So, I just finished glancing through Part six and I have had an idea. Karzog had destroyed Alzanist before the runelords went into hibernation. THe PCs at the point in the game where I'm at (We're in the middle of Skinsaw murders)thinks that Alzanist is the runelord being brought back due to the Wrath rune and the catacombs of wrath in burnt offerings. What if by comming into contact with Alzanist's rune in the first game has turned the PC's into the instrument of her revenge against Karzog, and then by killing Karzog at the end of RotRL they inadvertently resurrect Alzanist by becoming the Catalyst of her return? I haven't read anything of the next 2 AP's so I don't know if Alzanist will play a part in any of them. What do you think?
I disagree. If handled correctly, and enough foreshadowing is used, attentive PC's should eventually be able to realize their mistake or folly and correct it.
But if they do not do enough digging and plan their actions carefully, then the DM should feel free to throw in a twist at the end to say "I tried to warn you, but you didn't listen, now look what happened" or something along those lines.
You may even have one player with suspicions, but they get dismissed by the other players, and in the end he can stand up and say "AHA! I was right! You guys didn't listen!"
Personally, as a DM, I love those moments.
My PCs are very aware of the fact that they might call Alaznist back--one of them is the Champion of Wrath--and they're trying to be careful on this point. They think she would be just as bad as Karzoug, and probably harder to beat; they're not willing to risk it.
If they *had* been willing to risk it, I think I'd have run with the idea. I like Alaznist a lot, and the PC Champion of Wrath just begs for an Alaznist-related plotline. (Bodyguarded by the former Highlady and an advanced Wrathspawn, no less. His previous allies have been less than happy about this.)
I think that whether the ending you suggest is okay or not depends critically on the game contract. As a player, I know that if I stay on track in order to make the game runnable for the GM, I strongly expect the GM to repay me with a good ending. I'm only okay with disastrous endings if I had real choices about going there.
It's like having a friendly NPC betray the PCs. If the players are allowed to like/dislike whatever NPCs they choose, and never feel obliged to cooperate just to salvage the GM's scenario, betrayal scenarios work fine. If the players cooperate with every apparently friendly NPC specifically because they think that the GM needs them to do so, betrayal scenarios are really unfair.
Mary