I think the other thread on paladins is continuing to drift too much into the general "paladins and LG alignments" topic. I would really like specific responses to my questions about having a pally in STAP and what to do if he (rightly, I think, according to who and what he is) refuses to make abyssal "deals" as written. As the GM, do I absolutely need to have good planar ally alternatives for the abyssal allies they could recruit?
I really don't want this to become another thread about "well, pallies are LG, so they are... (some theoretical thing)". For the sake of argument, let's say that the pally I'm DMing for will probably be a paladin of Pelor, and I'm not the kind of DM who is afraid of pushing them into a Fall if they go bad. However, I'm not someone who would insist on a Fall if they can logically show me that they're still consistent with working toward the greater good and aren't being hasty in taking the easy path.
I would love opinions on specifically whether or not a pally could logically get through some of the infernal deals without it counting as a step toward a Fall. For example, is there a way for a pally to actually make the deals (as written) with Iggwilv or Malcanthet - if not, what deals would the evil baddies agree to? I'm totally okay with making it hard, morally ambiguous, making the pally soul-search, all that good stuff, but what minimum agreements would Iggy and Mally grudgingly agree with given that it's their own domain and all?
Laeknir
Paladins can play Savage Tide as easilly as they could play Shackled City or Age of Worms. Will there be elements in Savage Tide that make paladins uncomfortable? Absoltely. Will there be encounters that become more dangerous and more difficult to accomplish if there's a paladin in the party. Certainly. That's nothing new, though, as far as D&D campaigns are concerned. Paladin players will definately be faced with some difficult moral and ethical decisions, but isn't that one of the things players of paladin characters expect (or even look forward to)?I love RPing moral conflict and all... but from just a practical standpoint, supposing a Paladin gets far enough in the STAP that they're talking to Iggwilv etc, is there any option left to them at that point? Aren't players pretty much required to make the various (evil) deals such that they can confront the big D? Seems like making most (if not any) of those deals would just be a deepening fall for a Paladin.
Is there a way for any party member to win through the AP without making the evil agreements at that point? As an example, a Paladin might try to put conditions on Iggwilv's demand for a future favor - could he get away with it, or is s/he locked into an open-ended "anything you want, Iggwilv"? And later into it, how could a Paladin possibly interact in Malcanthet's court? Would s/he just stay on the boat?
I'm just trying to be ready for it when this part of the AP happens. I'm not arguing that I *shouldn't* DM someone's fall, but I'm just wondering how a clever pally might or could weave through the STAP's "dealmaking" without losing their abilities. Not having DMed an abyssal adventure quite like this, I'd love some ideas.
Creative Director
|
Well... hopefully, by the time you get to the last few adventures, your players will already be somewhat "used" to workng with evil and/or chaotic allies. Ever since "The Bullywug Gambit," where you have a chance to ally (sort of) with Harliss, on up to Lightless Depths (working wtih troglodytes and perhaps aboleths) and Serpents of Scuttlecove (working with Tyralandi or Kedward), the theme of "allying with those who might normally be your enemies" has continued. This is intentional; not only is it one of the campaign's major themes, but it sets the PCs (hopefully) in the right mindset so that by the time the campaign's drawing to a close, allying with demons to fight even worse demons won't seem so farfetched. Especially if you, as the DM, have shown the PCs that not every alliance with a bad guy ends with the bad guy betraying the party.
If, by the end, the paladin suddenly decides that he wants to be difficult and doesn't want to ally with demons or eladrins, I'd honestly treat that in the same way I'd treat a player who was hell-bent on playing an assassin who tries to steal from and/or kill PCs or their allies. Both are disruptive to the game. Ask the PC to retire the character and give him the option of building a replacement PC, one with an equal amount of XP and gear to his paladin.
One thing DMs of Savage Tide should also strive for/remember; don't go all hard-core on the alignment thing with any paladins in your group. Paladins should be about the greater good and law rather than the immediate good or law; otherwise, they end up doing a lot more damage than anything else. Lawful Good does not mean "Blindly Follows Tradition and Doesn't Acknowledge Gray Areas of Morality."
Ahazu: No, the Paladin could not consciously agree to Ahazu's deal without Falling. Pledging your soul to a Demon Lord and agreeing to procure a sacrifice of primeval power is bad, and in classic D&D the ends do not justify the means. On the other hand, Ahazu's deal is obviously for suckers and the non-Paladin PCs might not be willing to consider it, either, so I'd give the Paladin the benefit of the doubt and try to come up with a way around the deal. Maybe Ahazu can be bargained down. Maybe there's another way to free Shami-Amourae. Maybe independent in-game PC research will lead to Iggwilv, thereby rendering Shami-Amourae irrelevant.
Iggwilv: As written, the party never actually promises Iggwilv anything. She blithely announces that she sees fit to cooperate with the party for now, and later on she announces she will be demanding a favor later. The party is able to bargain down the favor when she reveals it (and in fact, the favor is not particularly alarming) and she does not have any DM fiat method of ensuring they pay up.
Orcus: A temporary ceasefire does not constitute an infraction on the Paladin code. If it did, causing a Paladin to fall would be a simple matter of sending two evil minions to attack; if the Paladin chooses to attack one over the other, allowing the other to survive for that round would similarly constitute an infraction, and of course not attacking either constitutes the same infraction. Therefore, this cannot possibly be an infraction or Paladins would be a logical impossibility.
Morwel: Associating with chaotic creatures does not directly constitute an infraction of the Paladin code.
Malcanthet: No, you can't really accept her terms without Falling, but you don't have to give her what she wants. Load up on Mind Blanks and Death Wards so she doesn't give you her profane boon (the malicious form of the Queen's Kiss is another matter, and not an infraction because it is not consensual) and Sleight of Hand the Iron Flask. Or if you must, fetch Crimson. Even though most PCs will probably realize what's going to happen to her, it is not a responsibility of a Paladin to shield evildoers from the consequences of their behavior.
Obox-Ob: Securing Obox-Ob's assistance is, itself, kicking evil booty and sealing it in a can, and is therefore acceptable.
Bogromar: Once again, intimidating evil minions into surrender to your goals is acceptably within the Paladin modus operandi.
...One thing DMs of Savage Tide should also strive for/remember; don't go all hard-core on the alignment thing with any paladins in your group. Paladins should be about the greater good and law rather than the immediate good or law; otherwise, they end up doing a lot more damage than anything else. Lawful Good does not mean "Blindly Follows Tradition and Doesn't Acknowledge Gray Areas of Morality."
I get the whole gray areas deal, and it's what will make the adventure fun... I guess what I'm asking more about is: what would Iggwilv, Malcanthet, and so on, agree to as a minimum for their efforts against the big D?
If one or more players think that open-ended "favors" to demons and LE/CE baddies is just too much to ask for, what could Iggy and Mally be bartered down to, realistically? What could a LG cleric or pally actually get away with, in terms of getting these big bads to agree with the alliance?
My whole intent is to DM these demons in a moderately realistic way, and I'm just not used to abyssal adventures.
Contributor
|
Just a side note: Complete Scoundrel does have some rules for modified Paladins that operate more on "The End Justifies the Means" level, who might be able to a) make more concessions to fight a greater evil and b) make deals with evil beings with no intent of fulfilling their side of the deal.
I don't recall exact details at the moment.
|
James, I'm afraid I must disagree. The paladin, by definition, is supposed to be an exemplar of Law and Good, but especially Good. They cannot knowingly commit an evil act, even for "the greater good", because that would allow a victory (however small) for evil.
The discussion on the nature of Good, especially paladinhood, in BoED has come firmly down on "the ends do not justify the means" side, otherwise Evil wins. Making a treaty with one demon to overthrow another still advances the cause of Evil (and to a lesser extent Chaos) and gives it power over Good (ie the paladin).
