An exalted character won't be able to make it through the last 3 AP modules as written while remaining exalted.
Still, I'd be tempted to allow the character and see what happens. There's a real chance the exalted PC will die before any of this becomes a problem (Ripclaw and the zombie pirates can be especially hard on monks...) after all. And there's always a possibility that any PC (not just the exalted ones!) will balk at the choices that the later modules assume they'll make, and if they do, you'll quite possibly have to throw everything after the half-way point of Wells of Darkness out the window anyway and make it all up as you go along...
The monk will defintely be in hot water laters in the STAP - see the debate about WoD, EoE and some parts of the finale. Serpents of Scuttlecove should be a nightmarish experience for him as well - being unable to cut (ethical) corners there will be a massive liability.
With Vow of Poverty ( which I assume is his reason to go exalted) there will also be the logistic nightmare of donating his share of the loot (which he has to claim for donation to his religious benefactor ) while on the Isle of Dread. The recipient should definitely, empathically not be a PC controlled character, which narrows the choice of religious patrons down dramatically.
There might also be severe motivational problems with some of the more mercenary plot hooks (this is up to the GM ).
Finally - some encounters in the STAP are especially nasty for lawfull good characters, starting with the
Basically, this concept looks like it will seriously impact the players enjoyment, increase the GMs load of work and... most importantly... might seriously screw up the group's efforts due to moral stringency of the monk.
Which might drive the other players nuts. Does the player in question really want this ?
|
My personal feeling is that it's made pretty clear that if the PC's want to stop the horrific event at the end from occurring, they have no choice but to put up with talking to some fiends without attacking them. And worse, making some agreements. The powers of good know this as well. Exactly how the monk behaves at these times is more important than whether or not he outright decides to attack the moment he sees one. Are the powers of good so hardline that they punish a follower for making a sacrifice to preserve the state of the world? How blurry that line is is for you to decide.
I think it's feasible, but the monk is going to be spending a LOT of time reciting his devotions to himself while demons tempt and laugh at him, teasing that line.
To coin the old phrase, true lawful good treats goodness as the law, but that shouldn't make you lawful stupid when something more important needs to be done. If the powers of good are not so wise, then what's the point of even trying?
My personal feeling is that it's made pretty clear that if the PC's want to stop the horrific event at the end from occurring, they have no choice but to put up with talking to some fiends without attacking them. And worse, making some agreements. The powers of good know this as well. Exactly how the monk behaves at these times is more important than whether or not he outright decides to attack the moment he sees one. Are the powers of good so hardline that they punish a follower for making a sacrifice to preserve the state of the world? How blurry that line is is for you to decide.
I think it's feasible, but the monk is going to be spending a LOT of time reciting his devotions to himself while demons tempt and laugh at him, teasing that line.
To coin the old phrase, true lawful good treats goodness as the law, but that shouldn't make you lawful stupid when something more important needs to be done. If the powers of good are not so wise, then what's the point of even trying?
Well, I'd disagree fairly strongly with that. As written in the BoED (which, to be honest, I'm not a great fan of) an exalted character can NOT compromise, cooperate, bargain, or associate in any other way with fiends, even on a temporary basis. Black and white. It even explicitly says that no, "because it's necessary for the greater good" is *not* an excuse and will lead to loss of all exalted feats. The rules as written are VERY uncompromising on this.
But this argument has gone round and round on these boards a hundred times, so I'll leave it there.
Anyway, what is more likely to happen if there's an exalted character in the party is that the PCs will get to Into The Maw, discover that Shami-Amourae may hold the secret to Demogorgon's weakness, and then say "stuff that, I'm not releasing a demon lord from her well-deserved imprisonment, there are other ways to do this that don't involve cooperating with ultimate evil". They'll probably then look for allies elsewhere - powerful mortal spellcasters, celestials, good gods, etc, etc, or else they might try to hunt down all the shadow pearls on the Prime Material and destroy them before they detonate. In either of which case, the last three modules as written will be largely useless (barring perhaps the scene where they enlist Gwynharwyf, the attack of the bodak tyrannosaurs, and Wat Dagon and a few other bits of Prince of Demons).
