I enjoy the grey of the setting, and it's what transformed me from an initially reticent subscriber to an enthusiastic one. It reminded me of why I enjoyed playing D&D's Planescape setting where denizens of the Abyss and Nine Hells along with a Paladin can get along on the surface in a pub in Sigil. Sure, they want to all manipulate each other into ultimate victory, but there's no knee jerk reaction to draw fangs and swords since no one wanted to face the Lady of Pain. It became more of a "how to use negotiation, subterfuge, trickery, and the mind" to best a foe instead of combat all of the time. After years of roleplaying, this approach was refreshing to me. If I didn't like it, I'd shop elsewhere.
So far from the AP's I've DM'd and those I've played, I never got a sense of "having" to ally with "evil" as the sole road to finishing the AP. I can recall reading sidebars and such about what if the players don't want to parlay. I've never felt bound to anything, and I certainly don't try to bind my player.
I enjoy how the AP's increasingly seem to make more pronounced the absolute need for everyone to have fun, and for DM's to become attuned to their players. If there's an encounter that will enrage the players, the DM can perhaps cut it, or cut it short, or not make it so aggravating to the players.
As far as rewards for non-combat successes, I enjoy these. I've always added them on my own, and I was impressed with Rise of the Runelords to include one of the more subtle but memorable moments before I had a thought to add any more on my own:
|
I personally like the approach Paizo has taken with the adventure paths. I don’t think being a good hero should be easy. A real hero has to make the tough decisions to try and do the right thing. The world can be a very not nice place, and PCs should have to deal with that fact. I think resisting the temptation of falling completely too evil helps to show how great a hero is. It’s the tough decisions you make every step along the way that help define what type of character you are. Hero, villain, or anywhere in between.
I can only speak for Rise of the Runelords, Legacy of Fire, and Council of Thieves, but I have enjoyed the grayish morality choices that PCs are confronted with. I think having to decide between what is expedient, what is for the greater good, and what is moral and ethical keeps things interesting. As long as there are no points where the players have to choose to act definitely, without a doubt evilly (something I think the Adventure Paths have avoided) I think this is a good thing to have.
I also enjoy the non-treasure extra rewards that PCs can get as the adventure develops. PCs should be able to see direct rewards for their heroics besides just another +1 sword. It is also nice to see that the PCs actions really do change the world, even if it in relatively minor ways a lot of the time.
I also chime in agreement to the PCs being the big heroes of the story. It can be nice to have at least some people that can help the PCs every now and then, but it should be the PCs who save the day in the end, and allow for the victory against evil.
I have lost track of who has said what in this thread and I may have even missed reading a few posts, so please pardon any repeats of something others have already said.
Not all players think the same and not all DM's run games the same, so while the "good working with evil" bit may seem only one option to some, to others it may seem the only way the story can advance because of either how they look at things as a player or how their DM presented the material. If a module or AP does not have viable alternatives in the product for avoiding working with evil, even if these options would be almost impossible to pull off, then there are "by the book" DM's out there that will interpret this as meaning "work with evil or fail" and not give any other choices because the writers did not give any choices. There are also the DM's that are too lazy to write up their own possible alternatives so they say do it this way or fail. As for the players, I know I have my good and bad days as a gamer, where sometimes I may be too stressed out or tired to think well when gaming. One day I may come up with a dozen other ways to do something, but on one of those bad days I may not think up any alternatives to the one way the module wants the DM to steer us.
|
|
As it stands I like giving my players the choice to "deal with the devil" so to speak. I would also like to see more NPCs that the players can influence to become either allies or antagonists. Villains who can be redeemed rather than murdered for their stuff (possibly to become cohorts of the players). See the Spike or Piccolo effect for this. As a DM some villains are too much fun to only see them deliver a monologue and get murdered by the players in 4-10 rounds. Or an NPC ally who turns to the Dark Side if the players fail to guide them to goodness. If the players are a part of a villains origin (or feel partly responsible for his fall) then they have that much more stake in later developments of that character.
