Heroes murdering innocent children (that they were meant to rescue)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

601 to 635 of 635 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Tallifer wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Am I the only person who completely disagrees with the DM?

HOW are the actions of the party "evil"? These characters are Lawful Good/Good, not Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good. Why would they try to save the children if they didn't believe they had a chance/thought something EVEN WORSE was going to happen if they played along? The LE wizard sounds pretty dangerous.

But "evil"? These people weren't out to maliciously obliterate those kids, nor did they do it on a whim from their perspective. If you didn't give them an apparent out, you've only got yourself to blame if the party takes a drastic third option.

Commando Dude, I hope you are indeed the only person here who thinks that deliberately targetting the bridge full of children with area-effect spells does not equate deliberately killing the children.

They could at least have sniped at the enemies with individual missiles and spells. Their foes might have started killing the children, and that should have stopped the fight. But if the children did die at the hands of the evil enemies, then at least the party would be less directly guilty. Besides there must have been spells available that would hinder the enemies.

In this case. It's called "Collateral damage". You'll find many fictional works where innocents may be caught in a strike against the bad guy. Hero's and authority figures regret the loss their lives as "necessary casualties" in stopping a greater evil.

Hell, off the top of my head, in WH40k it's apparently common to just write off entire worlds that have been invaded by chaos demons and just nuke everything from orbit just to be sure.

Maybe their most powerful spells were AoEs and they wanted to be absolutely sure the evil wizard died so no OTHER children could get killed.

It's not possible for me to make an accurate judgement since I don't know the details. But you can't just brand some character "Evil" because they made a callous choice you personally don't agree with.

According to the pathfinder rule book.

"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

Which sounds, at least to me, nothing like this party.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

This is a perfect example of what I was saying. Here the expanded image.

Size of the bridge:
Total length 194 metres (636 ft)[1]
Width 8 metres (26 ft)[1]
Height 71 metres (233 ft)[1]
Longest span 28.8 metres (94 ft)[1]

@vikingson
If you look the Wikipedia list of surviving Roman bridges you will see several bridges with a span of above 80 feet (24 meters) and a few with more than 90 feet (27 meters).


CommandoDude wrote:
Tallifer wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Am I the only person who completely disagrees with the DM?

HOW are the actions of the party "evil"? These characters are Lawful Good/Good, not Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good. Why would they try to save the children if they didn't believe they had a chance/thought something EVEN WORSE was going to happen if they played along? The LE wizard sounds pretty dangerous.

But "evil"? These people weren't out to maliciously obliterate those kids, nor did they do it on a whim from their perspective. If you didn't give them an apparent out, you've only got yourself to blame if the party takes a drastic third option.

Commando Dude, I hope you are indeed the only person here who thinks that deliberately targetting the bridge full of children with area-effect spells does not equate deliberately killing the children.

They could at least have sniped at the enemies with individual missiles and spells. Their foes might have started killing the children, and that should have stopped the fight. But if the children did die at the hands of the evil enemies, then at least the party would be less directly guilty. Besides there must have been spells available that would hinder the enemies.

In this case. It's called "Collateral damage". You'll find many fictional works where innocents may be caught in a strike against the bad guy. Hero's and authority figures regret the loss their lives as "necessary casualties" in stopping a greater evil.

Hell, off the top of my head, in WH40k it's apparently common to just write off entire worlds that have been invaded by chaos demons and just nuke everything from orbit just to be sure.

Maybe their most powerful spells were AoEs and they wanted to be absolutely sure the evil wizard died so no OTHER children could get killed.

It's not possible for me to make an accurate judgement since I don't know the details. But you can't just brand some character "Evil" because they made a callous choice you personally don't agree with.

...

A few things to bear in mind . . .

