So, I'm sure there must be other DM's that are going to find themselves in this position. I'd like to know what other ideas are out there that people have planned for dealing with this. I have read through the adventure already.
I have a LG Paladin of Iomedae in my group of adventurers. Ashes at Dawn is going to take more work to run if the players are out trying to kill any vampire they find. I very much doubt they are going to be willing to work with the vampires. They will simply not be willing to work for them for information on the Whispering Way. They would try to find some alternative method to get the information and likely start war with the vampires in the process or get themselves overwhelmed and killed in the process.
So... here are some ideas I had that I think might help guide the players (specifically the paladin who is the leader) into being more agreeable.
1. Making the vampires "less threatening" to society. As in they "choose" to drink the blood of animals for the sake of peace, but there will always been those vampires that ignore the pact and feed on un/willing mortals. But at least if the vampires as a whole appear to show some restrain as if they are "trying" to keep the peace, then the Paladin would find that redeemable at least.
2. I am thinking of making Quinley Basdel the Paladin's half-brother and Quinley's mother is ALSO the Paldin's mother. They are currently only on part 2 of the campaign, so if I introduce Quinley early enough and make him a "good" guy then when it comes time to help him it will be more about "justice and law" than good vs. evil.
The story would be that the Paladin's mother was a noble, who had a fling with a cleric of Idomedae. (Both of them young and foolish and in love.) She is sent away with this cleric to go have the child and then she returns to Caliphas leaving them both behind. The cleric raises the Paladin as his own. Over the years the mother becomes a vampire and Quinley is born. Then When Quinley is a child he is sent to live with his father as well. So the Paladin and Quinley grow up together and part ways as young men (Quinley back to Caliphas and the Paladin to become and adventurer) so they have that bond.
Anyway, that's some ideas. I'd love to hear any others people may have.
Thanks!
I have a Cleric and Inquisitor of Pharasma in my group...
The way I see it helping out the Vamps will stop them from unleashing upon the good citizens of Caliphas...which would be a bad thing :)
However I plan to extend the campaign by returning by the PCs returning to war against the vamps.
I like the idea of giving a character a personal stake with the mother angle.
Now, the module does explain how they can get the information if the characters choose to kill the vampires instead of working with them, but it doesn't really require you to rewrite much to make leaving them alive "more palatable".
Remember:
- The players have friends in the city who warn them against agitating the situation to prevent a war from breaking out between the humans and the vampires, and can try and help them prioritize the Whispering Way. After all, it won't take much for them to explain that what the Way is doing is really bad mojo.
- You can point out (or have ally's point out) that the Crusaders of Mendev have issues with their own men abusing their power and terrorizing the common folk. Paladins (and Lawful Good characters) are not required to fight every war they come across when they come across it, and can work with lesser evils from time to time. In the case of Mendev, human evils pale compared to the threat of the Abyss. In the case of Caliphas, the vampires have been entrenched for hundreds of years and aren't planning to destroy the world.
-Continuing on the thread of the Vampires being entrenched:
Try and remind your players of those facts. The vampires have been there a long time and will keep a while longer if they want to come back and deal with them after finishing the Way. The Way is a much bigger threat, one so big that the Vampires are willing to help against them.
-One last thing an allied NPC may point out is the consequences. If the players decide to hack their way through the vampires, it's likely to destroy the peace that currently exists and start a war. Which means the players will then need to choose to stay and continue to fight in the war they started, or to leave and abandon the city to the chaos. The better option is to use the vampires and come back and start a war when the players themselves are ready to stick it out and fight.
Iomedae isn't Lawful Stupid, and doesn't require her paladins to smite everything that radiates evil. She's likely to give leeway so that they can bring down the bigger danger (as she does in Mendev).
I really suggest trying to point all this out if you're really worried about the players not working with the vampires, but let them go if they decide not to. It's ok to poke and prod, but you don't want to lock them on rails where you make the decision of how to approach the module for them.
Anyway, that's some ideas. I'd love to hear any others people may have.
If you're interested, here are a few of my thoughts on the matter...
I have a LG Paladin of Iomedae in my group of adventurers. Ashes at Dawn is going to take more work to run if the players are out trying to kill any vampire they find. I very much doubt they are going to be willing to work with the vampires. They will simply not be willing to work for them for information on the Whispering Way. They would try to find some alternative method to get the information and likely start war with the vampires in the process or get themselves overwhelmed and killed in the process.
Personally, I'd paint the situation in such a way that there are no other ways to find the information they need about the Whispering Way. Only the long-lived vampires...and specifically Luvick Siervage (who dates back to the Shining Crusade)...are knowledgeable enough to know the inner workings of the Whispering Way, their strongholds, and secrets. Faced with that circumstance, your PCs are then faced with the challenge of getting that information from the vampires...either by threatening and interrogating them (a difficult proposition, at best), or by persuading them (ergo, the need for solving the vampire murders in exchange for the information they seek).