I guess I am nothing but a bored white kid Sith fanboi tired of playing goody 2-shoes. I find morally ambiguous campaigns far more engaging than something black and white.
Let's kill some more orcs.
Why?
'cause they're evil. No one knows why, they just are.
+1
This thread is on the verge of doing that terrible thing were it falls apart while we all bicker about morality and the alignment system. Lets just avoid it this time.
The writing for the AP's is good... dang good. If you don't like it, change it or mod it out. I'm running Council of Thieves right now, and the main theme I'm hitting on is how an individuals desire for power can be self destructive. For instance, when my characters attempt to have magic items made, they have to sacrifice something personal (had a paladin lose her reflection and 5 years of her life-span for an enchanted mask)... fitting and in flavor with the basic themes.
As for the villains being more interesting...yes, yes they are. Actors know this, writers know this. Conflict makes stories, and while you can have a great hero, he won't normally be engaging enough to keep around without a good villain. The hero's are the tool with which we explore the world, the conflict, and the villain.
|
|
Really? I always thought they were kind of meh.Bipolar Demonfae?
Yep!
It hits certain buttons that just work for me. It's kind of like the Witch from Left4Dead really.
Forlarren: Please, stay away! Leave me alone! I'm no good to be around!
PC: Hey, lady, what? Are you alright? You need help or someth-
Forlarren: SHUT YOUR @#$%ING MOUTH OR I'LL EAT YOUR EYES AND FEED YOU YOUR LEGS!
PC: O_O
Forlarren: Oh gods! I'm sorry! I'm sorry! *sobs* I didn't mean..
PC: O_O *backing away*
Creative Director
|
forlarrenO_O
HELL YEAH! You guys are going to have Forlarren officially in Golarion?! (well, were)
That was my favorite creature out of Tome of Horrors!
Forlarren are indeed officially in Golarion. But since Madjaw's art came in at the last minute (aka too late to change) with hairy legs, I had to change him into a normal satyr. Which disappointed me as well.
Bow before the Chief, Okie-sans-avatar!
<stomp, stomp>
|
I love the dark, gritty flavor that Golarion and the APs have. The first "Thieves' World' anthology was the first work of fantasy that I got my hands on after I read 'Lord of the Rings'. After that I devoured everything by H. P. Lovecraft. Those and the sword and sorcery stories of Robert E. Howard and Fritz Leiber and Tanith Lee's 'Paradys' would further influence my taste for dark, gritty fantasy. Now, thanks to you guys, I also like to add a bit of pulp to the mix. I enjoy the ambiguity that comes with playing in an environment that isn't a two-dimensional cardboard cut out badly drawn in black and white. In a grey world the rare color becomes all the more beautiful. It's a harsh, uncaring, Darwinian universe out there and this makes the choices of the player even more important. Should I be one of those rare colors or should I follow the herd? Do I take the high road and do the right thing because it's the right thing to do or do I take the low road and do what is easiest? How dirty am I willing to get and for what reasons? Those kinds of question make for great story-telling and are one of the many reasons that I like the tone of the APs and Golarion as a setting. I like the PG-13 themes and would even like to see PG/R for a horror AP. I'm a big boy now and I can handle the adult themes that come with those without my entire belief system having a nervous breakdown. I realize that others may feel differently and I do not begrudge them their choices in theme or tone. They can adapt what is already there just like everyone else or choose another product. I think Paizo would loose more customers than it gained if it tried to make everything 'Sunshine & Sparkles'. Changing gears and going with other tropes or styles as something completely different isn't a bad thing; just don't loose the dirt and grit that makes Golarion awesome. In short, please don't Disneyfy it.
SM
Actually I do get tired of the fact that good guys simply are not represented in paizo products often and when they are, they are inefficient and incapable. It would be nice if just once the party could succeed without getting knee deep in the trash of the world.
