Plague-related Revenge


Curse of the Crimson Throne


Hello there, fellow GM's and players. I have a bit of predicament to work with here, as I think I have worked myself into a corner. ^^;

My party had just found the wreck of the Direption, and found out the plague was man-made. Now, I deviated a bit and used an idea here that Ileosa isn't the mastermind behind the eventual evil in Korvosa, thanks to Inspectre, and instead it's Andaisan's retaliation and making the city burn.

Now, the Sorcerer and Paladin of Abadar of the party lost a good friend to this plague, and both have sought revenge on whoever is behind it. The Sorcerer took it hard, and plans on burning her slowly and enjoying every second of it, while the Paladin thinks it's the right thing to do and wants to cut her down for what she did (even though they have no idea it's her yet.)

Anyways, both are motivated by revenge, and the Magus and Brawler of the party support them fully on this decision. I support the Sorcerers outburst, but I tried to tell the Paladin that he wouldn't be motivated by revenge, and instead would want to bring the perp to justice, but he sees the death of a friend as an "eye for an eye" type of justice.

Both drew cards related to the final fight:
"The Trumpet" for the Paladin and
"The Survivor" for the Sorcerer

How would I set this up so both feel satisfied with the eventual outcome? And how do I convince the Paladin to bring those behind it to justice instead of killing them?


Oh my, what have I done? It seems my crazy ideas are spreading like Blood Veil itself! :D

Something you could bring up (more or less verbatim from the Guide to Korvosa) is that Korvosa is a lawful city teetering on the brink of lawful evil (due to its Chelish heritage and various other influences). As such, capital crimes like treason, arson (a big deal in a city lacking modern fire fighting, and with clerics too lazy to spam Create Water apparently), etc. are punishable by death. And torture is also considered a viable punishment for some offenses, so death *by* torture is probably on the table for some things.

For someone like Andaisin or Davaulus, who committed a heinous crime and plotted the death of Korvosa itself? I imagine there are at least some arbiters within the city who would order a very slow, very agonizing death for them (probably not Zenobia Zenderholm, as even with her "harsh punishment" stance she seems to have a heart and is Lawful Good, although I could also see her finding such a punishment just even if she wouldn't order it herself).

So, assuming the players share what they learn with someone like Kroft, you could have her bring this up as a likely punishment following a (undoubtedly swift) trial. It would be hilarious if that led to them killing Davaulus/Andaisin out of a twisted sense of mercy to spare them such a fate! ^^

So, the Paladin drew the card for Davaulus, and the Sorceror drew the card for Andy. You could always have Davaulus surrender when it becomes clear that he's not going to win, and attempt to pull the "I was only following orders!" defense (which is technically true given his association to the Red Mantis). Straight up killing someone who is resisting arrest is one thing, killing someone who is trying to surrender is very different and the paladin should know that.

Assuming you can assure the paladin that capturing people is a viable alternate and Davaulus isn't going to escape from prison and avoid his horrible fate, he should be willing to take the man in. Then of course you can have Davaulus send a message to the paladin that he wants to speak with him about his employers, only to be found dead afterwards as the Red Mantis silenced him to keep their secrets (which ties into their involvement in Book Three onward, and transfers the Paladin's hate for Davaulus/Andaisin to the Red Mantis as a whole).

Andaisin is a lot easier if you're going with the Phase Two "Urgathoa Steps In" part. Hell, play up the horror aspect of it and when Andaisin in human form gets low on health, instead of spending her last turn fighting she curses at them and declares "you don't get to judge me, and you'll never take me alive!" and slits her own throat (coup de grace, which with a scythe means she's dead Jim). That'll be a buzzkill for them, and then when they're trying to stabilize her/stand around her body getting ready to burn it, Urgathoa shows up and Andaisin jumps up for Round Two! Now as an undead abomination, she's WAY too dangerous for the city guard to hold a trial for, so it's summary execution time! BURN THE WITCH! :D And so the sorcerer gets to have the burning Andaisin slowly part.


Some more thoughts I had today.

One other thing that Kroft or some other authority figure might bring up is the idea that while yes, they are legally empowered by the city guard through Kroft's request to hunt down and bring to justice whoever is responsible for the plague, if they just kill Andaisin then they are being selfish.

The sorcerer & paladin will get the catharsis of avenging their friend, but what about all the other people of Korvosa? At best, everyone else in the city who lost loved ones will get to hear "some lunatics released the plague. They're dead now." And that's it. Whereas, if the perpetrators are brought to trial and publically found guilty/executed, then the city as a whole gets to partake of the catharsis of watching them be brought to justice and made to answer for their crimes. So by just up and killing Andaisin/Davaulus when they find them, the party is taking that release of anger and frustration for themselves, and denying everyone else from getting to boo/spit/throw things at the bad guys as they are paraded through the streets in shame.

I think you also have a really interesting roleplaying opportunity here, if you can get at least the paladin's player on board. Rather than trying to force him to want to bring Andaisin/Davaulus in to face trial (which is just going to make him defensive - players tend to have a real bug up their butt when told what their character thinks/should think) you should confront him with the teachings of whatever god the paladin serves. If it's someone like Calistra or an evil god (paladin of evil? o_O) they're probably all for the paladin taking matters into his own hands, and then it's just him versus Kroft/other leaders wanting to make this into a trial instead of a summary execution.

But, what's more likely I would think is that the paladin is a follower of Iomedae or Sarenrae or Abadar, all of whom probably *aren't* cool with the paladin stabbing Andaisin in the face after she goes down, or standing by and just watching the sorcerer torturously burn her alive (without a trial anyway). And that's fine - the paladin is a person, s/he should be allowed to be really pissed off when the bad guy/gal does something incredibly heinous like unleash a devastating plague on their home town. *BUT* they are still a representative of their god and an exemplar to the community - if they're going around smiting people who've pissed them off, even if those people deserve it, what does that say about rule of law? Why shouldn't everyone be taking the law into their own hands then?

Set up that struggle for the paladin - he can take that revenge and satisfy that burning righteous anger deep inside, or he can do the "right" thing, follow the tenements of his god and support the rule of law, and bring Andaisin/Davaulus in to face trial. If he chooses revenge, that's fine - don't make him/her fall for it, that's boring. But make his/her god unhappy, fellow members of the Faith unhappy, and he's set an example to the people that it's okay to take revenge and take matters into your own hands (for example, maybe the Grey Maidens, assuming that the party does have a falling out with the queen at some point, or some other authority, decides rather than taking the party in for questioning they'll just declare the party guilty and attack them with intent to kill right here and now. Or maybe some mob justice happens in Old Korvosa, due to rumors that the heroes of Korvosa who ended the plague, struck down Andaisin themselves, so who needs the courts?)

Set this up as an informed choice that the paladin (and the rest of the party) is making, and that there will be consequences for either choice. And then have logical consequences roll out from whichever choice is made, with an eye towards giving more roleplaying opportunities rather than punishing the "wrong" choice.

Dunno if that makes sense or not, I was kinda rambling there.
But to sum up:

Work with your players, regardless of what they want to do, even if you think it's stupid or a mistake - just make sure there are logical consequences for it. And that while they are free to think and act however they want, other people have certain expectations of them because they're the heroes - especially people like the paladin, who is meant to be an example to the people. Some of the most satisfying moments for both DM and players is when things go "off-script" a little bit, and you spin out something new and unexpected from what one of your players does/wants to do.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Curse of the Crimson Throne / Plague-related Revenge All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Curse of the Crimson Throne