1. Making the vampires "less threatening" to society. As in they "choose" to drink the blood of animals for the sake of peace, but there will always been those vampires that ignore the pact and feed on un/willing mortals. But at least if the vampires as a whole appear to show some restrain as if they are "trying" to keep the peace, then the Paladin would find that redeemable at least.
I would advise against this route. The vampires of Caliphas aren't the kind to substitute animal blood. They're too entrenched. Too layered over Ustalav society to make that kind of sacrifice. Granted, such a concession might have been offered long ago in exchange for peace, but hundreds of years have passed since then. Vampires are evil at the core of their being. Thus, they wouldn't go against their nature for very long.
2. I am thinking of making Quinley Basdel the Paladin's half-brother and Quinley's mother is ALSO the Paldin's mother. They are currently only on part 2 of the campaign, so if I introduce Quinley early enough and make him a "good" guy then when it comes time to help him it will be more about "justice and law" than good vs. evil.
Interesting direction to take it. The immediate buy-in for your player's paladin PC might pay off here. I'd originally envisioned Quinley's past as more of a street rat, freely mixing with the Vampire Underground and the normal criminal elements in the city. He's meant to be a wild card character. A mercenary rogue who can get things done for both sides of the equation.
The story would be that the Paladin's mother was a noble, who had a fling with a cleric of Idomedae. (Both of them young and foolish and in love.) She is sent away with this cleric to go have the child and then she returns to Caliphas leaving them both behind. The cleric raises the Paladin as his own. Over the years the mother becomes a vampire and Quinley is born. Then When Quinley is a child he is sent to live with his father as well. So the Paladin and Quinley grow up together and part ways as young men (Quinley back to Caliphas and the Paladin to become and adventurer) so they have that bond.
This may be a bit more of a stretch. Quinley wouldn't have had much of a chance to grow up on the streets and among the Vampire Underground if he'd spent time living with his Iomedae-worshiping father. People are generally shaped by the experiences of their lives. Quinley is the kind of character that needs to have gone through a lot of hardship, both among the living and the undead, to have arrived at what he's become.
So, my recommendation (if you go with the family connection) would be to have his mother raise Quinley on her own...but perhaps she often wrote to your paladin's father about him. That way, your paladin at least recognizes the fellow...but it'll be two different paths that each of them took in life, one becoming a paladin, the other becoming a dhampir rogue on the streets of Caliphas. That should make for some interesting angst and contrast between the two of them. The paladin might even look for ways to rescue or redeem Quinley, while working together to avenge their mother's death.
Another idea would be to introduce a mentor to your paladin. Presumably, another cleric of Iomedae...one who can coach him with insights into the will of their goddess and the importance of identifying and striking down the greater evil rather than the immediate one. Through this kind of NPC, you can give moral guidance to your player's paladin, as well as additional backstory on the tenuous peace between the vampires and the city...as well as the tremendous danger they'd pose to Caliphas if the unsolved murders wind up provoking them.
Alternatively, you could have your paladin receive visions along these same lines. With Saint Lymirin's chapel at the abbey in the latter part of the adventure, perhaps this servant herald of Iomedae could be reaching out to the PC with more of an omniscient guidance through his moral quandary.
Lastly, I think you have one other option in your quiver. Let the PCs start a civil war against the vampires and live with the consequences. As one of the earlier posters indicated, Caliphas will burn from within. Blood will run. Many of the well-placed vampires and their servitors will exact vengeance upon any number of high-ranking aristocrats throughout the city, thereby magnifying the problem a hundred-fold from what it would have been had they simply worked with the vampires. Sometimes, that's what happens when you kick over an anthill. They all come rushing out and bite you.
If you go this route, it should greatly complicate matters for the heroes. Their allies and resources among the Esoteric Order and the rest of Caliphas' nobility will fade away as they become too embroiled in the situation with the vampires to aid them in opposing the Whispering Way. This should make Adivion Adrissant and his minions that much bolder and potent in striking at the PCs. Don't go heavy-handed with it. But, make it clear that matters swiftly spiral out of control and that no further action from the PCs will remedy the situation with the vampires after that. They simply don't have time to hunt them all down. And there are more vampires capable of producing more of their kind than the PCs can keep up with...especially if they're still going to pursue the ultimate goal of the campaign (i.e., preventing the return of Tar-Baphon). If they still ignore that greater threat, the Whispering Tyrant should soon make a major appearance in your game. And there'll be even worse consequences for their relative inaction on that front.
My two cents,
--Neil
One change I'm going to make regardless is the size of the vampire population. The map/encounters in the AP suggest there are only a couple dozen vampires in the underground (and only 4 masters). I plan on spreading-out the underground and making it much more populated.