It was understandable when it happens on occasion... sometimes a deal with the devil choice isn't a bad thing... but in order for it to be a "hard choice for the players" there has to actually be a choice.
In reality the players (and DM) are offered the following:
"Choose what we have or don't continue -- the other choice is the Dm has to completely write something of his own for getting you over the next missing parts."
In order to be a real choice between an "easy but evil" and a "hard but good" path you actually have to include the "hard but good" part in there.
It is extremely frustrating to get through large portions of an AP by finding the hard ways to help your moral ground only to have the designers hand you yet another "No win" situation where you have little/no choice but to side with evil.
I'm not saying such a choice shouldn't be available... but in order to actually be a choice another option has to be put forth -- which has been sadly lacking from paizo products...
It smacks of laziness, and false promises, "Oh yes this is a hard choice but..."
Actually no it's not a hard choice -- it's a poor railroad with no other actual choice put in for what seems to be sadistic and malicious glee.
EDIT:
Ok... that came out a bit harsher than I meant for it to. I do feel that way at several points during the adventure paths... that there are "cheap tricks" that are thrown in that really shouldn't be.
The "Oh by the way he can scry on you while you wear these things you must wear" in RotRl was extremely frustrating... especially since there was never a save or an intelligence check given in any early part to realize what was going on. DM's hate it when players do these sorts of things and surprise surprise as a player I hate it when it's done to me. "Oh look I can break and bend the rules cause it's my AP" is the way it came across.
However as a whole I love the APs, and the amount of effort that goes into them. I have yet to run one but from those I've had a chance to read I find myself wishing there were more and better ways to share all the rich details in them at the table... there is a lot of good... unfortunately it's buried in NPC's that die quickly or have little to no interaction with the PC... or simply has no means of being expressed and maintaining the plot without huge amounts of work on the DM's behalf.
I really do like the stuff in them in general... I just wish more of it was sharable... and several others at the various tables I attend have mentioned the same thing.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think Paizo would loose more customers than it gained if it tried to make everything 'Sunshine & Sparkles'. Changing gears and going with other tropes or styles as something completely different isn't a bad thing; just don't loose the dirt and grit that makes Golarion awesome. In short, please don't Disneyfy it.
That "everything" is the key point.
Nobody has ever asked that Golarion become Bella Sara or that EVERYTHING could be Sunshine & Sparkles. That would be as ludicrous as asking that EVERYTHING be Grim & Gritty.
Instead, people are asking if perhaps, at some point, maybe, SOMETHING could be Sunshine & Sparkles. Or even just NOT Grim & Gritty.
Where's the middle ground in between?
There are a few isolated parts where Good does hold the day, and where they do so without being Complete Bastards (TM) - for countries, Andoran and Lastwall pretty much fill this role. Maybe Nirmathas, in rough and tumble, disorganized kind of way.
Do you want Grim and Gritty crusaders who are infested with corruption, inquisition, and the rest? Then Mendev is right up your alley.
But can't there be a place, even in a mostly Grim & Gritty world, for a country to be honestly, legitimately, and completely Good? Here, in THIS place, Good works. Not good but secretly evil. Not good but a punch of racist jerks. Not good but cryptofascist thought police. Just actual, honest-to-goodness good. The rulers are just. The people are devoted and dedicated. They treat each other well, and they treat outsiders well, as long as they don't make too much trouble. Can there still be conflict in such a place? Sure. But it's the exception, not the rule.
That's the design goal for Lastwall as a country. In a lot of ways, that's the Andoran story too, and we had a lot of author email discussion when we were putting together the Andoran Companion about this very topic. Some people wanted it to be more secretly skeezy, but Sean was "no, this country is NG and it's gonna stay NG."
Good doesn't mean boring - it just means you need to bring a little more to the table and not rely on the crutch of sleazy corruption to create interest.
