|
I will try really hard not to turn this into a creepy "conversation about my paladin" type of post.
I'm running a Pahtfinder campaign and the plot I'm coming up is developing into a really interesting plot twist. However, I'd like to share it to get some feedback from whoever is interested in taking the time to go through it. Who knows, maybe you'll like it and take something from it.
It all started as a simple mission to help a trader. His caravans kept getting mugged and his hired help kidnapped by a local band of Bugbears. The PCs looked into it and found the Bugbear hideout in some ancient dwarven ruins (mostly collapsed now). While rescuing the prisoners, the PCs found out that they were being used as forced labor to dig out some old tunnels that had collapsed, by a mysterious stranger in league with the Bugbears (its the other way around actually, the stranger is called Barrur and he's actually a Green Dragon in disguise, posing as the very same dwarf giving this information to the PCs !). Barrur is looking for the location of an ancient tomb of a Lich, and he believes clues to this location may lie deeper in the tunnels. His problem is that he has found an old Drow fortress beneath the ruins. He planned on striking some deal with the Drow, but the arrival of the PCs posed new problems that might solve themselves by throwing the PCs into the Drow lair, so he tricked them into it. However the PCs got their behinds kicked by Drider warriors, so they kind of left and tried to hit the "Ignore Quest" button.
This is the current point in the story. My plans are as follows:
With the Heroes out of the Underdark, but the Drow still in there, Barrur has kidnaped the local druid to offer to the Drow. As it turns out, the druid is the heir to the druid cove that entrapped the Drow millennia ago and a dear friend to the party. While the party was away shopping (literally) Barrur has made the trade and getting ready for the travel to the tomb. The PCs are currently tracking the druid and will soon find out her demise. It’s very likely that they will hunt down Barrur for justice/revenge. But here’s where I think it all becomes a brilliantly evil plot. Barrur took the druid back to the Drow, to have “justice” (even if Drow and twisted in nature) exacted upon her, for wrongs done to the Drow. As an outsider, whatever judicial system is alien to him, and as a neutral party he has no reason to disregard one law system over the other. The dilemma here becomes that if the PCs try to take him back to justice (as they’ve done in the past numerous times), aren’t they commiting the same act as he did? I hope I make my point on this one (I’m Mexican, English isn’t my first language and sometimes its hard to convey the exact thought).
So, Barrur will probably have already left when the PCs find his lair, although he’ll leave back minions to guard his stuff, but I’m planning on having him make an illusion (of his dwarven form, remember he hasn’t shown his draconic nature) to engage the characters in discussion over dinner about the above point (scrying over one of his minions, while maintaining a major image or something). So in case the PCs decide they’ll fight him anyway, he’ll already be well on his way.
I’m not sure if I’ll go this way or if they’ll catch him in his lair and the confrontation will lead to the reveal of the Green Dragon.
So, after the extensive text block, what do you think?
Any brilliant ideas?
I probably skipped over a lot of relevant information, so if something doesn’t make sense to you I’ll try to explain.
...as an outsider, whatever judicial system is alien to him.....if the PCs try to take him back to justice...
Who is the outsider? Barrur is a dragon, so he isn't the outsider. Or do you mean an outsider from the Drow perspective?
So let me get this straight:
This is a situation where Barrur has taken the Druid (kidnapped) and turned her over to the Drow, and the dilemma here is if the party tries to bring Barrur to justice for kidnapping, they basically are kidnapping and turn Barrur over to some other party?
If so, yeah that is a moral dilemma, but really how is that different than a bounty hunter or the police arresting someone for kidnapping (aren't they just kidnapping in return?).
The main difference here is that the Druid that was kidnapped did no wrong. They are related to the person that did the wronging, so it isn't quite on the same moral ground. The party would be fine with rescuing the Druid, as she is an innocent in this situation.
If you want to make it more tricky, just say that she DID actually help entrap the Drow, but afterward was turned to stone and was recently freed from that spell. That way then it truly is on equal ground.
It is for reasons like this that DnD systems (and the like) deal with moral absolutes most of the time. Drow are BAD GUYS. They are intrinsically evil. It is not just a social thing, they are EVIL. Says so in their stat block. That's why you don't have to worry about killing them as a PC. Same with all manner of other monsters. If the alignment scale wasn't so black and white, it would make things darn near impossible to do in a "moral" way. Kidnapping a druid and handing him over to EVIL people who plan to sacrifice/torture/maim when you know that is the case is an EVIL act. Hence, the PCs can do whatever they want. The laws of society play little role, as alignments deal in absolutes.
|
Yeah. He's an evil dude doing evil things. No moral dilemma there. As for your plotline, I'd leave them clues in his lair as to where he has gone and what he is up to. Trying to stop an evil dragon on a quest to achieve lichdom sounds like fun. (I am actually running a similar plot in my current game, involving dragons and liches, but no Drow... and the dragon isn't trying to become a lich. He is possessed by a devil and is in possession of the phylactery.)
By the way, your english is excellent. -=)
|
|
Who is the outsider? Barrur is a dragon, so he isn't the outsider. Or do you mean an outsider from the Drow perspective?
Yeah, I meant as an outsider to the Drow perspective
I thought about having her be the one that trapped the Drow, but that would mean she's millenia old and way too powerful for the dragon right now. But maybe she could be a reincarnation or something along these lines. Thanks for the advice!
It is for reasons like this that DnD systems (and the like) deal with moral absolutes most of the time... The laws of society play little role, as alignments deal in absolutes.
I can see your point on the good / evil axis, but what about the lawful / chaotic axis then?