The paladin code does not say that they can't deal with chaotic allies, so eladrin and the like are okay since they advance the cause of Good. There would be a considerable amount of head-butting over the methods of said allies, just not a moral quagmire from dealing with evil ones.
Similarly, non-evil outsiders would also be a good potential source of allies. Inevitables and Justicators (LN) would be prime candidates. I mean, they just so cool! :)
Part of the main issue, I think, is that many people are looking at this from the perspective of the DM. Take it from the players' perspective, and it gets a lot more sketchy.
Making deals with the devil is a common staple in fiction, particularly fantasy. We can all pretty much appreciate (unless it's a tragedy or an examination of moral philosophy), that in reading "deals with the devil" fiction that the heroes will come out on top.
But in roleplaying these adventures, particularly RPing LG, NG, and CG characters, we're asking players to do their best with moral and ethical questions given the fact that they might fail in their goals and their dice rolls. Their job being good-aligned PCs, largely, isn't just about getting the loot and taking the path that is "for the greater good". If the campaign world is one that endures for the DM and players (maybe they'll need to roll new PCs when they fail, but the world goes on), they should consider what will happen if they fail.
If they're good RPers, they will. Making open ended deals with demons, or even deals that just advance the cause of evil, is bad news and they should seek to minimize how much they are advancing the cause of evil. After all, as good RPers, they should want to see their character's soul get their reward in the afterlife with their deity (deceased High Cleric of Pelor: "Oh, heh... that whole thing with Malcanthet? Can't we just gloss over it, as we were convinced we'd win? Please? No? Darn!"). They should want to see the cause of good advanced for the world, even if they can't stop the big bad villain. Good RPers should be concerned as well about their reputation while they're alive as well as when they're gone, and what their actions might say to petitioners to the church they represent.
Really, I'm not trying to be difficult. I just know that I will be DMing a group of high RPers and I'm looking for some advice on how to run this really interesting and provocative abyssal adventure. I want to do it well, so I'm looking for the threads of how Iggwilv, Malcanthet, and the rest might possibly be manipulated such that the balance really isn't in their favor but the PCs get what they need.
Ahazu: No, the Paladin could not consciously agree to Ahazu's deal without Falling. Pledging your soul to a Demon Lord and agreeing to procure a sacrifice of primeval power is bad, and in classic D&D the ends do not justify the means. On the other hand, Ahazu's deal is obviously for suckers and the non-Paladin PCs might not be willing to consider it, either, so I'd give the Paladin the benefit of the doubt and try to come up with a way around the deal. Maybe Ahazu can be bargained down. Maybe there's another way to free Shami-Amourae. Maybe independent in-game PC research will lead to Iggwilv, thereby rendering Shami-Amourae irrelevant.
Iggwilv: As written, the party never actually promises Iggwilv anything. She blithely announces that she sees fit to cooperate with the party for now, and later on she announces she will be demanding a favor later. The party is able to bargain down the favor when she reveals it (and in fact, the favor is not particularly alarming) and she does not have any DM fiat method of ensuring they pay up.
Malcanthet: No, you can't really accept her terms without Falling, but you don't have to give her what she wants. Load up on Mind Blanks and Death Wards so she doesn't give you her profane boon (the malicious form of the Queen's Kiss is another matter, and not an infraction because it is not consensual) and Sleight of Hand the Iron Flask. Or if you must, fetch Crimson. Even though most PCs will...
Ahazu: Oh, yeah, his request is SOOO unreasonable. "Please fill my prison with big nasty evil creatures!" Mind you, the players have no clue whatsoever that this is empowering him in any way. He could be just a very proud prison warden who likes keeping powerful individuals for his own sick pleasure. Considering the level of play for epic creatures, the access to resurrection, wishes, miracles, and plain ol' immortality... Well, you need something like this to make sure big bads don't rear their ugly heads. The players don't have to pledge their souls to him, they just have to agree to forfeit their souls should they not come through on a deal... Which a lawful person would anyway. Which brings me to...
Iggwilv: Despite the fact she could totally dismember a party of 20th level character without breaking a sweat, the players don't have to follow through on their deal. But they should! Any good or lawful characters should want to stay true to their word. I think lying so flagrantly is just as likely if not more so to make Paladin fall. At least allying with these forces of darkness is done in the greater good. Being petty jerks is just pathetic.
Malcanthet: You don't have to accept her gifts, that's true. However, I don't remember a kiss from a demon being against the Paladin code. Sure, eating a baby with a demon, that I can see. But a kiss? Come on! And besides, chances are the Paladin won't have the lowest charisma, so he won't be asked anyway. In the end, she's been the most helpful during the campaign out of everyone and her demands don't seem terribly unreasonable to me, considering what she is and what she's offering. OH, and the matter of just using "Sleight of Hand" for the Iron Flask...
A) How would the rogue get close enough to steal the Flask unless he was to be kissed?
B) Before she shows it to them, when it is then IN HER HANDS, the players don't see it on her. So why would the rogue even think to try to steal it???
C) Stealing an artifact off of the body of a demon lord in their kingdom... Well, that just makes the sense that isn't good.
Your other arguments I agree with.
|
Creative Director
|
James, I'm afraid I must disagree. The paladin, by definition, is supposed to be an exemplar of Law and Good, but especially Good. They cannot knowingly commit an evil act, even for "the greater good", because that would allow a victory (however small) for evil...
And in that case, I'd suggest that a player in Savage Tide choose a less disruptive character to play. In some ways, it'd be like running an adventure that's 90% constructs and undead and having a player play a rogue or an enchanter.
Personally, I prefer to play it a bit more loose with the enforcing paladin actions. If you play it hardline... the game breaks down unless EVERYone in the party is Lawful Good. An all paladin party's not a bad idea, actually, but I wouldn't take them on Savage Tide. Age of Worms is a uch better run for paladins.
Meh. They should be prestige classes anyway.
Meh. They should be prestige classes anyway.
Heh, I've toyed with that idea for my homebrew. I haven't implemented it yet (since none of my players were overly interested in playing one), but in theory it removes the "cavalier" feel of the paladin and replaces it with the "holy warrior of their deity" feel. Though warrior would be a relative description since you could have wizard-paladins, monk-paladins, etc.
...boon (the malicious form of the Queen's Kiss is another matter, and not an infraction because it is not consensual) and Sleight of Hand the Iron Flask.
Hm... I think she'd notice, given the implication of where she's playing "hide the flask". I doubt any modifier would be high enough. Heh.
As a DM, my interpretion of the Paladin code is not as myopic as others make it out to be, so a Paladin isn't automatically screwed by making deals, when I DM.
That said, if the player of the paladin was playing very strictly with the code by choice, as DM, I would take him aside and let him know what will be demanded of him and that if he really has an issue with it (virtually two whole adventures), that I will make allowances for him to run another character.
As a player, if the paladin character is going to dig in his heels in a big way about staying true to the code, my character is going to advocate leaving the paladin behind for deal making portions (he can guard the Sea Wyvern). Someone who feels honor bound to strike down demonic bad guys is going to be a big time liability to the party otherwise.
One thing, I think, that's being overlooked here is that if the paladin could potentially have a major issue with all of the deals with abyssal powers, perhaps he should take it up directly with his deity. I mean, there's no reason the paladin couldn't plane shift to the realm of his God and petition him/her for an audience where the problematic situation is laid out for the Celestial Power to judge.
This way, the DM can play the part of the benevolent deity and give the paladin his/her personal stamp of approval and some directions on how to play out this whole thing.
With epic levels just a hop-skip-and-a-jump away, you can set up an ongoing campaign into 21+ level. Perhaps the paladin is given celestial "tracers" or "bugs" to place within the demesnes of these powerful creatures that are undetectable so that when all is said and done, the paladin's celestial allies can gate in and lay the holy butt-kicking down. You could even make the paladin some kind of military leader of his own holy hit squad of celestials.