If the current underground is a "hamlet", I want to take it to the size of "medium-sized town." Afteral, it's a little weird that Giovanni wants to "get on the council" when there aren't enough vampires to support a council. This makes it so that there are simply "too many vampires to kill" and forces a non-combat solution. (Much like how Kingmaker#3 handled the centaur situation).
This should be a tricky problem to solve for LG groups. Doesn't mean they have to "fall", but it does mean recognizing that the world isn't the way they would prefer it to be, and having to creatively rise the challenge that their convictions place before them.
I'm not sure if it says in the module or not, but you could have Luvick's relationship to the original crusade be that he was a supporter/ally of it. If you could get that information to the player is some way, then it would seem that Iomedae was willing to ally with vampires when the need called for it, and therefore it would be ok for one of her Paladins to do so.
Additional insight on Luvick Siervage...
Luvick definitely fought during the Shining Crusade. But he was on the side of the Whispering Tyrant up until the point he and a handful of vampiric generals decided to abandon him. The adventure mentions this development in the background and Luvick's description. He's essentially the foremost vampire who turned his back on Tar-Baphon. Of course, not all vampires chose to do so. In fact, if you check out the sixth installment of Carrion Crown and the "Continuing the Campaign" article in Shadows at Gallowspire, there's even more potent vampire who served the Whispering Tyrant who would like nothing more than to punish Luvick Siervage for his betrayal of the lich-king.
One change I'm going to make regardless is the size of the vampire population. The map/encounters in the AP suggest there are only a couple dozen vampires in the underground (and only 4 masters). I plan on spreading-out the underground and making it much more populated.
The Vampire Underground is definitely much larger than just that single location in Ashes at Dawn. I really wanted to characterize those underground apartments as sort of a mutual playground and "summer court" for Luvick's clan rather than a singular gathering place/lair for them. So, there should be many more vampires throughout the city's underground. As you rightly surmise, the vampire population (and the various masters who sit on the vampire council) number much higher than what you see in the adventure alone.
Additional insight on Luvick Siervage...
** spoiler omitted **Ok, I knew I'd read something along those lines, but I couldn't remember if it was specifically him, or just vampires in general.
Even so, you could still have some connection between him and Iomedae and the shinning crusade, some forgotten lore you can place earlier in the AP to make it clear that the greater good is more important than a specific evil (how Iomedae worked with with a vampire to get behind enemy lines or something, or to escape from a trap) and then when the players are asked to and it turns out to be the same vampire....
Well, maybe Luvick handed over some choice pieces of information to the Crusade when he defected, something that helped take out key generals or even involving the defenses of Gallowspire.
Again, if you need an example to prove that Iomedae is ok with working with a lesser evil against a greater one you can point to Mendev. Luvick has a vested interest in keeping the Whispering Tyrant locked away and ensures the vampires of Caliphas don't becoming as terrible as they might. All that, plus the consequences of starting a war with the vampires as the Way is about to achieve their goal, should help make them realize that they may need to accept working with the vampires.
And if they don't, that's fine. Let their actions have their logical consequences.
The reason the vampires want the assassin stopped is because they feel like it will be blamed on a human and lead to a human vs vampire war which will cost a lot of lives on both sides.
The PC's have no idea how big the vampire side is so waging war against an organization like that is a bad idea. They can try to get the info from others, but the bad guys are the only ones with the info IIRC. It seem to be just a matter of which one they get it from.
I think how you play Luvick and Quinley will go a long ways towards how the PCs handle trying to negotiate with the vampires. As the vampires, especially Evgenya with her multiple mortal slaves, are pretty horrible.
One angle to play up is that this is the vampire's city, and they go much further than its guard does in actually keeping it safe. Seriously, look at the encounter table of the things that the vampires apparently keep bottled up in the sewers. Some of those critters are incredibly nasty and would cut through a civilian populace like a hot knife through butter. There's no way a city guard of normal people is actually stopping those things, so I would figure it's the vampires' doing.
Luvick himself should played up as a man who is not a nice guy - after all, living sentient creatures are his food - but he has standards. I would have Luvick actively restricting the others vampires from killing people and creating spawn, so that the vampire population doesn't get large enough to put a strain the city. He keeps a tight grip on the vampire population, and a vampire that gives in to its hungers and starts feeding indiscriminately on his watch is going to be introduced to the dawn.
I've given some thought to this adventure and I feel that it is based on black ops idea of ends justifying the means. And paladins shouldn't behave like this--they're meant to be larger than life heroes.
If I were to run this adventure, I would... ** spoiler omitted **
I'm a bit disappointed, but the story can be salvaged. Just make players desperate, portray vampires in druid-like terms (apex predators, yadda yadda), and let the paladins and Pharasmins have a special reckoning in the end.Regards,
Ruemere
This is the organization that is filled with necromancers. I don't think assuming they can't do something is a good idea.
There is a point where the potential war was supposed to be stated point-blank to the PC's. That is the card that is being played to get the PC's to help. As a LG character I would expect for one to help keep the peace as opposed to start a war. At the least he prevents the war for now, and does research to see if anything can be done about it later so the vampires are no longer an issue.