Regardless, the dilemma is not really about the Drow's actions, but the DRAGON's. He has done something that the party obviously won't like, and will want to take action against. But from the dragon's prespective, he has not wronged the PCs more than they would wrong him by taking action.Thanks to everybody for the feedback
It is for reasons like this that DnD systems (and the like) deal with moral absolutes most of the time... The laws of society play little role, as alignments deal in absolutes.I can see your point on the good / evil axis, but what about the lawful / chaotic axis then?
Regardless, the dilemma is not really about the Drow's actions, but the DRAGON's. He has done something that the party obviously won't like, and will want to take action against. But from the dragon's prespective, he has not wronged the PCs more than they would wrong him by taking action.Thanks to everybody for the feedback
The alignment system is not influenced by the character's perspective, be they PC or NPC. Else everyone's alignment would be "Good" regardless of their actions, because most people tend to define themselves as doing the "right" thing (but what one person sees as "right" is not necessarily self-sacrificing and altruistic, which are specifically what the rules of the game defines as "good").
General tendencies and actions dictate an alignment from an abstract perspective. What somebody thinks they are is irrelevant.
Is in some way what the party is doing to the dragon the same thing doing to the druid? Sure. But I'm not sure why that matters beyond the fact that both sides did something generally considered lawful. I don't think there's ever been an issue where, "Hey, he did a lawful act so we can't hurt him!"
If it is in fact the party's sworn duty to capture the dragon, they're still being equally lawful in capturing for his crime (kidnapping the druid is still kidnapping, even if he delivered her to the drow for some organized purpose). There may be different cultural laws at odds here, but that overall doesn't mean a whole lot other than each side sees their rules being broken. As long as each lawful individual follows their code for responsible behavior, it doesn't matter (and of course it is entirely irrelevant to characters that are not lawful).
Am I missing something here?
It is for reasons like this that DnD systems (and the like) deal with moral absolutes most of the time... The laws of society play little role, as alignments deal in absolutes.I can see your point on the good / evil axis, but what about the lawful / chaotic axis then?
Regardless, the dilemma is not really about the Drow's actions, but the DRAGON's. He has done something that the party obviously won't like, and will want to take action against. But from the dragon's prespective, he has not wronged the PCs more than they would wrong him by taking action.Thanks to everybody for the feedback
The alignment system is not influenced by the character's perspective, be they PC or NPC. Else everyone's alignment would be "Good" regardless of their actions, because most people tend to define themselves as doing the "right" thing (but what one person sees as "right" is not necessarily self-sacrificing and altruistic, which are specifically what the rules of the game defines as "good").
General tendencies and actions dictate an alignment from an abstract perspective. What somebody thinks they are is irrelevant.
Is in some way what the party is doing to the dragon the same thing doing to the druid? Sure. But I'm not sure why that matters beyond the fact that both sides did something generally considered lawful. I don't think there's ever been an issue where, "Hey, he did a lawful act so we can't hurt him!"
If it is in fact the party's sworn duty to capture the dragon, they're still being equally lawful in capturing for his crime (kidnapping the druid is still kidnapping, even if he delivered her to the drow for some organized purpose). There may be different cultural laws at odds here, but that overall doesn't mean a whole lot other than each side sees their rules being broken. As long as each lawful individual follows their code for responsible behavior, it doesn't matter (and of course it is entirely irrelevant to characters that are not...
I would also add that it's not just what a PC or NPC does that defines their alignment, but how they go about it. Even the average Chaotic Evil NPC(not necessarily adventurer) isn't going to kill someone on a lark and set buildings on fire because "it's what I do, I'm CE". They may be a petty individual on a day to day basis and generally unpleasant, but it doesn't mean they've got a bunch of dead bodies in the closet signifying the dozens of times they lost their temper. Would they get into fights on the regular? Sure. Might they even shank someone in cold blood because that person pissed them off? Double sure. But it doesnt' mean that they're going to kill everyone they meet.
I might be approaching this from the wrong angle, but it's how I handle alignment in my games. And DeathQuaker has an excellent point in that everyone *thinks* they are doing the "right thing" regardless of whether or not they're actually doing it.
|
The dilemma here becomes that if the PCs try to take him back to justice (as they’ve done in the past numerous times), aren’t they commiting the same act as he did?
Ditto to all the above.
There's also the question of intent.
The dragon is kidnapping someone, to use as a bargaining chip, to gain access to an old tomb, presumably to become a lich himself.
The PCs are presumably going to capture the dragon, and/or kill it, to prevent further harm to other innocents.
The two aims are not comparable, therefore there is no dilemma.
From the way it sounds, this is much less an issue of Good vs. Evil and more of an issue of Lawful vs. Chaotic.
The Drow are inherently evil, there's really no arguing against that. So from a moral standpoint, breaking their laws for the sake of bringing a villain such as Barrur to justice would be considered good.
In this situation, it'd work for both Lawful and Chaotic characters. Lawful characters would be more concerned with the justice system of their own society than that of the Drow, and Chaotic ones would break their laws like they would to any other laws that would get in the way of them doing a good deed.
I'm guessing that the point was not that there's an actual moral dilemma, but that it could be a cool scene to have the BBEG sit down and have a moral debate to try and tempt the PCs into accepting his rationalization of his actions?
|
|
I'm guessing that the point was not that there's an actual moral dilemma, but that it could be a cool scene to have the BBEG sit down and have a moral debate to try and tempt the PCs into accepting his rationalization of his actions?
Yeah, I agree that the dragon's rationalization is in fact flawed and in the end there is no actual dilemma. But I believe that the confrontation will at least put the PCs off guard and provide some interesting roleplaying opportunities.