I do like the "disciplinary flensing", that makes me chuckle and wince simultaneously.
if your plot isn't that time-specific then having them be enslaved for some years/decades would be cool, with periodic changings of the political lanscape above them, and horrible tortures visited upon them ... until that day they break free!
perfect point to introduce new characters if needed as well.
Take them to have their power stripped. Give them (slim) chances to escape and then kill them. Not all adventurers win. Just go George RR Martin on them.
A loss every once in a while makes the wins more important.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
alexd1976 wrote: Wow... you must go through players really fast. Not winning=death? No, but losing often means character death in Pathfinder. The Pit Fiend could have just as easily simply TPK'd the party.
alexd1976 wrote: Seriously, your first line of text... "They lost an enounter. They should be penalized." Right. Losing shouldn't be fun in and of itself. There are consequences to when the party fails. Those vary by party and GM, but a game in which the worst thing you'll ever suffer is a defeat in combat that has no other lasting consequences (including loss of character) I'd get pretty bored.
alexd1976 wrote: Losing is bad enough. Given that the consequence for foes of a party (especially an evil party) on loss is usually death at best, I'm not seeing why having consequences when the shoe is on the other foot is out of hand. Don't be a dick about it, but if you have a mature party then having the party take a loss isn't the worst thing that could happen.
alexd1976 wrote: Being punished for losing is just... Republican. Hey, lets bash on people who's politics we disagree with in a gaming forum! Doesn't seem like trolling at all. 3/10.
Thanks all for the input. I'm reviewing the suggestions and contemplating which way to go. I'm not entirely sure I wish to kill any of them at this time, but weeks or maybe even months of captivity, torture, etc...
Much of which will be told in an general ''Here's how you last few weeks were.'' I don't find it of merit to have them play multiple sessions of essentially prison roleplay.
Oh... or a big ol' Devil Supermax prison might be fun. Like a penal colony or something. Any way, thanks for the suggestions, appreciate more.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Place them in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death, then leave them alone and not actually witness them dying, just assume it all went to plan.
The cool thing about Hell is you can't die until they let you. There are devices and tools that would give you immortality just to end up an eternal siphon of tortured energy. If I remember correctly, Asmodeus has an agreement with Zon-Kuthon, because Kuthites are rather masterful at torture. So the Kuthites generally buy slaves from Cheliax in trade for their skills in maximizing pain and suffering.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
alexd1976 wrote: Yeah, let them go.
Last game where the GM said I was a prisoner, I got up, picked up my stuff and told him "call me when I get to play my character again".
Yup.
In a vacuum, that is more than a little petty and childish.
Maybe go the Sandman Slim route and have them fight in the arena until they escape or win their freedom? If they become the "favorites" of their master, maybe they'll be allowed some leeway and get to assassinate their master's rivals.
Skylancer4 wrote: alexd1976 wrote: Yeah, let them go.
Last game where the GM said I was a prisoner, I got up, picked up my stuff and told him "call me when I get to play my character again".
Yup.
In a vacuum, that is more than a little petty and childish. Only thing petty and childish is you calling him childish and petty. Just because you don't agree with his opinion doesn't make you right and him wrong.
I agree with him. I expect my GMs to be mature enough to understand group dynamics, and provide an equal and fun experience for all at the table, not just a few.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
jtaylor73003 wrote: Skylancer4 wrote: alexd1976 wrote: Yeah, let them go.
Last game where the GM said I was a prisoner, I got up, picked up my stuff and told him "call me when I get to play my character again".
Yup.
In a vacuum, that is more than a little petty and childish. Only thing petty and childish is you calling him childish and petty. Just because you don't agree with his opinion doesn't make you right and him wrong.
I agree with him. I expect my GMs to be mature enough to understand group dynamics, and provide an equal and fun experience for all at the table, not just a few. Please note the qualifier he offered, "In a vacuum" -- I agree, with no other information that situation looks bad on the player.
Just being captured doesn't mean there isn't room for role playing or a fun/equal experience for everyone.
Now if outside of the vacuum we find out that the GM had the character fully shackled, with no equipment, no hope of escape and dominated too and planned to keep the player that way for three sessions then outsider of the initial vacuum of information I fully agree with the player in his response.
But without that extra information we don't really know more than "I don't like what you did so I'm taking my ball and going home."