Here endeth the rant! :)
But here still remaineth the request that a "Good Guys Being Good" AP would be very cool to see as a change of pace.
|
I agree with both Jason and Abraham...
i know the PC are there to solve the APs... but both undermining every possible good ally and trowing sand to character eyes is a bit cheesy in the end, and repetitive...
one of our group who actually DM some adventures main complain is that while Paizo adventures have awesome stories... they are all beyond the players reach... most of it is where they will never see it... and its a shame...
and again, i agree an option where the other solution is defeat... its irrelevant, there is no freedom to act, the idea is not to make it sparkle world... but a campaign where heroes could resist temptation, instead of accepting it in order to solve the story would be worth it... so bag is that Galahad was the only one to retrieve the chalice because he was the only one able to resist every temptation in his way, while better and more experienced knights lost their way?
|
|
Hmm not to sure on that one. handled incorrectly all you will end up with is a dead game as your players think you are trying to intentionally screw them over.
one thing is that by taking this cheap or easier steps they might be strengthening the lesser evil, while taking good actions weaken both evils...
it doesn't need to get the PCs killed... just show how strengthening evil may be not the best idea... unless you are allying with that side of course :P
|
Creative Director
|
Certianly an interesting idea.
We'll be doing somethign similar, actually, in Serpent's Skull, with the PCs meeting five neutral NPCs near the start of the campaign. How the PCs treat these five will determine alliances, events, and developments throughout the game. The evil/selfish route will make that first adventure easier in some ways... but the good/helpful route will help quite a lot later on.
|
Certianly an interesting idea.
We'll be doing somethign similar, actually, in Serpent's Skull, with the PCs meeting five neutral NPCs near the start of the campaign. How the PCs treat these five will determine alliances, events, and developments throughout the game. The evil/selfish route will make that first adventure easier in some ways... but the good/helpful route will help quite a lot later on.
Yet 1 more reason to love paizo!
-t
In fact, I'd like to see a series of three or four AP in a row follow this structure.
I really do think that I would be opposed to that addition.
First off, it prompts players to have their own characters react differently based upon what has happened to previous character that they never interacted with.
After that, I'm pretty sure it would just make my life a pain if the group later came against a point where the best and only real option is the "evil" path just because good path were just unavailable.
At that point, I would fear that the APs trying to pound a moral lesson into their heads, would make them think that something is a test of their virtues, when it really isn't.
I'm fine with an evil route with immediate rewards, and good routes with bigger rewards over time (like what James Jacobs describes), but I don't want to see "You made the wrong choice, now you will pay greatly for it!" become a recurring theme in APs or other adventures.
Nor would I like to see an adventure where the party is prompted to try to beat the crud out of a Solar.
I don't want to see "You made the wrong choice, now you will pay greatly for it!" become a recurring theme in APs or other adventures.
Nor would I like to see an adventure where the party is prompted to try to beat the crud out of a Solar.
Apparently, I failed to convey my point, since I wasn't advocating either of those situations. I was advocating something similar to what James mentioned above (which is presumably why he mentioned it in response to my previous post).
---
Incidentally, the more I hear about the Kingmaker AP, the more awesome it sounds. If I had the means to pay for it, I'd gladly pick up an AP subscription for the next sixth months.
I hear ya.
I'm curious, though, to find out if the worry that we put too much evil in our adventures is shared by others? Again... the grittier adventures and elements we produce generally get good reviews and good sales, so I feel pretty justified in presenting these more mature, edgier products and adventures, but if folks are getting tired of them and want more good in the books... let me know!
My opinion is that every possible option should be open to the players, and some should be harder than other. I mean, if the story outright requires a player to side with demons, how is a paladin supposed to play it?
If I was roleplaying a proper paladin I would outright refuse to work with any demons or devils, nor would I use any evil artifact or item as a means of 'leveling the playing field' against an extremely powerful foe even if I was told over and over again that it was the only way. A truly lawful good character would be of the opinion 'the ends never justify the means' and would always look for another option.