Those are just my ideas at a glance. Think of this in a larger picture of events instead of "well he made some dirty deals and now he's going to have to pay for his transcretions against his code". Try, he's setting these Abyssal powers up for a fall and thus serving the greater good AND serving the personal interests of his deity. The stereotype of paladins not having any kind of guile is lame and tired. Your paladin should absolutely be as underhanded and sneaky with the forces of evil and chaos as they are with him. The difference is that the paladin should be careful to be honest to a fault in his bargains. Omitions are not an act of evil, just a clever way of letting his enemies think they are getting what they want. For example, Iggwilv wants the Flask of Tuerny the Merciless. The paladin can simply tell her, "I will get the flask that you want, Madam." Nowhere in that statement has he said that he is going to give it to her so he isn't lying, only saying that he'll get it. If he studies up on it, who knows maybe he can use against her.
Ahazu: Oh, yeah, his request is SOOO unreasonable. "Please fill my prison with big nasty evil creatures!" Mind you, the players have no clue whatsoever that this is empowering him in any way. He could be just a very proud prison warden who likes keeping powerful individuals for his own sick pleasure. Considering the level of play for epic creatures, the access to resurrection, wishes, miracles, and plain ol' immortality... Well, you need something like this to make sure big bads don't rear their ugly heads.
Based on the text in the module, this particular prison has a retainment rate for important prisoners that is barely in excess of 50%. It is extremely probable, based on the facts in the text, that if you offer Demogorgon to Ahazu, Ahazu will happily trade Demogorgon away for some other prisoner, or for the souls of the bargainers if they fail to acquire that prisoner.
The need to find a permanent solution to the Demogorgon problem is not a credible reason to deal with Ahazu.
The players don't have to pledge their souls to him, they just have to agree to forfeit their souls should they not come through on a deal...
The deal demands a [u]CR 24[/u] creature. I don't know if you've noticed, but the only CR 24+ creatures that have popped up so far in the adventure path are Iggwilv, Orcus, Gwynharwyf, Morwel(probably), and Malcanthet. If you genuinely think the PCs can trivially capture one of these beings and deliver them over to Ahazu, then why shouldn't they just skip straight to Demogorgon, since she's roughly on the same level?
Nope. Assuming that there's going to be a handy CR 24 creature placidly waiting for the PCs to capture it within the next 66 days is called "metagaming". From the PCs' perspectives, the PCs are offering their own souls to Ahazu, with a lunatic escape clause they can dream about but not really believe in. Or justify morally.
Which a lawful person would anyway. Which brings me to...
Lawful does not mean you must submit to sucker deals.
Iggwilv: Despite the fact she could totally dismember a party of 20th level character without breaking a sweat, the players don't have to follow through on their deal. But they should! Any good or lawful characters should want to stay true to their word. I think lying so flagrantly is just as likely if not more so to make Paladin fall. At least allying with these forces of darkness is done in the greater good. Being petty jerks is just pathetic.
Please show me exactly where in the text Iggwilv pauses to determine whether the PCs are willing to agree to her terms. First, she declares that she'll aid them. Second, she declares that they owe her. Third, she threatens them. Fourth, she plows immediately into her lecture, all in rapid succession in boxed text without waiting for a response.
And no, being lawful or good does not mean you cannot negotiate down the terms of a deal. Iggwilv herself offers them an escape route: they can have her try to extract her price from their dying souls. CR 30 isn't really insurmountable against an entire squad of CR20+ PCs, especially when the CR30 is a solo caster.
That said, the PCs are likely to be relieved to learn that Iggwilv can later be bought off with a magical trinket.
Malcanthet: You don't have to accept her gifts, that's true. However, I don't remember a kiss from a demon being against the Paladin code. Sure, eating a baby with a demon, that I can see. But a kiss? Come on! And besides, chances are the Paladin won't have the lowest charisma, so he won't be asked anyway.
Accepting a profane bonus is an evil act. This is the definition of profane, and it is what makes the bonus profane rather than some other bonus type.
As for why it is a profane bonus and not, say, a morale bonus, the kiss of a succubus is a violation of purity and goodness, and to voluntarily accept the Queen's Kiss is to voluntarily allow her to taint your own goodness. Tainting goodness is by definition evil.
In the end, she's been the most helpful during the campaign out of everyone and her demands don't seem terribly unreasonable to me, considering what she is and what she's offering.
She's been the most manipulative over the course of the campaign, which is different than being helpful. In any case, the PCs probably don't actually know that. All they know is that her bargaining involves a lot of magical attacks directed at them. This does not seem helpful to me.
OH, and the matter of just using "Sleight of Hand" for the Iron Flask...
A) How would the rogue get close enough to steal the Flask unless he was to be kissed?
The adventure assumes the rogue gets within 30ft, the bounds of which are explicitly clear of obstruction. At that point, it's a move action and a standard action, against a flat DC20. And if the party rogue has Sleight of Hand, this is exactly the situation the party rogue spend all those skill ranks FOR.
B) Before she shows it to them, when it is then IN HER HANDS, the players don't see it on her. So why would the rogue even think to try to steal it???
Iggwilv told them she had it, and Malcanthet brings the Flask out before they go to fetch Crimson, and regardless of whether they accepted the profane bonus part of the Queen's Kiss.
Remember, the interaction with Malcanthet assumes the PCs failed 5 Diplomacy checks.
C) Stealing an artifact off of the body of a demon lord in their kingdom... Well, that just makes the sense that isn't good.
The PCs have already been taking stuff from other sentient beings for 19 levels. If that was enough to Fall, then it would already be accomplished.
hehe, I find myself in strange agreement with Koboldlord (again)
... but since I also subscribe to the viewpoint that deities actually want paladin's serving them, and are worthy of their ( by definition rather selfless and exemplary ) service, they must themselves adhere to those standards !
And yes, hardly any greek god or goddess for example qualifies as lawful good to my mind under this basic tenet ----> looking at their antics throughout the Greek legends - like allegedly "lawful good" Athena slaying all of Niobe's children or cursing Arachne to spiderhood simply because they even _dare_ to compare themselves to the goddess ? LG... muahahaha ! But I disgress... )
Basically, a diety with paladins serving in its name should know by heart the problems of their agents (they have generation of experience with those ) , and treat them with the respect (and possible forgiveness ) that they deserve. Or, they simply have no paladins.....anymore.
If a paladin would fall ( and probably a mighty one, a rare and cherished pawn, since the relevant parts of the STAP are the 16+ levels ones), the deity in question would likely send a servant to deliver sentence on his treasures wayward follower, and in all fairness hear (if he doesn't know in detail yet ) the paladin's side of things as to "why and how" he/she acted. And then pass judgement - and grant forgiveness, maybe at a price....
Let's remember - these are LAWFUL guys, who believe in rules and obedience, fairness and goodwill to everyone through these means and are not into arbitrary tyranny for the sake of obeying the rules.....
So, if a paladin makes a deal with Malcanteth to rid the universe of Demogorgon... that might just fly, especially if the paladin therafter zealous resumes fighting Malcanteth again (perhaps even prompted by a Geas/Quest, lest he forgets or dawdles....) .... but if a paladin of Pelor, who is famously anti-undead-minded closes and honours a deal with Orcus, prince of undead, which leaves the later with one less great competitor and hence stronger in the bargain..... now THAT might be unforgivable (and probably rather obviious to the player, right ?) ! Welcome to the ranks of the Grey Guards...
In that case, perhaps the paladin (his player) might instead try to broker some assistance from his own deity's followers or allies ?
So combining Pett's and Uzagi's idea's. A paladin knows there are rules she must follow and not following those rules has certain consequences. As long as the paladin is willing to accept those consequences she can still consider herself lawful. On one hand she gets permission to work a questionable idea. On another she willingly succumbs to whatever atonement/quest her deity wants. On the other other hand she agrees to enter Ahazu's prison. This not only protects her allies, but denies Ahazu a powerful (cr 24) soul. Protection, self sacrifice, and denying evil all fall in the realm of paladinhood.