The thing to remember about table top RPG's is everyone has a ball they can pick up and take home -- players, and game masters alike. The key is finding ways to solve group problems without resorting to it.
Peter Stewart wrote: alexd1976 wrote: Wow... you must go through players really fast. Not winning=death? No, but losing often means character death in Pathfinder. The Pit Fiend could have just as easily simply TPK'd the party. Yes along as it is a TPK then that is cool. No one should be singled out if the whole party lost the fight
alexd1976 wrote: Seriously, your first line of text... "They lost an enounter. They should be penalized." Peter Stewart wrote:
Right. Losing shouldn't be fun in and of itself. There are consequences to when the party fails. Those vary by party and GM, but a game in which the worst thing you'll ever suffer is a defeat in combat that has no other lasting consequences (including loss of character) I'd get pretty bored.
I disagree. Losing can be part of the story. Coming back from a lose to defeat that great power is just as dramatic as defeating the great power the first time. I get you be pretty bored, but remember you aren't the only one at the table.
alexd1976 wrote: Losing is bad enough. Peter Stewart wrote:
Given that the consequence for foes of a party (especially an evil party) on loss is usually death at best, I'm not seeing why having consequences when the shoe is on the other foot is out of hand. Don't be a dick about it, but if you have a mature party then having the party take a loss isn't the worst thing that could happen.
Actually the party losing, if to severe, is the worst thing that can happen to a party. As a GM you have to ensure everyone has fun, which is different for everyone, and not favor any one player, or even seem to favor one player. This even gets harder when comes time to "punish" a party for failure. I always suggest either party wipe or work the failure in as part of the story. The last thing you want is a player sitting at your table for hours doing nothing. Pathfinder is a social game, and every GM could benefit from learning about group dynamics.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I so adore player entitlement.[/sarcasm]
The GM is not being paid, therefor the GM is not doing a job.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Please note the qualifier he offered, "In a vacuum" -- I agree, with no other information that situation looks bad on the player.
Just being captured doesn't mean there isn't room for role playing or a fun/equal experience for everyone.
Now if outside of the vacuum we find out that the GM had the character fully shackled, with no equipment, no hope of escape and dominated too and planned to keep the player that way for three sessions then outsider of the initial vacuum of information I fully agree with the player in his response.
But without that extra information we don't really know more than "I don't like what you did so I'm taking my ball and going home."
The thing to remember about table top RPG's is everyone has a ball they can pick up and take home -- players, and game masters alike. The key is finding ways to solve group problems without resorting to it. I stand by my statement. Even in a vacuum it is not childish or petty. The player, at all times, might never come back to you as a GM. The GM has to be aware of this, and make decisions based on this info. It is up to the GM to determine what is the best way to handle a character being capture with each player, or to simply gloss over it and continue with the story.
The GM is the leader of the group for a reason.
Turin the Mad wrote: I so adore player entitlement.[/sarcasm]
The GM is not being paid, therefor the GM is not doing a job.
I so adore GM entitlement./sarcasm.
The player is not being paid, therefor the player is not doing a job.
The GM did decide to become the Group Leader, and has to deal with what that entails. Learn how to be a good Group Leader.
jtaylor73003 wrote: Turin the Mad wrote: I so adore player entitlement.[/sarcasm]
The GM is not being paid, therefor the GM is not doing a job.
I so adore GM entitlement./sarcasm.
The player is not being paid, therefor the player is not doing a job.
The GM did decide to become the Group Leader, and has to deal with what that entails. Learn how to be a good Group Leader. Are you sure that the GM made that decision?
Edit: Not all GMs elect themselves to the position. I've heard of and seen more than a few - and this is true for me - that are thrust into the position because no one else wants to GM.
Turin the Mad wrote: jtaylor73003 wrote: Turin the Mad wrote: I so adore player entitlement.[/sarcasm]
The GM is not being paid, therefor the GM is not doing a job.
I so adore GM entitlement./sarcasm.
The player is not being paid, therefor the player is not doing a job.
The GM did decide to become the Group Leader, and has to deal with what that entails. Learn how to be a good Group Leader. Are you sure that the GM made that decision? Yes. No one was holding a gun to them. I mean it is called free will.