Basically, if you have an exalted character in the latter stages of the campaign, the logical course of action is for that PC is to refuse the 'temptation' (as they see it) to ally with Demogorgon's Abyssal enemies and instead find another way of preventing the Tide, that does not involve consorting with evil. And hey, I'd argue that's an entirely valid course of action, but of course the problem is that if that's what the PCs do choose to do, then it makes the modules largely obsolete and puts a lot of work back on the shoulders of the GM. And that's something he might not be willing to deal with.
The alternative, of course, is railroading the PCs into taking the Abyssal route regardless of their preferences, and either letting the Exalted character get away with it regardless of what the rules say (tough call, since without the associated moral strictures, Exalted feats tend to be massively overpowered), or else shrugging your shoulders and accepting that he's going to lose his exalted status sooner rather than later (which will cheese the player off enormously).
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
I've a player who has an exalted druid and we're currently working on a sort of secret 'exalted-style' neutral class. I'm finally convinced the player just wants to try out the no-item route, either that or he rolled a nat 20 on his bluff check when he said he'd retire the character in a heartbeat if I didn't like it, thus kickstarting my guilt reflex and leading me to making an exalted style neutral thingy.
Basically - I'd no probs with the stats, but cut the bonus exalted feats. The PC still has to help help the church with all her cash, and we'll see how it goes. Scarily overpowered actions will become one-offs between sessions.
It's fun since everyone currently assumes the character is exalted good and must stay that way. I've got carte blanche when the neutral version comes in to play, after chatting to the player about the long-term viability of exalted good PCs.
I'm planning a capture and torture by Olangru, with the character coming back bad-ass and 'damaged' but not stripped of powers. It'll be worth it just to see the other players faces when she kicks butt and goes a little too far.
(All assuming the characetr survives that far, of course.)
It even explicitly says that no, "because it's necessary for the greater good" is *not* an excuse and will lead to loss of all exalted feats. The rules as written are VERY uncompromising on this.
This is exactly as it should be. The phrase "for the greater good" is essentially trope-speak for "this character is evil masquerading as good". "For the greater good" is a horrible justification for doing evil, and it pops frequently as the tragic flaw of the corrupted templar-type character, always as the proximate cause of their fall. In ancient myths, a character acting "for the greater good" nearly always ends up making things worse, usually resulting in some sort of ironic eternal punishment. In more recently-written books and movies, just about every Fallen Hero and Redemption Seeker around fell from grace due to the "for the greater good" trope; it never ends well for anybody, especially the people the fallen hero was trying to help. And of course, in real life the only people who use the phrase are either trying to justify something completely unjustifiable or they are psych students who wouldn't actually follow through in real life.
If an Exalted character wants to play the last few modules with Exalted status intact, they should either be resigned to facing Demogorgon with her full power nearly intact, or they should execute a brilliant Xanatos Roulette wherein they simultaneously weaken all of their demon allies even as they bring Demogorgon down. The last module does have some suggestions about how to yank the rug out from under the feet of their so-called allies, but if they don't start thinking about it by this point it'll be much too late.
|
|
The phrase "for the greater good" is essentially trope-speak for "this character is evil masquerading as good". "For the greater good" is a horrible justification for doing evil, and it pops frequently as the tragic flaw of the corrupted templar-type character, always as the proximate cause of their fall.
I won't debate the rules of the Exalted Deeds book, since I don't own it and have never looked through it. But as I see it, there's nothing evil about allowing an enemy's enemies to weaken him so that you can stop him from causing great harm to many innocents. There are no innocents in the Abyss, so goodness doesn't have to protect them or be concerned about their conflicts (unless you want to extrapolate how innocents COULD come to harm afterwards, but that just leads to a kill all the woman goblins and their babies too conundrum). A paladin would be advised to seek atonement after all is said and done, but he knows exactly why he's there at that moment, and what is at stake (the world's safety is his chief concern, not keeping his title).
I guess I would agree that when it's discovered how to weaken Demogorgon that other options should be pursued to weaken him than depend on demonic assistance. That would create a lot more work for the DM, but I am also going in the assumption that following the intended plotline allows PC's to make choices between good and evil, and there is always that individual choice. For my games, I'd keep a close eye on what players are choosing as they go. If they are making sacrifices in the name of good, then to me, that's what it is, regardless of what the churches and priests would say. The powers of good are what write those rules. The churches and priests can only present their opinion about it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
The exalted book basically says that everything you just listed is a justifiable, even for lawful good characters, but that an exalted character has no business with one drop of justification or extrapolation.