Now honestly, I haven't played any of the adventure paths yet, but after reading the stuff that the original poster said I'm not too sure that I want to get them. I have no problem with giving the players the option to interacting with bad guys or doing evil things that they think will make their lives easier. However, making evil the only option is as boring as making good the only option. Give the paladin the heart wrenching choice of 'you must kill an innocent, or you must sacrifice yourself (with no chance of resurrection)' or something at least.
|
Creative Director
|
[My opinion is that every possible option should be open to the players, and some should be harder than other. I mean, if the story outright requires a player to side with demons, how is a paladin supposed to play it?
I agree. But we can't possibly write adventures to cover every possible option. Instead we give the main situation and cover the one or two or maybe three most likely options.
It's up to the GM to provide the rest.
And it's important to note that despite the tone of the original post... it's an over-exaggeration. At least, in my opinion. It's easy to see an element one doesn't like and obsess on it, even if it's NOT an overwhelming part of the whole. Evil is NOT the only option as a general rule in our Adventure paths. In fact, we try really hard to not force player choices and railroad them. I can't think of a single moment in the Pathfinder APs where we've said "In order to succeed, the PCs must kill an innocent or sacrifice one of their own." Options to do so have certainly appeared, but they're NEVER the only options.
If we did that often, I firmly believe Pathfinder's APs would NOT be popular and that the line would have been canceled by now due to lack of interest/sales. In fact, the line is one of our strongest sellers and it's won MANY industry awards. AKA: You should check it out, despite this thread's OP! :-)
I agree. But we can't possibly write adventures to cover every possible option. Instead we give the main situation and cover the one or two or maybe three most likely options.It's up to the GM to provide the rest.
Right, I guess saying 'every possible option' was going a bit too far, lol. Well, it is good to hear that you're making the effort to avoid railroading the players. Maybe what's really happening here is that by making the game focused on being dark and edgy that some people are feeling like some 'dirtiness' is being pushed on the players whether they like it or not? I know I've been noticing a trend for that sort of thing in a lot of video games such as Dragon Age.
Oh well, I probably will end up trying one of the APs one way or another ;)
I'm not reading this thread, but if it's true of any AP, can a mod change the name of this thread please? Thank you. Spoilers suck.
I agree with Tikon2000...we need more heroics and less moral ambiguity. Let heroes be heroes and not have to make deals with the devil in every adventure!
OP:
You might be interested in this - The Enigma of Good and Evil; The Moral Sentiment in Literature.
An object lesson in the value of the "evil hero" - Paradise Lost. The bits about good people are mind-numbing, skip them.
For the record Mr. Jacobs, none of the 15 or so people I play with (not at the same time) has the slightest problem with any of the APs so far. In fact, I'm gearing up to run the one in Westcrown and I'm excited that it seems darker.
And to reiterate something JJ said, there has never been a single module that REQUIRED a deal with the devil. You don't have to have an advantage going into the final battle. You could be a hero and refuse to make deals with evil. It will be harder, such is life. /shrug
OP:
You might be interested in this - The Enigma of Good and Evil; The Moral Sentiment in Literature.
An object lesson in the value of the "evil hero" - Paradise Lost. The bits about good people are mind-numbing, skip them.
For the record Mr. Jacobs, none of the 15 or so people I play with (not at the same time) has the slightest problem with any of the APs so far. In fact, I'm gearing up to run the one in Westcrown and I'm excited that it seems darker.
And to reiterate something JJ said, there has never been a single module that REQUIRED a deal with the devil. You don't have to have an advantage going into the final battle. You could be a hero and refuse to make deals with evil. It will be harder, such is life. /shrug
Siding with a succubus that you don't even know is a succubus and that you specifically can't figure out a succubus isn't exactly a fair go, and that's just one of the kinder things they put out there.
In the end it's not the "hard choices" that bother me... it's the "oops look what you did!" *choices* that aren't even choices.
In the end it's not the "hard choices" that bother me... it's the "oops look what you did!" *choices* that aren't even choices.