Also Yes. A GM that automatically decides to be the Group Leader when they decide to GM, otherwise they remain just a player.
jtaylor73003 wrote: Turin the Mad wrote: jtaylor73003 wrote: Turin the Mad wrote: I so adore player entitlement.[/sarcasm]
The GM is not being paid, therefor the GM is not doing a job.
I so adore GM entitlement./sarcasm.
The player is not being paid, therefor the player is not doing a job.
The GM did decide to become the Group Leader, and has to deal with what that entails. Learn how to be a good Group Leader. Are you sure that the GM made that decision? Yes. No one was holding a gun to them. I mean it is called free will.
Also Yes. A GM that automatically decides to be the Group Leader when they decide to GM, otherwise they remain just a player. Hey Folks,
I ask that we try to stay on topic. While there is merit in a player entitlement vs. GM entitlement debate, here is not really the place.
I volunteered to be a GM. I honestly prefer it to playing most of the time. With volunteering I accepted several responsibilities including maintaining the health and happiness of the group within reasonable parameters.
This thread however is about asking for ideas for the situation [which was unexpected]. I personally find it a great opportunity for both character development, role play, and plot twists. On a perhaps more sinister motive, it's also a good opportunity to relieve them of some pesky items/things that have been a thorn in the bad guy's side.
So I would suggest they are about to stand trial.
Breaking and entering, assault, copyright infringement, unlicensed possession of weapons, attempted murder, use of SMD (spells of mass Destruction), burglarly, delay of normal business, misappropriation of company resources.
These are serious charges that carry sentences ranging from life to eternity and massive fines.
I could be persuaded to act as a lawyer for them. After all everyone deserves competent representation before the law.
Maybe they'll try for trial by combat?
jtaylor73003 wrote: Skylancer4 wrote: alexd1976 wrote: Yeah, let them go.
Last game where the GM said I was a prisoner, I got up, picked up my stuff and told him "call me when I get to play my character again".
Yup.
In a vacuum, that is more than a little petty and childish. Only thing petty and childish is you calling him childish and petty. Just because you don't agree with his opinion doesn't make you right and him wrong.
I agree with him. I expect my GMs to be mature enough to understand group dynamics, and provide an equal and fun experience for all at the table, not just a few. Honestly I agree with this statement as well. Not to spark longer debate on it, but without further information a player doing the same at my group would likely be voted out by all players including myself.
That being said, back to the main topic. Here is some additional info about both our play style and other situations involved in the capture.
1. We play with convenience in mind. Not tracking if everyone has 4 gallons of water a day. Most places buy and sell them the items they want. Even in Hell they've managed to find some minions to go do the legwork of magic shopping for them. To that extent, Death is pretty minor speed bump for them. It's pretty much a dirt nap followed by forking over gold/items/spells to get back up. Failure/Death typically results in some loss of time and stuff. I have to admit them being captured has been the first real chance for a ''big negative'' outcome for failure. [I'm not saying this is the best way, just our way for this campaign. Others have been more/less realistic.]
2. There is another ''party'' of Good Npc's nearby that had been temporarily helping them by assaulting another part of the Forge. They were only helping due to a debt owed by 2 of them to some of the party, a sort of ''We'll help you now, but then we're even and next time we meet, we're going to stop you.'' I haven't decided if they also were captured or if I wish them to have a part in the parties escape.
3. The pit fiend encounter did not have to be a fight. He approached them in the forge and offered them a deal. If they kill their Good allies [so the pit fiend didn't have to fight them both off, possibly together] he'd allow them to finish what they were doing, and would even help them provided they left afterwards. Viss replied ''sure, that sounds fair'' buffed twice, and then fired of a spell at the pit fiend.
Thanks for all the suggestions, keep them coming =P
bookrat wrote: CalebTGordan wrote: Force them to sit in the comfy chair while hitting them with the fluffy pillows. Torture from the inquisition is just mean, man. You should be ashamed of yourself. But no one ever expects it!
I kind of like Infernal Contract Broker's idea of a trial.
It would let them use some muscles they usually don't, and if they win, great! If they lose, you can have them try to escape, be rescued, prisoner exchange, geased to do some kind of infernal bidding, executed in an arena, maybe just banished from Hell so you can get back on track with your main storyline.
The trial can be in a court of law, maybe with a jury, maybe before a tribunal of adversarial judges, maybe a good ole fashioned witch trial.