Basically the choice is cooperate or let people die in a war they may not win.
|
There is a point where the potential war was supposed to be stated point-blank to the PC's. That is the card that is being played to get the PC's to help. As a LG character I would expect for one to help keep the peace as opposed to start a war. At the least he prevents the war for now, and does research to see if anything can be done about it later so the vampires are no longer an issue.
Basically the choice is cooperate or let people die in a war they may not win.
Paladins in my groups do not tolerate evil and certainly do not negotiate with terrorists. In fact many of them may invite the war simply because vampire existence is an abomination. Heroes often get people killed and Paladins are big God-D-heroes.
I am not saying taking the hard line with the vamps is the only way to go with this. However, many of the people in this thread are trying to justify only ways of working with the vamps. I am hoping that there are choices for characters like the ones I mention above. I have only read the first two books myself so I do not know exactly what lies ahead. I just hope its not railroad city.
Of course, if the vamps played smart, they would do a proper PR stunt to make PCs cooperative. Unfortunately, they don't.
Um... they do, actually.
The vampires point out that they have lived peacefully with the people of Caliphas since the end of the Shining Crusade, but that the attacks are stirring up problems. The PC's have a chance to stop a war and further their own goals.
And while the PC's have the Mace, it doesn't change the fact that the Whispering Way killed a good friend, and has wrought chaos all over Ustalav. It doesn't make any sense for the players to give up the chase simply because they have the mace.
There's also the point that deciding to kill all the vampires is a perfectly viable option explained in the adventure. It lets the PCs handle the situation the way THEY want to. It doesn't railroad them into having to work with the vampires if they don't want to.
There's more than enough reason for even the staunchest of Paladins to work with the vampires, as the adventure explains, but it makes sure that they aren't required too. If the player's decide not to do anything then they accept what happens, and you can let them reap the consequences.
I have to admit that I'm baffled by the number of GM's who want to decide what the players will do before they even start the adventure. What's wrong with running the adventure and let them choose what they want to do? Isn't that the point of an RPG?
Paladins in my groups do not tolerate evil and certainly do not negotiate with terrorists. In fact many of them may invite the war simply because vampire existence is an abomination. Heroes often get people killed and Paladins are big God-D-heroes.
I am not saying taking the hard line with the vamps is the only way to go with this. However, many of the people in this thread are trying to justify only ways of working with the vamps. I am hoping that there are choices for characters like the ones I mention above. I have only read the first two books myself so I do not know exactly what lies ahead. I just hope its not railroad city.
The adventure explains what to do if the players decide not to play ball and decide to simply take out the vampires. It's a perfectly viable option. Not as easy as working with the vampires, but why should it be? They choose between doing what is right and hard, or morally questionable and "easy".
Railroads only happen when the GM decides the one path through an adventure and restricts the choices of the players. The adventure doesn't do that.
The vampires are unrepentant, self-serving predators, of that there is no doubt. But, as the adventure repeatedly stresses, they are predators with no small amount of dependency on their food, which has promoted a 'shepherd' mentality among the older, wiser vampires like Luvick. The goal for the GM is to present the vampires under Luvick's rule as a rough equivalent to the World of Darkness Camarilla--decadent, cruel, and predatory to be sure, but preaching a sort of enlightened self-interest which has them more or less protecting their mortal kine from outside threats--if only to preserve their own food source.
As regards the mace--the implication seems to be that it's not a necessary requirement for the Carrion Crown, but an optional ingredient that would make the potion more potent, and also destroy a mighty artifact of the Whispering Way's most hated enemy.
|
|
Paladins in my groups do not tolerate evil and certainly do not negotiate with terrorists. In fact many of them may invite the war simply because vampire existence is an abomination. Heroes often get people killed and Paladins are big God-D-heroes.
I am not saying taking the hard line with the vamps is the only way to go with this. However, many of the people in this thread are trying to justify only ways of working with the vamps. I am hoping that there are choices for characters like the ones I mention above. I have only read the first two books myself so I do not know exactly what lies ahead. I just hope its not railroad city.
The adventure explains what to do if the players decide not to play ball and decide to simply take out the vampires. It's a perfectly viable option. Not as easy as working with the vampires, but why should it be? They choose between doing what is right and hard, or morally questionable and "easy".
Railroads only happen when the GM decides the one path through an adventure and restricts the choices of the players. The adventure doesn't do that.
Good to hear Tobias thank you for explaining further.
Not remotely. The Sabbat are the young vampires, crazed with their own power, rejecting any notion of sympathy for or dependence on mortals, abandoning human notions of morality to be terrifying beasts of the night. Their struggle against the Antediluvians aside, they are as morally black a group as they come. In Ashes at Dawn, they would be the young vampires working with the Whispering Way to overthrow the control of their elder so they can rampage freely.