Would Tripitaka from Monkey kill the goblin babies? No way, never. And if he did, he'd immediately fall, no matter how many souls he was saving.
There are no innocents in the Abyss...
Not true, check on layer 471: Androlynne. A whole pile of kiddie Eladrins have been stuck there for centuries because Gwyharwyf's predescessor didn't read the fine print he made on a deal with the demon lord Pale Night.
And to weigh in on the whole alignment question:
Yeah, I think it's rough that the AP was written for morally flexible characters. So change it. I changed it when I was playing it (only got halfway before other problems intervened, but I posted here with my ideas on how you could change the outcome to have a 'good'-er ending.
I suppose (despite what the BoED rules say) I'd allow a paladin to go along with it as long as they were dedicated enough to really stick to their alignment and honestly tried to resolve the Savage Tide for the best possible outcome. They would have it tough, but they do get powers no fighter can ever get, and that's the balancing factor. The hard part is, even hanging around with the 'wrong crowd' can violate their alignment.
All those CG Eladrins... pretty much consistently violating the paladin's moral code. If the paladin keeps hanging around them, it's atonement time. Mum always said I shouldn't hang around with the wrong crowd, I can see why.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I don't see anything wrong with a campaign where an Exalted character must choose between remaining Exalted or yielding , losing that status, and then saving lives. As long as there's still something for a no-longer-Exalted LG monk to do, the character is viable. And there's even opportunities for character angst.
I don't see anything wrong with a campaign where an Exalted character must choose between remaining Exalted or yielding , losing that status, and then saving lives. As long as there's still something for a no-longer-Exalted LG monk to do, the character is viable. And there's even opportunities for character angst.
It's logically inconsistent. Allowing babies to be fed into a meat grinder would violate Exalted status. If we suppose that there is no way to prevent this from happening without losing Exalted status, then clearly the Exalted status never existed in the first place.
Being Exalted is ALL ABOUT being faced with a choice between two bad options, and choosing to take a third, unlisted option. Railroading an Exalted character into a situation where there is only two options, both of which cost Exalted status, is not only extremely mean-spirited, it also severely strains suspension of disbelief. A realistic universe can't be reduced to if-then-else statements.
why do my posts keep getting eaten recently?
Damn....always when I write a long one too.
Anyway. Sure I think it is tough on an Exalted character to do the latter parts of the STAP. Do I think the player should be warned? No. I think this presents the PC with a true moral dilemma. A good thing in my opinion. An exalted character doesn't really have any meaning unless they actually realize what they are sacrificing in order to remain Exalted.
If I were playing an EPC, I would for one, willing be Mal's offering. It would save the rest of the party from having to do it and would serve the greater good. Would I lose my Exalted status? Absolutely YES!
But I suppose it depends on what sort of exalted PC you are playing. I think an EPC should be willing to sacrifice their status for the greater good. Are the entities of Good going to let the keep their status? No. Will they get a reward in the afterlife? Not if they promised themselves to a demoness. But it still would be the right thing to do, damn yourself to save everyone else? Sounds like the right thing for an Exalted character to do in my opinion.
Damn....always when I write a long one too.
Anyway. Sure I think it is tough on an Exalted character to do the latter parts of the STAP. Do I think the player should be warned? No. I think this presents the PC with a true moral dilemma. A good thing in my opinion. An exalted character doesn't really have any meaning unless they actually realize what they are sacrificing in order to remain Exalted.
If I were playing an EPC, I would for one, willing be Mal's offering. It would save the rest of the party from having to do it and would serve the greater good. Would I lose my Exalted status? Absolutely YES!
But I suppose it depends on what sort of exalted PC you are playing. I think an EPC should be willing to sacrifice their status for the greater good. Are the entities of Good going to let the keep their status? No. Will they get a reward in the afterlife? Not if they promised themselves to a demoness. But it still would be the right thing to do, damn yourself to save everyone else? Sounds like the right thing for an Exalted character to do in my opinion.