SmiloDan wrote: I kind of like Infernal Contract Broker's idea of a trial.
It would let them use some muscles they usually don't, and if they win, great! If they lose, you can have them try to escape, be rescued, prisoner exchange, geased to do some kind of infernal bidding, executed in an arena, maybe just banished from Hell so you can get back on track with your main storyline.
The trial can be in a court of law, maybe with a jury, maybe before a tribunal of adversarial judges, maybe a good ole fashioned witch trial.
I would have the good npcs be their jurors. After all that would prove the impartiality of the court and allow them to be judged by a jury of their peers (living mortals).
The trial by combat of course becomes even more delicious since they have to fight their jurors as those are the ones judging them.
Hmm, what if a party of good NPCs fights to rescue them, not realizing that they are evil characters? The good NPCs could suffer serious wounds/deaths and barely survive but free the PCs. Then the PCs can choose to either assist the good NPCs for helping them, or do the more typical evil action of killing the good NPCs and laughing about their good fortune.
Redjack_rose wrote: jtaylor73003 wrote: Skylancer4 wrote: alexd1976 wrote: Yeah, let them go.
Last game where the GM said I was a prisoner, I got up, picked up my stuff and told him "call me when I get to play my character again".
Yup.
In a vacuum, that is more than a little petty and childish. Only thing petty and childish is you calling him childish and petty. Just because you don't agree with his opinion doesn't make you right and him wrong.
I agree with him. I expect my GMs to be mature enough to understand group dynamics, and provide an equal and fun experience for all at the table, not just a few. Honestly I agree with this statement as well. Not to spark longer debate on it, but without further information a player doing the same at my group would likely be voted out by all players including myself. If you wanted no more debate on this topic why did you even make a comment on it?? I respected your early request, and wasn't going post any more till I saw this.
You making a comment means you are willing to debate the issue, so let's get to it.
The idea is a player doing this in a vacuum, only qualifier we have is that their character is capture. The player sits at the table, being a vacuum, isn't told or even discuss if they will be able to join in on the game. After a few minutes same player gets up, "picked up my stuff and told him "call me when I get to play my character again"".
Not only do you call this play degrading names, instead of finding out why someone would do this, you would also would vote the person out of the partly.
This is horrible Group Leadership. You lose a member, and also lose trust with other members causing major issues down the line. This may lead to the group breaking up, or even other minor issues becoming problems.
The Group Leader has the responsibility to help solve Group Problems instead of making them worst. That player is upset, and removing themselves from thing making them upset. This is a natural response, and you shouldn't assume that they are only being childish and petty. You should approach the person separately, and determine the issue. If it was because you failed to communicate to the player that they get to play an equal time, then you caused the issue in first place not the player. Communication is another positive quality of a effective Group Leadership.
If these things seem like to much for anyone then they should reconsider GMing over a social game that forms a social group.
jtaylor73003 wrote:
If you wanted no more debate on this topic why did you even make a comment on it?? I respected your early request, and wasn't going post any more till I saw this.
You making a comment means you are willing to debate the issue, so let's get to it. You are correct, I either should have refrained from comment or not ask others to drop it. It's like having my cake and eating it too, and I apologize.
As such, I will comment further only as I feel the need to defend my position.
jtaylor73003 wrote: The idea is a player doing this in a vacuum, only qualifier we have is that their character is capture. The player sits at the table, being a vacuum, isn't told or even discuss if they will be able to join in on the game. After a few minutes same player gets up, "picked up my stuff and told him "call me when I get to play my character again"".
Not only do you call this play degrading names, instead of finding out why someone would do this, you would also would vote the person out of the partly.
The first thing I argue is this point of view of the situation. In a vacuum means that we as the observer are not privy to anything beyond the words and actions put forth. So while we the observer don't know if the player has/will discuss if they get to play their captured character, the player acting does.
Thus in A vacuum we can not assume he will or will not get to play his character. All we have to go off is a reaction which is frankly akin to the player picking up his ball and going home because they don't like the situation
We [or I suppose I] have not not called anyone degrading names. To say an action is petty is not to call the person petty. Great people can do petty things. Only the action has been commented upon.
For more on why this action is petty, see lower in the post.
jtaylor73003 wrote: This is horrible Group Leadership. You lose a member, and also lose trust with other members causing major issues down the line. This may lead to the group breaking up, or even other minor issues becoming problems.