1) This isn't 40k.
2) They were specifically tasked in this situation with saving the children as one at least was related to the nobles of their empire and not just taking out Paegin.
3) The spell they used (from what we've seen posted) was (a) deliberately placed ON the children not on Paegin or the devils and (b) was almost guaranteed to kill the children while doing minimal damage to the surrounding enemies.
4) They'd already defeated this particular villain at least once in the campaign.

So effectively they did maliciously target the kids against orders while intending to do minimum damage against the villain they already knew they could beat when they were tasked with rescuing them.

Silver Crusade

Diego Rossi wrote:
CaspianM wrote:
If you had an optimal output for the problem it's best to let people know what it is or have some way they can make rolls to figure out stuff the players would not figure out under stress. You really shouldn't punish players for not mind-reading the scenario.

.....

You really spoon feed your players?
At that point you can roll the dice for them too. RD players think he is railroading them and you are suggesting him to feed them the "right" solution or the adventure?
[shake head in disbelief]

I made this point earlier in the thread. Players take their cue from the DM. If solutions other than combat are available you need to give them some indication or clue. Your descriptions are their window to the world so if you keep pulling the blinds over that window then they will go to the default mechanic. I start every game by reminding my players that combat is not the only or best solution to problems. I am rewarded with games that have a lot of role playing. Either way they are rewarded with XP and treasure.

Silver Crusade

bigkilla wrote:


Actually I think Dekalinder is 100% correct that by RAW you get a chance to identify spell effects that are in place as it does not state that you have to know that they are there or in place. But he is 100% incorrect that it is RAI. I believe any sensible GM or player would agree that you would have to know that the spell or effect was in place to get a chance to identify it as such.

If Dekalinder was right then you would just have players who meta-game because the moment you ask them to make a Will save or a skill check then they know something is up and will keep asking to make the check until they succeed so it really defeats the purpose of the illusion.


Diego Rossi wrote:
CaspianM wrote:
If you had an optimal output for the problem it's best to let people know what it is or have some way they can make rolls to figure out stuff the players would not figure out under stress. You really shouldn't punish players for not mind-reading the scenario.

.....

You really spoon feed your players?
At that point you can roll the dice for them too. RD players think he is railroading them and you are suggesting him to feed them the "right" solution or the adventure?
[shake head in disbelief]

"Right" exists as a solution to a problem I want to happen. If whatever it is isn't happening I'd rather push it to happen rather than not have it happen at all. What is your problem with this? Also no, "problem" doesn't exist as a notation for the entire adventure, that's really rather presumptuous of you.


CommandoDude wrote:

Am I the only person who completely disagrees with the DM?

HOW are the actions of the party "evil"? These characters are Lawful Good/Good, not Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good. Why would they try to save the children if they didn't believe they had a chance/thought something EVEN WORSE was going to happen if they played along? The LE wizard sounds pretty dangerous.

At absolute worst, players like the Paladin get some moral quandaries about the computations of their actions and MAYBE shift to neutral over the ethical ramifications of sacrificing a few to save many.

Dude, the summoner targeted the CHILDREN with the area effect spell. He didn't hit the bad guys with the kids as collateral damage, he targeted the kids with the BAD GUYS as the collateral damage.

You might ascribe it to ruthlessness, but I think the majority here would agree that's definitely a step toward the Dark Side.


Dabbler wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Am I the only person who completely disagrees with the DM?

HOW are the actions of the party "evil"? These characters are Lawful Good/Good, not Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good. Why would they try to save the children if they didn't believe they had a chance/thought something EVEN WORSE was going to happen if they played along? The LE wizard sounds pretty dangerous.

At absolute worst, players like the Paladin get some moral quandaries about the computations of their actions and MAYBE shift to neutral over the ethical ramifications of sacrificing a few to save many.

Dude, the summoner targeted the CHILDREN with the area effect spell. He didn't hit the bad guys with the kids as collateral damage, he targeted the kids with the BAD GUYS as the collateral damage.

You might ascribe it to ruthlessness, but I think the majority here would agree that's definitely a step toward the Dark Side.