Personally I like the later quest to atone for sins, just because it can be tailored to a paladin PC who was willing to put in the RP. As far as running it, I might ask another PC to rp the demon and as gm you can sit in the diety's watching over-your-shoulder-waiting-for-paly-to-make-the right-choice. (or you can add a line about her holy symbol warming with the diety's attention, a glowing avatar in the corner, etc.) Whatever choice the player makes can be 'approved' by deity. Personally my barometer would be if the pali were to put in the effort to rp (not just odds I accept, evens...) and more importantly is having fun with the dilemma, they have made the right choice.
Thanks for the Kudos, but the whole Ahazu problem is the one thing in the adventure path that is truly ... screwy.
Off-hand agreeing to sacrisfy a CR 24 (how does a paladin ingame judge this "quality" btw... very much metagaming, sorry to say - or do Malcanteth, Iggvilv& company a special tag reading "we can be used to redeem your Contract with Ahazu" ? lol, just kidding.... ) to a known Evil entity (one who already has a pretty unique and disturbing power to begin with....... for an unknown (and in the eventual outcome, close to worthless) gain ?????
Having read EomE by now, I find myself even more appaled then I was when the big WoD debate was going on in June ,
Even if the sacrificed a single larvae fthat would be...... beyond the pale ! Taking and destroying helpless lives to placate a powerful being.....
Selfish. Lazy (there are other ways to find out what the players actually get to know from Shami ). Cruel.... Irresponsible,too, considering the calculated 50% escape chance from the Wells... and without much haggling agreeing to a bargain offered by a Demon Lord, which is by his very nature guaranteed to confer to him a selfish and significant advantage ?
Oh, the paladin cannot sacrifice himself either, since that would undercut the entire bargain - he has already agreed to volunteer his soul (along with those of his comrades) sixty-six days hence.... if a single one could free the others by "giving himself up"..... lol, ahazu would be out of business !
That contract is IMHO ( there definitely are disagreeing voices, say JJacobs ) a surefire way to fall - and stay fallen. Since there is an "exalted" character in our group (who basically faces the same problem as a paladin ), WoD will be effectively replaced in our STAP (some work, but EomE is too much fun to miss out on ), since it will be a insurmountable problem for the group as is, and will certainly cause frustrated consternation. YMMV
Oh, and the "exalted" character came into play long before the final parts of the STAP were published, so there was hardly any way to know he would be a 'disruptive' factor....
............. but the paladin code clearly says that if you knowingly do an evil deed that you're no longer a paladin. No second chance, no atonement, nothing. The paladin is now basically a high level warrior class character.
Without intending to be the advocatus diaboli..... but I would like to point you in the general direction of the actual text of the "Atonement" spell ( PHB 3.5. second printing p.202 )
"Restoring class - a Paladin who has lost her class features due to commiting an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell"
Which obviously contradicts your point of view. There is still the question of the diety actually viewing the evil act as "forgivable" and re-accept the paladin into the divine grace - and thereby letting his cleric's spell work !
It actually raises another point though - if this act is so heinous as to disavow a paladin, how about a "good" priest participiating in WoD ? Now, a paladin may be an odd-ball-out in this STAP, but a cleric ?
And in that case, I'd suggest that a player in Savage Tide choose a less disruptive character to play. In some ways, it'd be like running an adventure that's 90% constructs and undead and having a player play a rogue or an enchanter.
Personally, I prefer to play it a bit more loose with the enforcing paladin actions. If you play it hardline... the game breaks down unless EVERYone in the party is Lawful Good. An all paladin party's not a bad idea, actually, but I wouldn't take them on Savage Tide. Age of Worms is a uch better run for paladins.
Okay, hang on a sec. I really don't think that as a DM I'm being a hardass on paladins or anything, but they do have their code and they've chosen to play the class they play. If they do it well, which probably means no abyssal deals (as written), they're actually playing their class well! But now they're to be considered disruptive to the game? C'mon... I would feel like a major heel taking aside a good roleplayer and suggesting they switch out at that stage. Since when is the DM's story more important than good roleplaying? They've even chosen a class from the PHB rather than some obscure supplement's freaky class.
And seriously, the demon queen of succubi wanting a kiss (for free)? If that doesn't trigger warning bells in a player, if they haven't prepped resists to charm, domination, and talked about avoiding classic succubus manipulation while they were on the boat... well, that player also probably was the first one to jump into the giant mouth in Tomb of Horrors. If I was a player for this AP, I'd probably play a CG cleric of some kind, and I wouldn't allow the demon queen of succubi to get near me much less going into a kiss that was very likely to energy drain me (at minimum!).
Just give me a little something to work with here. With Malcanthet they're supposedly doing those diplomacy checks for something, opposed by Mally's +65 diplomacy check, but nothing is said for what happens if the players win several in a row... only if they lose them. Is the only reason for this just to push them into the 4 failed checks, before forcing someone to take the kiss, or are all the successful checks done for nothing? The only option to move the story forward, whether the players are good or evil, is doing something that is at least a 2-lvl energy drain and enthralling someone to her will. At worst, the level loss is much greater and they're all her thralls (and quite possibly, if it was voluntary, someone has fallen or made their deity question their faith). That's the DM on a railroad if I ever saw one, and it's now called "disruptive". Bad news, man.
...Perhaps if the campaign start notes for the AP had clearly presented the fact that some evil acts would HAVE to be performed to complete the AP, it wouldn't be a problem. I think that for you to NOW (almost a year after the start) claim that a lawful good character behaving in a normal way for that character type should be considered disruptive and punished is disingenuous at best. Morally gray areas are cool and fun. Having to do flat out evil acts is not morally gray.
Bingo, sister! You hit the nail on the head. Any good aligned character should have an issue with this, if they're good RPers.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Paladins are trouble. They are supposed to be. I guess with all the deal making in "Enemies of my Enemy", they are in for a rougher ride than usual.
I would disagree with James in that a paladin who does not wish to bend is destructive. These guys are supposed to be good and pure, and uphold that standard. However, there is none forcing them to, either. The coalition will (as far as i understood it) not hinge on getting everybody aboard. If anything, it will make Prince of Demons a bit harder.
Specifically, i don't even see major problems with getting Orcus, Charon, the Court of Stars and the Demogorgon semi-clone to join up. The Paladin needn't (and shouldn't) like it, and probably will want to try and get some Archons too, but playing one enemy against another should be permitted, as long as you don't actively try to form a lasting alliance, and don't promise them to, either.
The succubus queen is not so hard, either... you can use her forces by much the same reasoning you applied to the others. Only the Kiss is an evil act in and by itself, and as much as i dislike saying so - someone else must jump the gun on this. Fortunately, she selects the parties lowest-charisma member as her chosen (Why?!), so the chances that the paladin is even directly faced with it are small... though he should be horrified just to watch.
Obox-Ob will be hardest, IMHO, because you are effectively releasing an ancient evil that has been sealed away for ages.
What is more a violation of the paladin's code?
Holding fast to the code and letting Demogorgon's plan unfold and have most of the character's game would become a virtual hell on earth due to the Savage Tide.
Or oppose and bring down Demogorgon even if it means that a few deals are cut with powers that the paladin would normally not truck with.
The paladin's deity doesn't have his/her head in the sand. The powers of good are probably aware that Demogorgon is up to something (through the paladin / clerics involved in the adventure) and maybe specifically what it is. Why haven't they taken steps like mobilizing celestial legions to storm Gaping Maw?
As a DM, you should have an answer that question.
Maybe the invasion of the abyss will start a major war between the celestials and demons? Maybe a compact or agreement between major 'powers' will be violated?
My point is this - there is some reason, however not understood by the characters, that the celestial legions are not swooping in to take care of Demogorgon themselves.