Mmmmm. I can see that, I suppose; but it's not like that would never ever happen to a good guy. I would look at it as an opportunity to put money where mouth is: Once you know, whatcha gonna do about it?
Or if you never find out in character, what's the problem?
Couple of points.
The Shackles AP potentially involves taking away a demonic realm from the Abyss. It fell there in the first place, and it could be raised back up. There's even a note in there that to get the lordship you have to sacrifice a friend...a good person can get around this by sacrificing themself!
The irrevocable Anti-Christ argument is Fail from the beginning. First of all, you're killing a child. That's all you've done. Nobody knows that child is going up to be the anti-christ...all you've done is kill a child. You haven't saved anyone, because there isn't anything to save them from. Going back and killing Hitler is the same kind of non-argument. Because you never gave him the chance to murder millions, all you've done is kill an innocent man.
Believing in irrevocable evil means you are giving no choice. If the child is Evil, then you can kill them, because they are no longer innocent. If they are going to BECOME evil, sorry, you just committed murder, not good. You want to do good, you wait until they turn Evil, possibly planning for it, and THEN do something about them. THAT is the greater good.
Runelords, the blessing of weapons? Excuse me, 'sins' is another word of 'schools of magic'. You aren't doing anything more then making weapons that defeat a rival school of magic. There's no Evil involved.
For the big war against Demogorgon, you are encouraging Evil to fight against itself, and stopping him from becoming King of Demons. That's a good act any way you look at it. Getting evil people to do the work against their own is just a sign of how Good works. You don't have to work with them...you just have to get them to do what you want them to do.
lastly, Evil is wimpy. People go about extolling the virtues of evil, and unrestricted ability to rob, murder, kill, etc. They can use any means to do anything they want.
That is total and complete laziness. Evil people do not work hard. They do the minimal amount of work possible. They only stress their brains if they have to, or if they are crazy insane.
Good people have to work hard. Their options are inherently limited, which means they have to be very good at what they do to succeed. They can't take the easy road or the low road...they have to do the job right and honorably, and so they have to be much, much better at what they can do then they people they fight.
Good people are F'in tough, if they are fighting types. They've had to deal with not ever being able to take the easy way out. The evil SHOULD have to cheat to beat them!
The reason why we are fascinated with evil masterminds is because they are like good people, without the moral tags. They actually think and plot and plan, which most evil people never bother with. Evil people take the easy way out. Evil people are 'cowardly' because stand up fights are loser's games...for them. Good people take risks where evil people wait for more advantageous responsibilities. Evil masterminds are actually acting 'against type', and that's what is fascinating about them. Nobody cares about the typical skulking theif, crude thug, or bloodthirsty murderer any more then Dudley Do-Right. Smart good can be every bit as interesting as smart evil, and much more satisfying.
===Aelryinth
Well, to be fair... the "oops look what you did" part of that adventure is not something I would hold up during "Pathfinder's Greatest Moments."
To be fair I've had an abusive DM or two that regularly used such things to berate and humiliate players, so I'm a bit overly sensitive to these such happenings.
However I generally found that all the adventure paths had a few points where it was a "Ha! Caught you!" moment.
This taped on to the number of points where the DM feels that the only real path is to have the PC's take the one provided simply causes frustration for me.
IF there were a few things thrown in where it said, "If you PC's are prone to not making deals with the devil then another option for them might be *x* and *y* might mention something about it" would help the DM's have a means to solve the issue without having to substantially write large blocks of their own material (something that locally is the primary reason to use adventure paths... so the DM's don't have to spend all week putting things together on their own).
However I do feel that the paizo staff have noted this, and will look at it with due diligence, which is enough to satisfy me for the time being.
|
I like it as is, as it remind me that the devil is out there to make deal with you and you might not recognize it, but what you make of the whole issue is what really matter.
I whole against the possibility of a "perfect score" delusion. Every human should fall sometimes, teach you how to get up again.