Oh okay, in that case. Yeah, you can call him evil.

I don't think that qualifies the whole party though. Unless they ALSO shot spells targeting kids.


CommandoDude wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Am I the only person who completely disagrees with the DM?

HOW are the actions of the party "evil"? These characters are Lawful Good/Good, not Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good. Why would they try to save the children if they didn't believe they had a chance/thought something EVEN WORSE was going to happen if they played along? The LE wizard sounds pretty dangerous.

At absolute worst, players like the Paladin get some moral quandaries about the computations of their actions and MAYBE shift to neutral over the ethical ramifications of sacrificing a few to save many.

Dude, the summoner targeted the CHILDREN with the area effect spell. He didn't hit the bad guys with the kids as collateral damage, he targeted the kids with the BAD GUYS as the collateral damage.

You might ascribe it to ruthlessness, but I think the majority here would agree that's definitely a step toward the Dark Side.

Oh okay, in that case. Yeah, you can call him evil.

I don't think that qualifies the whole party though. Unless they ALSO shot spells targeting kids.

I fully agree. :D


RD:

So... how are things going with this group/campaign now? We're 610 posts later on this thread... which I keep reading. Not sure why, since it seems to have devolved into arguments about whether targeting the hostages is evil or not. (Rly? Seems self-evident to me, but then I don't really have any problems with the black-and-white PF morality as presented in CRB. I just accept that my character is evil by those definitions and move on.)

Anyway. Just curious about how you're moving beyond this event, and figure a status report HAS to be more interesting than the continuing alignment issue arguments...


karkon wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
CaspianM wrote:
If you had an optimal output for the problem it's best to let people know what it is or have some way they can make rolls to figure out stuff the players would not figure out under stress. You really shouldn't punish players for not mind-reading the scenario.

.....

You really spoon feed your players?
At that point you can roll the dice for them too. RD players think he is railroading them and you are suggesting him to feed them the "right" solution or the adventure?
[shake head in disbelief]

I made this point earlier in the thread. Players take their cue from the DM. If solutions other than combat are available you need to give them some indication or clue. Your descriptions are their window to the world so if you keep pulling the blinds over that window then they will go to the default mechanic. I start every game by reminding my players that combat is not the only or best solution to problems. I am rewarded with games that have a lot of role playing. Either way they are rewarded with XP and treasure.

I think you play a slightly different game than I, and Diego do (separately). If my Dm were to say what you do at the start of your games, I would think something like the following: I am not a child, nor have I been for a decent period of time, and don't need my dm to speak to me as if I was. I know I have any options available to me that I can possibly think of... that is pretty much the entire point of this game.

Edit: the point I am trying to convey, I suppose, is that I will get an idea of how to act in your world by interacting with the world, not through pre game declarations. You can say whatever you like before the game begins to set the world up, but it is how I interact with the various peoples within it that will determine if I think there are options available to me past hack-and-slash.

A solid description of surroundings is vital, yes, but I don't want my dm to follow it up with "and it looks like he wants to talk", or "but something feels off about the floor tiles", and especially not "you think that there may be a few ways to get around this hazard". Those are things that cheapen the game.. things that should be a dialogue between player and dm is now just a speech. Let ME ask about those things, let MY PCs skills, abilities, and worldly experience decide how an obstacle is overcome. Don't poke and prod me in the "right" direction.

Silver Crusade

Diego Rossi wrote:

This is a perfect example of what I was saying. Here the expanded image.

Size of the bridge:
Total length 194 metres (636 ft)[1]
Width 8 metres (26 ft)[1]
Height 71 metres (233 ft)[1]
Longest span 28.8 metres (94 ft)[1]

@vikingson
If you look the Wikipedia list of surviving Roman bridges you will see several bridges with a span of above 80 feet (24 meters) and a few with more than 90 feet (27 meters).

Diego--

Thank you for the bridge posts-- good stuff.