So, what is a power to do? Well, you back your cleric and/or paladin agent who is going to the Abyss.
So, as a paladin's deity, I am giving my paladin some latitude on this issue that normally would not be given under normal circumstances. Portions of the world are at risk and thousands of worshippers may fall in the Savage Tide. That alone is worth special dispensation to my paladin follower.
And it is unlikely that the paladin can simply waltz into Gaping Maw, walk up to Demogorgon and strike him down. Not without a plan. And if that plan breaks a few tenets of the faith and the paladin's code under normal circumstances, so be it. This omelette doesn't get cooked without cracking a few eggs. That is the view the paladin's deity takes in my campaign.
In short, the paladin gets special dispensation from his/her deity to act outside the code 'within reason' (which means that very blantant evil acts like murdering innocents, pledgin your soul and service to demon lords, etc will still result in a quick fall from grace).
Turning evil on itself by getting an alliance of fiends to turn on Demogorgon falls within the 'within reason' clause for the special dispensation.
IMHO, it is unreasonable for a deity to expect his paladin to go to the Abyss and face off with Demogorgon without supporting him in some way. If circumstances preclude sending a celestial host, then the paladin needs support in other ways and one of the ways a deity can provide that support is by allowing the paladin to do the job without constant worry that I am going to strip him of his paladinhood.
So, what is a power to do? Well, you back your cleric and/or paladin agent who is going to the Abyss.
So, as a paladin's deity, I am giving my paladin some latitude on this issue that normally would not be given under normal circumstances. Portions of the world are at risk and thousands of worshippers may fall in the Savage Tide. That alone is worth special dispensation to my paladin follower.
And it is unlikely that the paladin can simply waltz into Gaping Maw, walk up to Demogorgon and strike him down. Not without a plan. And if that plan breaks a few tenets of the faith and the paladin's code under normal circumstances, so be it. This omelette doesn't get cooked without cracking a few eggs. That is the view the paladin's deity takes in my campaign.
That's what I'm talking about. All the assumptions so far seem to be based on some kind of lone wolf paladin that has nothing but a code he rigidly follows that doesn't allow any room for stuff that isn't spelled out in black & white in The Paladin's Manual. What about the paladin's deity that's granting him all of his cool paladin abilities? Doesn't he/she get a say in this? This should be a really cool opportunity for the paladin. He's going into the Abyss!!!! And what's more, his Deity has given him special dispensation to "break a few rules to bring down the bad guys". That's friggin' cool!!!! Damn, man. Let me play that paladin! You think you know me? You think I'm some kind of goody-two-shoes? Well, guess what? My deity has given me permission to go outside the lines a little bit. So, no more Mr. Nice Guy!
|
Creative Director
|
Fortunately, she selects the parties lowest-charisma member as her chosen (Why?!)
Primarially because she's being fickle and kind of mean; she figures that the lowest Charisma character in the group (male or female) is probably the one who's most likely to be a lonely person who doesn't have a lover, and may have never HAD a lover, and so she's basically saying that she'll give that character a kiss even though the rest of the world doesn't want to. There's no real GAME reason behind it; it's more like psychological warfare, I suppose.
I'm pretty interested to see how Enemies of my Enemies will play out in my campaign. For instance, I don't think it will just be paladins that have some qualms about going around and rounding up abyssal allies. If I were a PC I wouldn't be in a hurry to wander on over to Thanatos and try to build an alliance. I think I'd much rather go to the seven heavens or try to pay a visit with Heironeuss first and see if a good aligned power would be willing to help first. I'd much rather have an army of angels on my side than demons. Orcus and Malcanthet would all be last resorts for me if I were a PC, regardless of whether or not I was a paladin.
What's the point of trying to build an army against demogorgon if I end up accidently saying the wrong thing to Orcus and he decides to slaughter me. I'd be much better off paying visits to entities that aren't going to kill me on a whim.
As a dm I think you need to be prepared for that mentality. And as cool as the adventure is when you truck around the Abyss and try to negotiate with demon lords, I personally suspect that there will be plenty of players out there that just won't see that as a wise course of action, despite Iggwilv's advice. Therefore, as a dm I will likely prepare some encounters with some of the other good powers of the mutliverse in case it seems like the players want to go that route instead. I don't see really why they wouldn't want to help. If the gods realize that their worshippers are in terrible danger should Demogorgon succeed with his plan, it makes sense that they would step up to the plate and take measures to help PCs.
You make some good points in this post. And it does raise the question: Why aren't the powers of good in the world being a little more helpful?
This should be the name a of side bar in Enemies of my Enemies, as I would like to have a solid explanation as to why the only good aligned power that seems interested in trying to help stop demogorgon from obliterating the world seems to be the Eladrins. If the powers of Law and Good aren't willing to muster forces to help there should be darn good explanation given the stakes. What is that explanation; or is just that nobody has bothered to ask?
What is more a violation of the paladin's code?
Holding fast to the code and letting Demogorgon's plan unfold and have most of the character's game would become a virtual hell on earth due to the Savage Tide.
Or oppose and bring down Demogorgon even if it means that a few deals are cut with powers that the paladin would normally not truck with.
The paladin's deity doesn't have his/her head in the sand. The powers of good are probably aware that Demogorgon is up to something (through the paladin / clerics involved in the adventure) and maybe specifically what it is. Why haven't they taken steps like mobilizing celestial legions to storm Gaping Maw?
As a DM, you should have an answer that question.
Maybe the invasion of the abyss will start a major war between the celestials and demons? Maybe a compact or agreement between major 'powers' will be violated?
My point is this - there is some reason, however not understood by the characters, that the celestial legions are not swooping in to take care of Demogorgon themselves.
So, what is a power to do? Well, you back your cleric and/or paladin agent who is going to the Abyss.
So, as a paladin's deity, I am giving my paladin some latitude on this issue that normally would not be given under normal circumstances. Portions of the world are at risk and thousands of worshippers may fall in the Savage Tide. That alone is worth special dispensation to my paladin follower.
And it is unlikely that the paladin can simply waltz into Gaping Maw, walk up to Demogorgon and strike him down. Not without a plan. And if that plan breaks a few tenets of the faith and the paladin's code under normal circumstances, so be it. This omelette doesn't get cooked without cracking a few eggs. That is the view the paladin's deity takes in my campaign.
In short, the paladin gets special dispensation from his/her deity to act outside the code 'within reason' (which means that very blantant evil acts like murdering innocents, pledgin your soul and service to...
What is more a violation of the paladin's code?
Holding fast to the code and letting Demogorgon's plan unfold and have most of the character's game would become a virtual hell on earth due to the Savage Tide.
Or oppose and bring down Demogorgon even if it means that a few deals are cut with powers that the paladin would normally not truck with.
This is called a "false dilemma". It posits that there are exactly two possible paths to be taken, and forces a choice between them even though they are both unacceptable. This is fallacious thinking because there is no such thing as a situation with only two options.
What about a third option: if Demogorgon must be stopped and these allies will not work, find some allies who will be acceptable.
How about a fourth option: if every alternative solution is immediately scuttled with a flimsy handwave, point out to the DM that the railroad is getting intrusive and threatening suspension of disbelief.
So, as a paladin's deity, I am giving my paladin some latitude on this issue that normally would not be given under normal circumstances. Portions of the world are at risk and thousands of worshippers may fall in the Savage Tide. That alone is worth special dispensation to my paladin follower.
And it is unlikely that the paladin can simply waltz into Gaping Maw, walk up to Demogorgon and strike him down. Not without a plan. And if that plan breaks a few tenets of the faith and the paladin's code under normal circumstances, so be it. This omelette doesn't get cooked without cracking a few eggs. That is the view the paladin's deity takes in my campaign.
That's not a "good" deity, and if I was playing a heroic character I'd be greatly disappointed to be railroaded into following "The Ends Justify the Means." I get enough exposure to that crap in real life.