The Camarilla are not Good Guys at all, but they delude themselves into believing that they are, and try to achieve a relatively peaceful, secret coexistence with humans. Luvick would be the Prince of the Caliphas Camarilla in this analogy. He is a monster. He preys on sentient beings, and has no doubt killed many. But right now, he and his defend Caliphas and Ustlav at large from other threats. As a DM, I would stress that Luvick places strict limits on spawning new vampires and tries to prevent his subjects from killing when they feed--simple self-interest which provides a degree of protection to his 'flock'.
You may not agree that the adventure as written successfully presents it that way, but that is the intent, and a GM who wishes to have his players peacefully interact with the vampires would benefit from making whatever alterations they see fit to present it that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're boiling things down too much, ruemere. Yes, if you decide to remove absolutely everything that's going on, yes that is what it comes down to. But it requires you to remove all the nuisances that are going on.
For one thing, the vampires aren't supposed to be sympathetic, rise above being evil monsters. They aren't. They've created a niche in which they can co-exist with humans, and one that the nobles of the city realize is to their benefit.
Working with the vampire's isn't supposed to be heroic. It is meant to be a matter where the character's are challenged to make a hard decision.
And I haven't been arguing that working with the vampire's isn't a case of the ends justifying the means. In fact, I've been pointing out that working with the vampire's is a morally questionable but easy, while fighting them and standing by morals is harder. And that's the way it should be.
Back to the characterizations:
In the intro to the vampires:
- Quinley doesn't care one way or the other about the vampires. He's not going to pretend they aren't monsters, because they are. But he's still going to suggest talking with them because they might have information and he wants to find his mother's killer.
- If the player's don't want to work with the vampire's, he's still willing to bring them down to the catacombs and kill all the vampires in order to find the needed info.
In regards to the other vampires:
- Luvick alone can point out that it's been his leadership that has lead to peace with the humans, and that as bad as the vampire's are their predations would be worse if he didn't keep a tight hold on them.
- If he can't stop the killings and doesn't let his people go after the human nobles that are being implicated (an act that would start the war), he will lose his hold and the result will be the same.
- He can point out just how bad things will get
These character's don't have to be saints, but they're intelligent enough to explain these things to the players in a way that is persuasive and makes sense. It's the GM's job to do that. If the player's still can't accept working with them then, that's fine.
My point is that the player's shouldn't be able to be big, damn heroes in shining armor AND work with the vampires. The vampire's shouldn't be tragic, or any less predatory, because it makes working with them less of an issue and plays down the importance of the choice.
The module gives the players a difficult choice:
1. Work with a lesser evil that, while bad, has been in place for centuries and is in equilibrium in the city. They don't have to perform any evil acts, but must not trouble the monsters. This leaves evil in place, but lets them focus on stopping The Whispering Way and prevents a war that just about anyone in the know (human allies and vampiric monsters) will point out will be bloody and costly, with many innocent people dying as a result.
2. Stay true to their absolute morals, accept no compromise, and cleanse evil wherever they see it. They still get their information and can go after the Way, but they start a bloody war between humans and vampires (all across Ustalav) that they don't have the time to dedicate their efforts towards fighting in full until the Way is stopped.
There is no good choice, because both require "Ends Justify The Means" thinking. You've explained the issues with trying to get them to work with the vampires, but you're forgetting the otherside of the coin. Is the war they will spark with the vampires, and then abandon the city to in order to stop the Way, worth the cost in innocent lives just so they don't have to compromise their morals?
They work with the vampires, things continue as they are, which is in an equilibrium that actually "works". They fight the vampires, and hundreds of innocents will die as they abandon the city to the chaos they created. Does the ends of sparing their morals from being compromised justify the additional innocents who will die and be cursed with undeath balanced against the lesser number who would have suffered? Especially when you consider that the vampire's have suffered purges before and will be prepared to fight back?
There is no totally good choice in this adventure. It's just that less innocents die if the PCs work with the vampires. Why make that choice easier? It's meant to be hard.
You may not agree that the adventure as written successfully presents it that way, but that is the intent, and a GM who wishes to have his players peacefully interact with the vampires would benefit from making whatever alterations they see fit to present it that way.
Exactly!
My only issue is the "GM who wishes..." part. I mean, it's nice if the players will interact with the vampires, but that runs the risk of being kind of railroad-y. I realize it's my opinion, but I find things go better when you let the players make that choice, rather than trying to shoehorn them into it.
Oh, I agree. Allow me to amend the statement: if the GM wants to make working with the vampires a more legitimate choice for the Heroes-with-a-capital-H, that's the sort of tack to take: the vampires are unrepentant monsters, but monsters who have imposed limits on themselves, providing some measure of protection to their prey.