Well, congrats. Your Exalted character just got suckered by a demon. You're her whipping boy now, and not only do the good guys lose a powerful servant of good, but even when you succeed in deposing Demogorgon you're just going to become a demon lord of violent rape who serves your new master, and your new team will probably become worse than Demogorgon ever was. If you can possibly be capable of deposing Demogorgon, it's fair to say that you're a playing chip that cannot be sacrificed no matter what.
If you give something so precious to a demon, you don't deserve to complain when that demon uses that precious thing to ruin everything you've ever wanted to protect. Don't confuse 'heroic sacrifice' with 'taking the easy path'.
I have been playing in Anthony's group for approximately 18 years so I have an insight into his Dm style the Exalted Monk character is a new addition to our game night so with that in mind.
I'll be playing this AP utilising a Psychic Warrior (Expanded Psionics Handbook, which causes another set of problems for the DM, mainly Psionic creatures!!) alongside the aforementioned Exalted Monk.
The Exalted player really enjoys the role playing aspects of the game where most of the group prefer the combat action, minimal interaction style of play.
This could be a big problem in itself as frustration does set in whilst the Role player engages shopkeepers, the brothel employees and so forth in lengthy conversations!
But, and this is the crux of the matter, the player of the monk really enjoys number crunching and optimising a character for the maximum effect. Which we have discovered to our chagrin.
An exalted monk with the "Ravage" Touch of Golden Ice seems massively overpowered, in my opinion, as the ravage supposedly takes effect each time the Monk touches something evil! Unarmed strikes and sealing deals with a handshake take on a whole new meaning!
What Anthony is concerned about is the fact that the player sulks if a rule is enforced against his interpretation, once the Exalted status is lost, and i will presume that it will be from the previous posted messages this player will not like it.
The rest of the group accept final say from the Dm and then challenge the decision after game session, where as this player stops the game to argue the finer points of a rule.
If I was running the Adventure I would accept the character but enforce the rules as written, from Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds and accept no arguments. Either that or refuse the options and just use the Core Rules !!
I have been playing in Anthony's group for approximately 18 years so I have an insight into his Dm style the Exalted Monk character is a new addition to our game night so with that in mind.
I'll be playing this AP utilising a Psychic Warrior (Expanded Psionics Handbook, which causes another set of problems for the DM, mainly Psionic creatures!!) alongside the aforementioned Exalted Monk.
While I think that you really shouldn't be on this thread ( given that there are likely to be some spoilers here )... well neither should I, but I would like to chime in from a STAP-player's position.
I am currently playing in the STAP, and my character was initially based around the "exalted" feat "Kiss of the Nymph" ( basically a matter of background detail, though of course, it is a nice feat - mea culpa ). Our GM okayed it, with the condition that it might have to be replaced IF interaction with the group suffered.
He also warned me that it might be a problematic choice later in the STAP (and mind, "Kiss of the Nymph" is far easier to uphold than say one of the exalted "Vows" ).
And, last but not least, our group goes in for some mutual heavy roleplaying and NPC interaction above and beyond the usual plot
elements.
Well, in actual play, the "exalted" feat proved to be very limiting and problematic with the activities and measures requied throughout the STAP first four installments, to say the least - and I only had to be noble and "fair" in according to the tenets of the Light Fey court. A "vow" goes much farther and requires even more dedication to "pure good" than "kiss of the Nymph" (YMMV).
It took the fun out of a lot of things, and it certainly cramped the other players' style, so in effect I agreed with the GM to switch it for another feat, reducing the roleplaying aspect to a matter of upbringing and expectations after the first two chapters.
I can only recommend not taking it, _especially_ if one is an active participant in the role-playing scens. And that is only for the first installments - from what I do glean above, I am pretty sure, its gets more and more bothersome later in the STAP.
Simply make the "Book of Exalted Deeds" off-limits for the purposes of the STAP. It is your game, don't let it be taken out of yourhands by your players. And it DOES impact on the fun of this Adventure path - which siimpy does not seem all that accomodating to goody-goodshoes characters.