The Group Leader has the responsibility to help solve Group Problems instead of making them worst. That player is upset, and removing themselves from thing making them upset. This...
I would like to begin this part by simply asking if you yourself are a GM of a long running group. I only wish to determine your experience in this matter by this question.
I agree that the GM has a responsibility to help solve group problems, but not ''the'' responsibility. The GM [whether people remember it or not] is only one person and is a player of the game himself [just in the GM spot rather than a player character spot]. Communication and group dynamic is a two way street.
In the vacuum example above, the player picking up their things and saying ''Call me when I can play my character'' is delivering an ultimatum. We can pretty clearly tell from context they are not open to communicating or even attempting to solve the problem in a social manner. They will play when -they- get what -they- want. This is what makes their action petty.
Why would you expect one person to be communicative and problem solving when you would not expect it of the other? When you talk of GM responsibility, you must not forget that all players [PC and GM] have an equal amount of responsibility in terms of social harmony.
To make my last point, talking from a personal level, I do not kick people from my groups. The only time some one is asked to leave is when the group as a whole asks them to leave. Of the few times this has occurred, most of the time I am not even the one to initiate the vote. My groups run themselves democratically and each of us are expected to carry ourselves with maturity by every member of the group.
[I'll post on the actual topic in a moment]
Is the party still in the plane of Hell, if so Hell can be pretty easy because demons and demon lords are always manipulating everything and everyone around them for power. Perhaps this could be an opportune time to introduce this "other more powerful threat". That threat could contact your group by way of some messenger demon, and offer a deal, I'm getting ready to do something similar with my group they are on a current quest to help save one of their own thinking that they are making a demon lord weaker and when they are done they will have just been manipulated into giving the demon lord exactly what he wanted all along. I have a good group and I know this will give them more resolve then ever, and the end game will taste sweet for them (providing they all live of course).
Infernal Contract Broker wrote: So I would suggest they are about to stand trial.
Breaking and entering, assault, copyright infringement, unlicensed possession of weapons, attempted murder, use of SMD (spells of mass Destruction), burglarly, delay of normal business, misappropriation of company resources.
These are serious charges that carry sentences ranging from life to eternity and massive fines.
I could be persuaded to act as a lawyer for them. After all everyone deserves competent representation before the law.
Maybe they'll try for trial by combat?
Hmmm... wow. I actually really like this idea. Devil's would love a trial, and more than likely they would be lawful about it [though not necessarily fair] which means even if the Queen's Minions show up, they may not be able to get the party.
In addition, the trial by combat could be just the excuse I need to have them fight the Good Npc's, which I've been planning for awhile. Or some other kind of weird trial thing... maybe even pull a dark crystal or something lol.
We game on Thursday, so I'll let you all know how it turned out. Still more suggestions are always welcome.
Make them serve a sentence, if it doesn't kill them, like a few years or so. Then during that sentence, a secret "benefactor" will arrange for their escape.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If you go with the trial and they win find them not guilty and have the punishment of banishment to the material plane revoked. Then issue temporary visas to them good for three days. Staying past that point is considered willful forfeiture of their souls to Hell effective immediately.
Do not mention the plane they are on has no effective day cycle.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thanks again all that posted. I think tonight's session went well. I ended up imprisoning them for a few weeks as the Devils waged a legal battle over custody of the prisoners.
During that time, their captures took the cost of their imprisonment out of their stuff and gold [which gave me a chance to dial back some of the overly generous loot I'd previously given them. I took great care not to take anything build breaking], like a race of lawyers would have. This included some attorney fees for some counseling on their predicament. They've been informed that some of their gear was cannibalized, so it's not a nasty surprise for later.
During the court proceedings, they got a chance to speak up on their own behalf. This gave Viis a chance to shine that he rarely gets [as the party face]. While they didn't get pronounced innocent, they did get the trial delayed so the judge could test their abilities and determine how dangerous they really were.
During this I had a fun puzzle run, and now they're standing at the final challenge... scrambling for weapons [since they still don't have their equipment back] in a mine field, while fiendish drakes fly overhead.
Should they succeed, the Judge will offer them freedom in exchange for a quest.
Should they fail, a benefactor is waiting to raise them once the commotion dies down. They can pay off their debt to him later...
|