Serves as a reminder, to those who would forget, that the Romans were good architects who could accomplish more feats of engineering than modern folks might like to give them credit for. And the builders of the Renaissance weren't bad either.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:

You need to be detecting magic to identify them, I believe.

Edit: No, that's for magic items, not spell effects. However, the arcana check is for identifying spell effects, not determining a spell is in effect. You must know the spell is there to identify it.

If you're in range-- using 'detect magic' and finding out that everything you're looking at is magic-- ought to be enough of a clue that a will save vs. illusions is justified (IMO).

Silver Crusade

Alitan wrote:
Unless you first (a) interact with an illusion and (b) make your will save, all the knowledge/arcana in the world won't let you pick an illusion out as such. Once you've MADE a will save, what knowledge/arcana will do is let you identify the spell source of the illusion in question.

IMO, if you've blown the will save, but you have lots of other evidence to show you that it's an illusion (including your comrades telling you it's an illusion and walking right through it)-- you may well know it's an illusion, and be making those knowledge rolls to understand it better, from an intellectual view-point-- and be annoyed that your five senses are still convinced it's totally real and that you still can't simply walk through it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
{i]If[/i] you're in range-- using 'detect magic' and finding out that everything you're looking at is magic-- ought to be enough of a clue that a will save vs. illusions is justified (IMO).

Precisely why illusions mask their auras in my game. ;)

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
{i]If[/i] you're in range-- using 'detect magic' and finding out that everything you're looking at is magic-- ought to be enough of a clue that a will save vs. illusions is justified (IMO).
Precisely why illusions mask their auras in my game. ;)

Heh. Help out the poor illusionist by keeping other mages from nerfing him with a first-level spell... good thought, I may steal that sometime. :)

on the other hand, casting a detect magic on the area including the illusion, ought to count as sufficient interaction (at least with the masking of the aura) to merit a will save vs that part of the illusion... shouldn't totally nerf the other casters either.... :P

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Make note that Detect Magic is a cantrip and can be cast at will.

Our fix is to make it a touch spell so that you have to interact with an object to detect if it is magical. Thus, you would be interacting with the illusion by default.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Alitan wrote:

RD:

So... how are things going with this group/campaign now? We're 610 posts later on this thread... which I keep reading. Not sure why, since it seems to have devolved into arguments about whether targeting the hostages is evil or not. (Rly? Seems self-evident to me, but then I don't really have any problems with the black-and-white PF morality as presented in CRB. I just accept that my character is evil by those definitions and move on.)

Anyway. Just curious about how you're moving beyond this event, and figure a status report HAS to be more interesting than the continuing alignment issue arguments...

What are they going to do next? Start a covert war of course!

Evidence shows that the neighboring nation of Dorter all but sicked Paegin and his mercenaries on the nation of Lorandin in hopes of weakening its infrastructure and to lure its military forces away from the border.

Depending on what happens next, some PCs may get promotions/medals, others demotions or dishonorable discharges, and a certain paladin may be asked to aid in the coming war effort. If everything goes to s*%!, and the Emperor can no longer trust the party to do their job, they will be exiled and forced to go to Dorter for sanctuary. The way things are going, however, that is EXTREMELY unlikely. Most likely they will be sent over their as covert spies. Whatever happens, they're going to end up in Dorter (with a lot more autonomy) as the war between the two nations breaks out in full.

In the end, the court wizard will be furious with the PCs for their actions during the bridge battle, forever having lost any faith in them as "good" heroes. Combined with his sudden disillusionment stemming from the Emperor's decision to not immediately declare war on Dorter (instead relying on spies to get more information first) will cause him to dramatically dismiss himself from the Emperor's service.

He'll later return as a recurring character who is good-aligned, but also so self-convinced of the PCs' evil natures that he'll actively make a point of interfering with their goals (thinking that he is helping the world by doing so).


... he's probably right. Just sayin'.