But i understand that someone would what to have a choice about it (i only don´t agree with it).
Never fear, Mrs. Fishy is here.
Mrs. Fishy prefers games with moral depth and hates cookie cutter characters.
Mrs. Fishy has spoken.
Couple of points.
The Shackles AP potentially involves taking away a demonic realm from the Abyss. It fell there in the first place, and it could be raised back up. There's even a note in there that to get the lordship you have to sacrifice a friend...a good person can get around this by sacrificing themself!
The irrevocable Anti-Christ argument is Fail from the beginning. First of all, you're killing a child. That's all you've done. Nobody knows that child is going up to be the anti-christ...all you've done is kill a child. You haven't saved anyone, because there isn't anything to save them from. Going back and killing Hitler is the same kind of non-argument. Because you never gave him the chance to murder millions, all you've done is kill an innocent man.
Believing in irrevocable evil means you are giving no choice. If the child is Evil, then you can kill them, because they are no longer innocent. If they are going to BECOME evil, sorry, you just committed murder, not good. You want to do good, you wait until they turn Evil, possibly planning for it, and THEN do something about them. THAT is the greater good.
Runelords, the blessing of weapons? Excuse me, 'sins' is another word of 'schools of magic'. You aren't doing anything more then making weapons that defeat a rival school of magic. There's no Evil involved.
For the big war against Demogorgon, you are encouraging Evil to fight against itself, and stopping him from becoming King of Demons. That's a good act any way you look at it. Getting evil people to do the work against their own is just a sign of how Good works. You don't have to work with them...you just have to get them to do what you want them to do.
lastly, Evil is wimpy. People go about extolling the virtues of evil, and unrestricted ability to rob, murder, kill, etc. They can use any means to do anything they want.
That is total and complete laziness. Evil people do not work hard. They do the minimal amount of work possible. They only stress their brains if they...
Wow, great post.
|
|
Personally I feel the opposite of of the poster.
The adventure paths doesn't ask PC's to side with evil (to become actually evil). They ask them to deal with personas that are evil. And say what you want, but the best way in many cases to reverse evil's power is to lead by example.
"Sorry powers of Hell and the Abyss, I'm just a typical mortal Paladin from the world of Gloriaon with a just a little bitty time in creation. But let me show you how it's done. I'm going to take your tools and turn them against you. I might kill them, I might trick them, heck, by even the end of this adventure, I might just convice them that being evil isn't all that great."
But that sort of work doesn't happen if you don't brush up against evil.
The Paladin that has to make hard choices and creatively works within his code to save the world might just be the legendary hero that brings more faithful to the flock.
|
|
The Paladin that has to make hard choices and creatively works within his code to save the world might just be the legendary hero that brings more faithful to the flock.or the one to fall the hardest for his hubris... remember Arthas...
but i understand.. no risk no gain
Or you could go out like Sturm Brightblade. (Not a Paladin, but definatly Lawful Good, and had a code.) I don't think that to many players plan to make Paladins that fall, but GMs should give credit to paladins succeed in walking the line.
Come to mention it, Sturm had evil members in his old adventuring party.
The Paladin that has to make hard choices and creatively works within his code to save the world might just be the legendary hero that brings more faithful to the flock.or the one to fall the hardest for his hubris... remember Arthas...
but i understand.. no risk no gain
Or you could go out like Sturm Brightblade. (Not a Paladin, but definatly Lawful Good, and had a code.) I don't think that to many players plan to make Paladins that fall, but GMs should give credit to paladins succeed in walking the line.
Come to mention it, Sturm had evil members in his old adventuring party.
Mrs. Fishy remembers. Sturm was a Knight of the Rose (Mrs. Fishy thinks it was the Rose)...basically paladins in Dragon Lance. And yes, Mrs. Fishy confirms that Sturm had evil companions.
Mrs. Fishy is fun to party with, and evil. Mrs. Fishy can be reached by screaming in terror. Call Mrs. Fishy.