If my PC can outwit, outmaneuver, and outrage Orcus and Malcanthet and others, using them as pawns for my ends, that's good. But if I am forced to relinquish control of my PC as those fiends use my PC as a submissive pawn in their games, that's bad. Sure, there can be a chance for failure, possibly even a high one. Failure, however, should not be a forgone conclusion.
|
Of course yet another possibility is that if the party doesn't want to draw on abyssal allies to stop Demogorgon they should stop whining about it and just go try to deal with the version of him that hasn't been weakened by distraction. Good doesn't mean stupid or morally inflexible. If that is how your players want to play it, then there are consequences for terminal stuborness and stupidity in the D&D game. It isn't always possible to go call on an alliance of Archons and Eladrins to battle the forces of evil. If it were, perhaps the forces of good would have already expunged the taint of evil from the multiverse. As it is, that doesn't make for a very interesting game anyway. If all the help you need is free and without consequence, why bother doing anything at all. Just appeal to the benevolent forces of good to do the deed for you since that is what they are "supposed" to do anyway.
I suspect most groups will actually derive great glee in causing the forces of the abyss to go to war with one another, even if it means having to be kissed by a demon queen or making a hollow promise to vestige bound bat demon demigod wannabe. The adventure is awesome and I think a lot of the folks complaining on this Paladin issue are missing the forest for the trees. JMVHO.
I have been looking at it from a different angle. Sure you could try to go to the forces of good to get allies to fight Demogorgon, but do you really think the players have the time?
Won't an invasion by good forces just get all of the Abyss to temporarily ally together to repel the good forces? The quickest way to stop him is to get the forces of evil to fight and weaken each other.
How does the Paladin justify his morals over saving 10's of thousands of innocents when the savage tide occurs? Isn't there a moral dilemma on the fact that a LG character would rather tow the line against vs. letting all of these innocents die and spread abyssal chaos throughout your campaign? What about the ramification to evil if Demogorgon succeeds? Isn't he likely to grow in power?
Having played a paladin in the past, I would rather makes the deals and suffer the consequences. At least as the DM you should talk him through the issues and let him decide.
If my god views the sacrifice of some of my tenents in order to save all of those lives as a reason to strip my abilities, then it must be done.
In the words of one fictional man, er vulcan "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one".....
From a player's perspective, what are the alternatives?
On hearing Azahu's conditions, the PCs do have the option to turn it down. I suppose then their obvious course of action would be to study up on how the OTHER escaped prisoners of the Wells of Darkness managed to get out, and try the same on Shami. If it comes to that in my game, I'd (as the GM) probably come up with something along the lines of an incantation (as from Unearthed Arcana) which would do the job. Learning how to invoke it might be a quest in itself, mind you! Perhaps an infiltration of Vecna's library is in order...?
And if the PCs don't want to take Iggwilv's advice regarding what alliances to make, that's their right. After all, Iggwilv is a consummate demonologist, so bear in mind that from her point of view allying with demons is probably the obvious way to solve ANY problem! But this doesn't mean there aren't other options. A few people have mentioned celestials, which is a viable alternative though any good-aligned outsiders are bound to be significantly weakened in the Abyss. There's the fey - negotiations with a Wild Hunter and the Queen of Air and Darkness can be every bit as dangerous as dropping in on Orcus. There's the vaati, the modrons, the einherijar of Ysgard, the Olman gods who are bound to be out for revenge on the one who destroyed their empire, there's mortal armies, archmages and dragons from the Prime, etc etc, and that's without even considering what assistance the baazetu might grant to someone who stood a realistic chance of taking down Demogorgon.
In short, there's not shortage of options. While the published adventures focus heavily on the Abyssal aspect of things, you shouldn't feel obliged to stick religiously to the written version. I do think that EomE really should have included at least a sidebar covering alternatives rather than being so narrowly demon-focused, since by level 19-20 PCs basically have near-complete freedom of action through the multiverse, but there's not nearly enough pages in Dungeon to cover all the possible permutations (and while I haven't got Dragon #358, I think there was something along those line in there).
It's inconvenient that the adventure as written is so limited in scope, but it's understandable. If your players want to break the shackles, then you pretty much have two choices - direct them back to the module (if you don't have time to plot out alternatives yourself) or else abandon the AP as written and go freeform (if you can cope with that). Realistically, a module is never going to cover all possible options for a 19th level party, after all...
|
|
I reviewed the adventure last night and noticed something else. You can actually get Shami out by giving over the tooth of Ahazu and a CR 19 replacement. A CR 19 replacement is easy to get. Use a gate spell to summon a Molydeus or Balor or something and kill it. Cast a greater blanar binding and a Minimus Containment Binding Spell and you can capture a Pit Fiend (has 18 HD) and offer that to Ahazu plus the Tooth of Ahazu to free Shami. The tooth is acquired way back in Tides of Dread in the Temple of Zotzillaha. In that way, noone has to sacrifice themselves and combat isn't even necessary. The adventure states Ahazu will accept an incapacitated CR 19 creature and his tooth as payment for Shami, so use Planar Binding and the Binding spell (both 8th level spells) to get a Pit Fiend inside a gemstone and give it and the tooth to Ahazu and you don't have to worry about selling yoru soul and all that. Problem solved. You get Shami's help, you trap a Pit Fiend in the Wells of Darkness, and you don't have to give your souls to Ahazu. I would think the Paladin would be fairly thrilled.
I think it would be a good idea to change the penultimate adventure entirely if your party wishes it.
There is no reason whatsoever that evil is the only possible ally against evil. Let the party recruit good outsiders instead. have the 18th level priest cash in that lifetime of service for some good old fashioned divine intervention.
It would be much more rewarding for a party to have allies they can trust, and value. There would also be a more epic and less furtive climax to the A.P. without sloshing around in the oozes of the abyss.
I also dislike the whole "Yes, we will help you to save the planet, but first you must fetch us a half fiend treant shrubbery." fedex questing in that module.
Let them call in the big guns and deal with the gods. They have earned it.
If the world is going to end, does it make sense to go to an evil being and say: "Pick our allies for us, O mother of Iuz. We are completely incapable of thinking of anyone who may want to save our planet without getting something in return."?
There is an option available from the diety that would permit the paladin more latitude in accomplishing the diety's goals, the Gray Guard.
Wizard's Class guide for this is located here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070320
Whether it will permit all of the concessions needed to make deals with demonlords, I don't know. but there exists a path for palidins who need to "get things done"
If the player believes the diety is being hardaxed in his rules, sacrificing a loyal servant to uphold some image of good for others, then falling completely to blackguard is an option "if you won't empower me to do this greater good, then i'll take power from where i can to do the good you won't permit"
With the retraining/rebuild options from PHB2, mechanics are there for the paladin that loses his faith and doesn't want to atone to the strict and uncaring "good" diety that shunned him for doing a greater good.
If the player is the one refusing to make deals because he believes it is consistent with his character's beliefs, then the paladin will have to be removed, as he won't continue on this path of sacrifices of little evils.. maybe he goes to rally good forces to the banner, but he won't be part of the rest of the campaign as written, unless the whole party backs him up, then thye are all in uncharted waters :)
The major point of this thread is that the adventures in question are designed in such a way that paladins and some other lawful good characters cannot finish them in the default mode of play. Paizo has left them out in the cold.
I don't think that was the point of this thread. I think the point of the thread was to work out the problem the OP saw with how it would affect a paladin. And to say that "Paizo has left them out in the cold," is a gross exaggeration and untrue.
I don't think that was the point of this thread. I think the point of the thread was to work out the problem the OP saw with how it would affect a paladin. And to say that "Paizo has left them out in the cold," is a gross exaggeration and untrue.
I'm the OP for this thread. You might want to scroll up and read what James Jacobs said about paladins being "disruptive" to the STAP, and that such players should be taken aside and asked to replace their character.