There is a point where the potential war was supposed to be stated point-blank to the PC's. That is the card that is being played to get the PC's to help. As a LG character I would expect for one to help keep the peace as opposed to start a war. At the least he prevents the war for now, and does research to see if anything can be done about it later so the vampires are no longer an issue.
Basically the choice is cooperate or let people die in a war they may not win.
Paladins in my groups do not tolerate evil and certainly do not negotiate with terrorists. In fact many of them may invite the war simply because vampire existence is an abomination. Heroes often get people killed and Paladins are big God-D-heroes.
I am not saying taking the hard line with the vamps is the only way to go with this. However, many of the people in this thread are trying to justify only ways of working with the vamps. I am hoping that there are choices for characters like the ones I mention above. I have only read the first two books myself so I do not know exactly what lies ahead. I just hope its not railroad city.
I don't think any other option should be available. Sometimes real life is the same way. You just have to deal with those you really don't like or else.
It is decisions like these that make for great RP session.edit:just informed there was a 2nd option.
Of course, if the vamps played smart, they would do a proper PR stunt to make PCs cooperative. Unfortunately, they don't.Um... they do, actually.
The vampires point out that they have lived peacefully with the people of Caliphas since the end of the Shining Crusade, but that the attacks are stirring up problems. The PC's have a chance to stop a war and further their own goals.
And while the PC's have the Mace, it doesn't change the fact that the Whispering Way killed a good friend, and has wrought chaos all over Ustalav. It doesn't make any sense for the players to give up the chase simply because they have the mace.
There's also the point that deciding to kill all the vampires is a perfectly viable option explained in the adventure. It lets the PCs handle the situation the way THEY want to. It doesn't railroad them into having to work with the vampires if they don't want to.
There's more than enough reason for even the staunchest of Paladins to work with the vampires, as the adventure explains, but it makes sure that they aren't required too. If the player's decide not to do anything then they accept what happens, and you can let them reap the consequences.
I have to admit that I'm baffled by the number of GM's who want to decide what the players will do before they even start the adventure. What's wrong with running the adventure and let them choose what they want to do? Isn't that the point of an RPG?
I have the book, and I missed the other option. I will have to read it again, thanks.
Much of this is in the adventure in my opinion, if not perhaps as explicitly as it could have been. Both Quinley and the Order of the Palantine Eye inform the PCs of how the vampires have coexisted peacefully with Ustlav for centuries, and how they fought against the Whispering Tyrant, opposing the Whispering Way to this day. The various vampires in the Underground are perfectly willing to talk--provided they go through the proper channels and talk to Luvick first. He'll give them a signet which will keep them relatively safe in their investigation. The ones who try to snack on you while you have the signet are the ones working for Radvir. If you don't have the signet--well, then you're an armed intruder, so the vampires have every reason to try to snack on you, enslave you, or otherwise dispose of you.
And the vamps very much interact with society. Lady Engva is a noblewoman of Caliphas; she doesn't make daytime appearances anymore, but it seems implicit that she still interacts with the Ustlavan upper crust. Radvir runs a tailor shop. Luvick doesn't much interact with the outside world directly, but that's because he's centuries old, which makes for difficulties in a plausible 'cover.'
That there is no way past Merrick Sais without a fight is the only really big misstep in making negotiation with the vampires a plausible option (in my opinion, at least).
That there is no way past Merrick Sais without a fight is the only really big misstep in making negotiation with the vampires a plausible option (in my opinion, at least).
It's important to note that...
...this wasn't always so. Due to the recent spate of vampire murders, Luvick basically ordered Merrick to go into "lockdown" mode. Thus, she's far more on guard against outsiders trying to reach the Vampire Underground than she might otherwise be. Ordinarily, she might handle visitors differently (depending on whether or not her pet plant has eaten recently)...relying primarily on her dominate ability to keep them pliant until Luvick's guards can take over.
My two cents,
--Neil
Creatures that kill, eat, and enslave people do not "peacefully co-exist" with humanity. The vampires of Carrion Crown are capital E Evil, and people are dying daily. No, they're not as big of a threat as the Whispering Way, but neither were the Skum/Mi-Go, and that shouldn't have stopped the heroes.
If people are being killed and enslaved, they're already at war with the vampires, whether they realize it or not. It's just one that they're losing.
No one's arguing that the vampire's are fine. But they are restraining themselves.
The fact is that there is no way to completely remove all the vampires from the city. Caliphas has tried before. It didn't work. In response, the vampires "drew back" and limited themselves so as not to draw attention to their existence.
The vampires are content to this existence. If they decided otherwise, their depredations would increase. So instead of 10 people dying a night, it would be about 20 to 25. If they're at war with the humans, this number would get even higher as they also replenish their numbers while feeding.
So you start the hot war and vampire related deaths start to increase exponentially in the city, and quickly spread to the rest of the land. The vampires, who have had time to plan for this eventuality start taking out important figures in the government and military (probably turning them) and causing untold chaos. And the players are leaving as this goes hot.