Well, congrats. Your Exalted character just got suckered by a demon. You're her whipping boy now, and not only do the good guys lose a powerful servant of good, but even when you succeed in deposing Demogorgon you're just going to become a demon lord of violent rape who serves your new master, and your new team will probably become worse than Demogorgon ever was. If you can possibly be capable of deposing Demogorgon, it's fair to say that you're a playing chip that cannot be sacrificed no matter what.
I'm going to 'spoiler' this so as to not tip off any players who might be reading this post.
I realize that I am commenting on a sensitive subject here Kobold Lord, I do realize also that some people might see that as being suckered. The point you make is very subjective. I do realize the difference between Heroic Sacrifice and being tricked. Do bear in mind that by agreeing to Malcanthets offer you are not promising yourself to be her puppet. You are allowing her to place her mark upon you, while still bad, is not the same thing. Also it is not a promise/pact/agreement to become Mr. Evil Demon lord after the defeat of Demogorgon either. Free will exists and cannot be taken away. Domination is another story, but that isn't free will either.
I would ask you this then Kobold Lord. What would you have the hypothetical party in this case do? Have the Exalted character stand back and tell the other party members, "I can't do this, I'm too pure. One of you has to do it." Is this what you mean?
Bear in mind that I do also agree with the idea of NOT making a deal with Mal at all. There is definately a great element of sacrifice in this as well though. Gambling with the fate of the world is a testy topic. Hedging your bets might not be better for your soul, but it is wiser. I have already spoken with other people about this very point as well. I would, should I be running such a game, would likely reward an EPC who stuck to their morals throughout the entire STAP and especially at the end, immediate Resurrection as a Risen Martyr should they die, or Reincarnation as an Angel or Aasimon of some kind so that they could continue the fight against Demogorgon.
Also Kobold Lord, I do not know how much you Roleplay and how much Rollplay. I do not consider making a hard choice "in Character" no less to be my personal decision. I create every character to be a unique entity from myself. My above statements are merely my impression of what an EPC that I might see myself running would do. Every individual character would make their own decision. Of course I do also realize that every character I create would invariably be a shadowed reflection of my own mind, Id, and Ego in some fashion, this makes no difference whatsoever.
A realistic universe can't be reduced to if-then-else statements.
Bear in mind Kobold Lord, I actually agree with you on this.
A good DM will present as many options for actions as his/her imagination and that of their players will allow. These actions do however need to be consistent with what is happening. Not every situation has more than two answers/actions. Some are simply do or don't. That is life, everything is varied and different.
Being presented with a situation that would ALWAYS result in the loss of exalted status is a poor one to make as a DM. To present your players will various options, have them choose and still have someone lose their status is a simple fact of the game. PCs make their choices and accept the responsibilities of their actions.
Also, bear in mind that a Paladin still needs an Atonement spell cast on them before getting back their abilities, even should they act under a Domination effect. Rather unfair there too. comparing this with Exaltation though, it is a logical extrapolation of the Domination and Atonement rule.
While I think that you really shouldn't be on this thread ( given that there are likely to be some spoilers here )... well neither should I, but I would like to chime in from a STAP-player's position.
Fair point and I quite agree with you, however when I received the E-mail from Anthony the Dm that he'd started a new discussion regarding Savage Tide I have to answer.
We have lengthy discussions regarding creature tactics in the 3.5 DND rules. We only migrated to V3.5 a year ago, I am currently running Age of Worms and playing through The Shackled City along with Anthony.
The spoilers don't interest me the concept, discussions and rules clarifications make for a more informed game experience!!
The savage tide is one such campaign which we won't be starting just yet!! Approximately six months from now maybe.
well, I will keep my fingers crossed and a candle buring on your behalf with regard to the exalted monk's player sticking to his end of the bargain and NOT complain. In my experience, that never works out all that well - but then again, you probably know your players quite well, or at least better than my cynical self.
As for nevermind's comment - I guess I simply wanted to allude to the fact that players were snooping through the basically "GM-oriented" board... porbably _his_ GM is out here somehwere as well ?
Personally I always find it helpful if players in a way "know" a story and assist with building athmosphere - but it is also th reason why I heavily lace my stories run from pre-written material with a hefty dose of turpentine-tests..