Apparently, if you've got a PC who won't make profane deals with demons, and they're roleplaying their character very well, that's no longer good enough. You need to take them aside and tell them "hey, you're being disruptive, so either make the demonic deals and move on - or choose another character to play... one with fewer moral qualms. If you make the demonic deals, Pelor won't mind, I'll have him look the other way because the ends justify the means. And put that Book of Exalted Deeds away - it's rubbish for the game I'm DMing."
I reviewed the adventure last night and noticed something else. You can actually get Shami out by giving over the tooth of Ahazu and a CR 19 replacement. A CR 19 replacement is easy to get.
Please explain exactly how PCs can figure out the level of replacement required?
Ahazu says "equal in power to Shami-Amourae," not "Hey dudes, you can totally get away with a CR 19 if you hand over the tooth".
This whole thing is wonky.
To me, if the player chooses to be really hard line about the paladin's code of conduct and the DM wants to accommodate that, the DM should perhaps think of a few alternate planar allies. A trip to gather armies from Mount Celestia or Inevitables from Mechanus may be in order or perhaps an alternate prime material world with an order of renowned demon slayers could be recruited. Maybe a quest to track down an artifact or something. The thing is, however, that the Abyss itself is suffused with evil and chaos. Celestials and lawful outsiders won't function as effectively in that kind of environment. They may be a help, but these allies will likely suffer heavier casualties than usual because they are operating at a disadvantage.
If I were DMing the adventure, I would be inclined to be a bit forgiving of a paladin making the alliances with evil suggested in Enemy of My Enemy. There are more PCs in the party than the paladin character and bending over backwards to make sure that one character isn't uncomfortable or that they won't have to compromise isn't a great idea for me. Let 'em squirm a bit, it's no fun to run a character with a code of conduct if that code is never challenged. The very fact that we have so many people with different opinions on the exact nature of "greater good" and what working toward that means indicates that a paladin could probably justify it if he's careful. Demogorgon's defeat may mean a power vacuum, but demons being demons they would likely occupy themselves for a good long time fighting over who gets what, which may be a good thing to remind a paladin about in the greater good arguement. In my opinion, at least.
I don't think that was the point of this thread. I think the point of the thread was to work out the problem the OP saw with how it would affect a paladin. And to say that "Paizo has left them out in the cold," is a gross exaggeration and untrue.I'm the OP for this thread. You might want to scroll up and read what James Jacobs said about paladins being "disruptive" to the STAP, and that such players should be taken aside and asked to replace their character.
Apparently, if you've got a PC who won't make profane deals with demons, and they're roleplaying their character very well, that's no longer good enough. You need to take them aside and tell them "hey, you're being disruptive, so either make the demonic deals and move on - or choose another character to play... one with fewer moral qualms. If you make the demonic deals, Pelor won't mind, I'll have him look the other way because the ends justify the means. And put that Book of Exalted Deeds away - it's rubbish for the game I'm DMing."
Well, opey, I did read it. I've read the entire thread. Maybe you should as well. Because if you haven't found a useful solution to your dilemma from the helpful suggestions that have been offered yet, then I think you really aren't looking for one. Rather, you want to just complain about the AP and how unfair it is on paladins. If your paladin player is a great role-player then he should be able to figure out a way to role-play his way through this.
As far as James's comments, I believe that he was describing the kind of disruptive player that won't cooperate with the DM, the other players, and the campaign itself. He wasn't suggesting that you be a hard ass to the player, but that you explain to him that maybe he would enjoy the game more if he retired the paladin and brought in a new character. It was intended as a helpful suggestion.
But it seems like every suggestion that's been made has either been ignored by you or you've argued against it. So far as I can see, this isn't even a problem... yet. Just one that you see MIGHT develop when you reach that point in the campaign.
Do you really want help or is this just rhetoric? Are any of the suggestions here working for you at all? I mean I'd love to help more, but if it's just going to be argued, ignored, and whatnot, then you're on your own.
|
Creative Director
|
I'm the OP for this thread. You might want to scroll up and read what James Jacobs said about paladins being "disruptive" to the STAP, and that such players should be taken aside and asked to replace their character.
Apparently, if you've got a PC who won't make profane deals with demons, and they're roleplaying their character very well, that's no longer good enough. You need to take them aside and tell them "hey, you're being disruptive, so either make the demonic deals and move on - or choose another character to play... one with fewer moral qualms. If you make the demonic deals, Pelor won't mind, I'll have him look the other way because the ends justify the means. And put that Book of Exalted Deeds away - it's rubbish for the game I'm DMing."
That's an interesting way to interpret what I said.
Personally, I think that a player who decides to play a hardline paladin in a campaign that, for much of its duration, features numerous encounters where the PCs are expected to use diplomacy or unlikely alliances with evil or chaotic beings to defeat a greater evil, is just as disrupting as a player that decides to play an evil character in a group of good PCs, or an elf-hating dwarf in a campaign of elf PCs who are striving to save an elven nation.
Certain players enjoy being disruptive, and the paladin class, in my experience, is one of those that a certain type of disruptive player enjoys playing due to the perception that his disruptive activities are justified by the rules.
Now that said, I certainly don't think ALL paladins are disruptive. In fact, players of paladin characters have to expect to face tough moral decisions in games; if they don't they might as well be playing a fighter or ranger, to a certain extent. I know that if I were playing a paladin, I'd welcome and enjoy roleplaying opportunities to "test my faith."
As for seeking out allies from other planes, part of the problem there is that a massive incursion of celestials into the Abyss is going to attract a lot more attention. One army of eladrins is, in the grand shceme of things, not that much, but an entire collection of angel hosts would face opposition by a lot of other demon lords and perhaps even the Abyss itself; even if they were only going in to attack Demogorgon, they'd end up attracting far too much attention, I think.
But of course, the adventure CAN be rewritten so that your PCs are gathering good aligned allies. That's not the adventure I wanted to publish, though, and if you do opt for that, you should also consider removing a fair amount of the other "strike deals with the bad guys" elements in Bullywug Gambit, Tides of Dread, Lightless Depths, Serpents of Scuttlecove, Into the Maw, and Wells of Darkness also, since removing the ally with demons element of Enemies of my Enemy kind of changes the entire theme of the campaign.
Book of Exalted Deeds is, by the way, a pretty good choice for character resources in Savage Tide. I used it plenty in developing the adventures, after all, especially with the eladrin elements.
Apparently, if you've got a PC who won't make profane deals with demons, and they're roleplaying their character very well, that's no longer good enough. You need to take them aside and tell them "hey, you're being disruptive, so either make the demonic deals and move on - or choose another character to play... one with fewer moral qualms. If you make the demonic deals, Pelor won't mind, I'll have him look the other way because the ends justify the means. And put that Book of Exalted Deeds away - it's rubbish for the game I'm DMing."
Laeknir, if you're using the BoED in your game, then you need to be ready for the impact it has on your campaign. The rules, classes, feats, spells it contains are intended for a seriously holy kind of character. You cannot apply all of that material to your standard SRD paladin. Yes, a paladin is a holy warrior, but the material presented in BoED is far beyond the regular holiness a SRD paladin aspires to.
If you're using that book, well, evil is going to be that much eviler and dispiccable, and untolerable to an exalted character. We're talking paragons of righteoussness, not your garden variety do-gooders.
The STAP was written to appeal to a grey area of characters. Not to say that ultra good characters couldn't play it and enjoy it. Just the opposite, they should enjoy it even more since there's so much evil to fight. But that's the thing. It was written toward groups that lean more toward the grey areas of morality and ethics. By choosing to allow BoED into your campaign, you've chosen to play the STAP with a much more holy group than the usual group of good guys and consequently you've set yourself up with having to make more adustments than other DMs.