The fact is that killing the vampires isn't the GOOD option, simply because it will increase the death toll and weaken the country. And when all is said and done, there will still be vampires. All they need is for one to survive and the city will find itself back in the exact same spot within a decade.
That's the beauty of Ashes at Dawn. There is no moral high ground.
Edit: I'd also point out that the humans aren't losing, and neither are the vampires winning. The vampires aren't ruling the city behind the scenes or draining the population dry. The vampires are not trying to get more power or influence. They just want to exist at the level they have for the last few hundred years. For the humans to lose, the vampires would have to be making gains of some kind. The equilibrium that exists is really a best case scenario, simply because you'd have a better chance of destroying all the rats in the city than you would the vampires.
Creatures that kill, eat, and enslave people do not "peacefully co-exist" with humanity. The vampires of Carrion Crown are capital E Evil, and people are dying daily. No, they're not as big of a threat as the Whispering Way, but neither were the Skum/Mi-Go, and that shouldn't have stopped the heroes.
If people are being killed and enslaved, they're already at war with the vampires, whether they realize it or not. It's just one that they're losing.
For what it's worth: the Mi-Go are actively trying to summon an Elder God, which is a much greater threat than the Whispering Way; Adivon's plan, if successful, will return a powerful undead wizard, but one who has been beaten before, and could, at least in theory, be beaten again. If the Mi-Go make Shub-Niggurath manifest, it's game over, Golarion. And by the time the PCs get involved, the Skum are not much more than servitors of the Mi-Go.
I have to admit that I'm baffled by the number of GM's who want to decide what the players will do before they even start the adventure. What's wrong with running the adventure and let them choose what they want to do? Isn't that the point of an RPG?
And I'm baffled at the suggestion that there are DMs who don't know their players. I'm surprised that anyone would be baffled that there are a number of competent DMs who actually know their players.
And bleh - I already know this is is going to be a very troublesome/weak adventure for my particular players. The fact that anything from Vampire can even remotely be used as examples when discussing this adventure confirms my fears from day 1. I knew better. "Decadent vampire society" indeed. (Though I suspect that the murder-the-vamps route might be even more fun for my players, given the above. That's my hope! It might make this adventure more fun than any of us thought, actually.)
I don't think any other option should be available. Sometimes real life is the same way.
Maybe, but that makes for a crap game. It's never an excuse, in any case. (Thankfully, though, this adventure does provide another option, as your edit notes.)
And I'm baffled at the suggestion that there are DMs who don't know their players. I'm surprised that anyone would be baffled that there are a number of competent DMs who actually know their players.
And leaving the option in for them somehow destroys all of their fun? Feel free to strip out the consequences for , but just because you know what they usually like doesn't mean you should decide the path they will take before they get there. They might surprise you and decide to work with the vampires this one time.
I have to wonder why they're playing a horror adventure path if this type of difficult decision would ruin their fun. Horror isn't shiny heroes versus evil bad guys after all. It's dark, visceral and dirty, and sometimes you have to wade through the mud in order to do what needs to be done. If you have to strip out moments where they may need to do that (and there's only this one in the entire AP), maybe this is the wrong adventure path for your group. You wouldn't run Kingmaker for people who hate anything that isn't a straight forward dungeon crawl from point A to point B, after all. Why run Carrion Crown for a group that would not enjoy the rp challenges of having to make this type of choice and all that comes with it?
I for one plan on base trickery on the vampire's part. I'm not sure HOW I'm going to pull it off but the vampires are clever enough their goal would be to enlist the PC's aid in stopping a vampire serial killer WITHOUT letting them know they're working with vampires. It may prove entirely unfeasible, as I haven't really planned thoroughly yet since my group is still playing book 1, but if that's the case they will be doing everything they can to set up this serial killer to look like a sick, twisted, danger to society. Even if they have to do all "his" misdeeds against the general populace themselves. Also, they'll probably invent some kind of link between him and the Whispering Way on top of it just to make sure the PCs are more committed.
I at least can't imagine highly civilized vampires ever being this honest, not to mention trusting, especially where paladins of Iomeade are concerned.
|
|
I for one plan on base trickery on the vampire's part. I'm not sure HOW I'm going to pull it off but the vampires are clever enough their goal would be to enlist the PC's aid in stopping a vampire serial killer WITHOUT letting them know they're working with vampires. It may prove entirely unfeasible, as I haven't really planned thoroughly yet since my group is still playing book 1, but if that's the case they will be doing everything they can to set up this serial killer to look like a sick, twisted, danger to society. Even if they have to do all "his" misdeeds against the general populace themselves. Also, they'll probably invent some kind of link between him and the Whispering Way on top of it just to make sure the PCs are more committed.
I at least can't imagine highly civilized vampires ever being this honest, not to mention trusting, especially where paladins of Iomeade are concerned.
See now this sounds interesting and definitely feels like something I would expect from vampires. Mind if I yoink the idea? Please let us know how it turns out it will be a long time before my group reaches this point.
I for one plan on base trickery on the vampire's part. I'm not sure HOW I'm going to pull it off but the vampires are clever enough their goal would be to enlist the PC's aid in stopping a vampire serial killer WITHOUT letting them know they're working with vampires. It may prove entirely unfeasible, as I haven't really planned thoroughly yet since my group is still playing book 1, but if that's the case they will be doing everything they can to set up this serial killer to look like a sick, twisted, danger to society. Even if they have to do all "his" misdeeds against the general populace themselves. Also, they'll probably invent some kind of link between him and the Whispering Way on top of it just to make sure the PCs are more committed.
I at least can't imagine highly civilized vampires ever being this honest, not to mention trusting, especially where paladins of Iomeade are concerned.
It is not really a vampire, but free agent dhampir who is the middleman that drops the info. As for trusting the paladin, they can just ask him what he is going to do. It is not like he is allowed to lie.
And leaving the option in for them somehow destroys all of their fun? ... you should decide the path they will take before they get there.
What? No. What a silly assertion.
I have to wonder why they're playing a horror adventure path if this type of difficult decision would ruin their fun. Horror isn't shiny heroes versus evil bad guys after all. It's dark, visceral and dirty, and sometimes you have to wade through the mud in order to do what needs to be done. If you have to strip out moments where they may need to do that (and there's only this one in the entire AP), maybe this is the wrong adventure path for your group. You wouldn't run Kingmaker for people who hate anything that isn't a straight forward dungeon crawl from point A to point B, after all. Why run Carrion Crown for a group that would not enjoy the rp challenges of having to make this type of choice and all that comes with it?
The wrong AP for my group, when there's only one questionable adventure in the bunch? Also a silly assertion. All the other ones in this AP were decent - this is the only stinker (for my particular group) - and even then, the option to properly kill the vampires is there.
But then, I'm not really a baby-out-with-the-bathwater kind of person, so your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
And leaving the option in for them somehow destroys all of their fun? ... you should decide the path they will take before they get there.What? No. What a silly assertion.
There are two choices. If you decide that your players won't like one of the choices and remove it, they no longer have a choice and you've decided for them.
If you don't intend to remove the "work with the vampires" choice, I'm not sure what the problem with the adventure is. You just have a better idea what to prepare for and the players feel like they are making a choice and standing up for something.
The wrong AP for my group, when there's only one questionable adventure in the bunch? Also a silly assertion. All the other ones in this AP were decent - this is the only stinker (for my particular group) - and even then, the option to properly kill the vampires is there.
But then, I'm not really a baby-out-with-the-bathwater kind of person, so your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
It's a dark adventure path. Just look at Illmarsh and the horrible things they find there (beyond the mythos). Or the way people treat the Beast.
You make it sound like your players will be upset with the option being presented to them. If they find that so bad, then the dark nature of the adventure path is unlikely to go over well. If you have to change the tone of the adventure path it steals most of the flavour too.
I know my players will be very unlikely to work with the vampires too. I know at least two of them will be right against it. But I trust my group to face a choice like that and make a choice or find a path that they will have fun with. I don't see the need to alter the entire adventure to avoid giving them an option they won't like.
Besides, they might face the choice and decide to try something different and new. That's how they expand their experience and I don't want to steal that opportunity from them.
Mind if I yoink the idea? Please let us know how it turns out it will be a long time before my group reaches this point.
Of course, though I doubt I'll get to this before you do- we're five or so sessions into the first book, and it looks like we have at least three more before we're through, as our sessions are relatively short.
Mind if I yoink the idea? Please let us know how it turns out it will be a long time before my group reaches this point.Of course, though I doubt I'll get to this before you do- we're five or so sessions into the first book, and it looks like we have at least three more before we're through, as our sessions are relatively short.
** spoiler omitted **
IIRC he had Palatine Eye contacts also. He could have gotten the info from them.
If you don't intend to remove the "work with the vampires" choice, I'm not sure what the problem with the adventure is.
You may be mistaking me for the OP (or someone else). I'm no longer following what you're talking about. I don't think I read that other GMs actually "want to decide what the players will do" - just that they know what their players will 'more than likely' do.
You make it sound like your players will be upset with the option being presented to them. If they find that so bad, then the dark nature of the adventure path is unlikely to go over well.
I know my players/friends well enough that I know what will go over well with them, thanks!
|
|
Mind if I yoink the idea? Please let us know how it turns out it will be a long time before my group reaches this point.Of course, though I doubt I'll get to this before you do- we're five or so sessions into the first book, and it looks like we have at least three more before we're through, as our sessions are relatively short.
** spoiler omitted **
Well we just had our very first session last weekend so im probably still behind you. This is interesting enough for me that I will read up on it. If you do any work this probably warrants its own thread. I know Id love to take a look.