Your tone comes across like you think the Paizo staff (and writers) have maliciously made it difficult to play paladins in this campaign. As far as I know, there's really not a demand for adventures tailored to accomodate paladins. Paladin characters are always going to be the misfits in the adventure because they live by such a rigid code of right and wrong. And that's great! That makes for great role-playing, problem solving within the adventuring party, and also allows the DM to design some cool stuff to allow the paladin to shine.
I've personally given you some suggestions on how to get past this perceived problem. IMO, I think they're solid ones. Others have also provide some good tips worth using. I don't see this as a problem as much as I see it as an awesome role-playing dilemma that I would be eager to see how my resourceful players come up with a way of getting past. Maybe you should give your players a bit more credit and not stress over it so much.
...Your tone comes across like you think the Paizo staff (and writers) have maliciously made it difficult to play paladins in this campaign. As far as I know, there's really not a demand for adventures tailored to accomodate paladins. Paladin characters are always going to be the misfits...
There are players who play LG, NG, and CG characters who would all not make profane deals as written in this adventure, regardless of the paladin class. If my tone has changed over the course of my posts, it's because James Jacobs himself came back and said a player unable to make this railroaded profane agreement should be taken aside and told they were being "disruptive". To come in more than halfway through the STAP and say that people playing their class well is now disruptive is just plain being crappy to players.
But whatever, you're right - and thanks for shutting me down. You win, congrats.
Laeknir, as a DM and player for over 20 years, I love the dilemma this will put your players in.
Hopefully the Paladin will get a great chance to roleplay out a scenario like this. As the DM the power is in your hands to help him make his way through this through possible interactions with his god, maybe his god's avatar and so on.
Maybe there is another path through this for him/her....maybe it will lead to his fall from favor with his/her god. That could make for great roleplaying opportunities.
I bet some of the other "characters" in the backs of their mind would love to see the paladin "fall from grace" or something like that.
When I played a paladin the other players always thought I was a pain in their a*& because I would always get them into problematic situations, they would have loved to see me "fall".
Hopefully your players can see the opportunity as well and don't think that they are just being rail-roaded into something.
...I would love opinions on specifically whether or not a pally could logically get through some of the infernal deals without it counting as a step toward a Fall. For example, is there a way for a pally to actually make the deals (as written) with Iggwilv or Malcanthet - if not, what deals would the evil baddies agree to?...
This is what I asked in post #1 of this thread. The suggestions of getting other armies of celestial background, having the player (paladin or otherwise) commune with their deity for help and ideas - love those, but they're not what I was getting at. Those are completely different alternatives.
Those don't get at the question of "what minimum, logically, could demons like Malcanthet, and Ahazu (or evil types like Iggwilv) agree to in these deals?"
The suggestions of making players switch out late in the game, calling them "disruptive" to the game unless they make the deals as written, or the that I don't seem to understand why "the ends justify the means" in this case - well, I haven't responded to those because they a) don't get at my question, and b) are kind of snerty themselves.
Thanks to those who did try to offer suggestions, I appreciate those. But it's clear this topic is done.
That is not what he meant and he clarified that point.
If you want to take things out of context because you got a hate on for certain posters, that is your call.
Alot of suggestions were made and if you don't find merit in anything that anyone else has posted then your choices are quite simple, really.
1. Rewrite large sections of the AP to satisfy your vision of your game, or
2. Wrap up the AP before the adventures hit the Abyss. Up to you how you want to defeat Demogorgon's plot while on the Material Plane, or
3. Call it a wrap on the campaign and start a new campaign.
It is really comes down to those 3 points. It is apparent you are not liking it so why continue with the campaign.
...Your tone comes across like you think the Paizo staff (and writers) have maliciously made it difficult to play paladins in this campaign. As far as I know, there's really not a demand for adventures tailored to accomodate paladins. Paladin characters are always going to be the misfits...
Maliciously? No. But I do agree with the poster who suggested that, just perhaps, the authors got so carried away with the evilness of the campaign that they forgot that some players would not (or could not, based on their RP backstories) make the demonic deals as written. Not just paladins - although that was the place I started from, and I think by doing so it got all of the paladin haters so amped up that they couldn't see the larger question I was asking.
I think you're right there probably will be a lot of players/characters of varying classes and alignments who may not be in hurry to go out and make deals with the likes of Orcus. Sure their may be a bit of a precedant set in previous adventures, but cutting a deal with some pirates or trogs isn't quite the same as paying a visit to the demon prince of the undead to see if he'll give you a hand.
I still look forward to seeing how my characters do with this adventure. I think they'll go for most of it, but I'm not sure if they'll want to work with Orcus or Malcanthet, and I think they would be annoyed if they felt like they were being railroaded into it because that is how the adventure goes and therefore that must be what they are supposed to do. Personally, I'm not going to pressure them. I'll present it as option, but if they don't go for I won't try to force it on them.
I would appreciate some advice about alternatives. Which LG powers would be most likely to help out? How would they respond to pleas for aid? What aid might they offer?
The Devils also offer interesting possibliities. However, I'm thinking that the Dukes of Hell would be hesistant. They may suspect that any attempt to get them to send there forces into the Abyss is a ploy from one of their fellow Dukes to weaken them by sacrificing valuable minions on a suicide mission. Furthermore, if they were convinced I think that I might run it so that when the demons see the devils they forget their differences and team up to destroy their hated enemies. Suddenly Orcus and Demogorgo's forces are fighting side by side, when the PCs were hoping they would be tearing each other apart. This could happen with celestials as well.
...Your tone comes across like you think the Paizo staff (and writers) have maliciously made it difficult to play paladins in this campaign. As far as I know, there's really not a demand for adventures tailored to accomodate paladins. Paladin characters are always going to be the misfits...There are players who play LG, NG, and CG characters who would all not make profane deals as written in this adventure, regardless of the paladin class. If my tone has changed over the course of my posts, it's because James Jacobs himself came back and said a player unable to make this railroaded profane agreement should be taken aside and told they were being "disruptive". To come in more than halfway through the STAP and say that people playing their class well is now disruptive is just plain being crappy to players.
But whatever, you're right - and thanks for shutting me down. You win, congrats.
I get your point and I am certain the James and Steve get the point.
Paizo decided to run a AP with a very large morally grey theme to it. It is not the traditional high heroic fantasy.
It is apparent you don't like that. That is fine. The adventures are what they are. Paizo is not going to rewrite large parts of the adventure path for those, like yourself, who have issues with the underlying paradigm. That is YOUR job.
Don't like certain adventures - then change it or start a new campaign.
Don't like the railroady nature of it - then change it or start a new campaign.
Don't like the dilemma it puts on your players - then change it or start a new campaign.
I totally get that some players are never going to make deals with abyss powers because of character concept or personal choice. I really do.
But that is when a DM has to make some hard choices. Run it as written and see how the players react to it? Rewrite large sections of the adventures you have issues with? Run another campaign instead? Etc.
Bottom line - this is not Paizo's problem to fix. It is the DM's responsibility. Paizo is not responsible for your campaign. You are.
If you want to take things out of context because you got a hate on for certain posters, that is your call...
Don't even try to paint me that way. I responded to something that seems really quite outrageous to me, so I'm supposed to "hate" someone.
Far, far from it. I like James Jacobs' work very much, and I've been enjoying this AP as much, if not more, than the others. It's provocative and interesting, and it goes into areas where I don't usually take my players. All of those are good things.
If I'm frustrated, it's because a few people have made suggestions like:
1. Rewrite large sections of the AP to satisfy your vision of your game, or2. Wrap up the AP before the adventures hit the Abyss. Up to you how you want to defeat Demogorgon's plot while on the Material Plane, or
3. Call it a wrap on the campaign and start a new campaign.
And then said, "that's it, bottom line, done deal". I could most certainly do all of those things, but none of those get at the core of my original question.
As for my "not liking it", get real. I wouldn't be posting this much about it if I didn't like what the AP has had in it so far.