He ought to drop a few suggestions here and there... like with their barber/hairdresser types. Scrying is so much easier with that lock of hair.

Muahahahaha!

Ooops. 'Scuse me... evil laugh just slipped out...

;)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post that get a little...heated.


He was right, though, RB, about actually reading the thread.

EDIT: Not to be taken as an endorsement of profanity on the boards.


RD-I actually like that solution. Though I would not rule out the possibility of some kind of public trial-even if they are not found guilty and demoted/exiled, it could serious damage public opinion of them, or improve it if they argue their case well.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Stubs McKenzie wrote:
karkon wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
CaspianM wrote:
If you had an optimal output for the problem it's best to let people know what it is or have some way they can make rolls to figure out stuff the players would not figure out under stress. You really shouldn't punish players for not mind-reading the scenario.

.....

You really spoon feed your players?
At that point you can roll the dice for them too. RD players think he is railroading them and you are suggesting him to feed them the "right" solution or the adventure?
[shake head in disbelief]

I made this point earlier in the thread. Players take their cue from the DM. If solutions other than combat are available you need to give them some indication or clue. Your descriptions are their window to the world so if you keep pulling the blinds over that window then they will go to the default mechanic. I start every game by reminding my players that combat is not the only or best solution to problems. I am rewarded with games that have a lot of role playing. Either way they are rewarded with XP and treasure.

I think you play a slightly different game than I, and Diego do (separately). If my Dm were to say what you do at the start of your games, I would think something like the following: I am not a child, nor have I been for a decent period of time, and don't need my dm to speak to me as if I was. I know I have any options available to me that I can possibly think of... that is pretty much the entire point of this game.

Edit: the point I am trying to convey, I suppose, is that I will get an idea of how to act in your world by interacting with the world, not through pre game declarations. You can say whatever you like before the game begins to set the world up, but it is how I interact with the various peoples within it that will determine if I think there are options available to me past hack-and-slash.

A solid description of surroundings is vital, yes, but I don't want my dm to follow it up with "and it looks like he wants to talk", or "but something feels off about the floor tiles", and especially not "you think that there may be a few ways to get around this hazard". Those are things that cheapen the game.. things that should be a dialogue between player and dm is now just a speech. Let ME ask about those things, let MY PCs skills, abilities, and worldly experience decide how an obstacle is overcome. Don't poke and prod me in the "right" direction.

Well put Stubs, better than what I could have written.

I agree with karkon that the GM is me window on the game world for the players so he should give good descriptions, but CaspianM, from his posts, seem to go way further than that.


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
{i]If[/i] you're in range-- using 'detect magic' and finding out that everything you're looking at is magic-- ought to be enough of a clue that a will save vs. illusions is justified (IMO).
Precisely why illusions mask their auras in my game. ;)

Heh. Help out the poor illusionist by keeping other mages from nerfing him with a first-level spell... good thought, I may steal that sometime. :)

on the other hand, casting a detect magic on the area including the illusion, ought to count as sufficient interaction (at least with the masking of the aura) to merit a will save vs that part of the illusion... shouldn't totally nerf the other casters either.... :P

Not in my game (I use the same trick for more experienced casters) afterall if you see that frog on a log is still a frog on a log with no magical aura you have no reason for a will save. On the other hand I tend to count seeing/hearing/smelling/etc the illusion as interracting with it so I ask my players to make their will saves as soon as they legitimately would have noticed the illusion in the first place. That is . . .

Your walking through the forest seeking the lost treasure of Urkuk around you stretch tall tree's echoing with the haunting calls of stranger birds . . . make a will save.

Fail, nothing mentioned.

Succeed, as you look around a strange shimmer attracts your attention to a broken fountain lying partially covered by overgrown shrubbery.

I avoid the metagaming problem by occasionally asking for Random spot checks and saves. A fact I always inform my players I'll be doing before I start a campaign so they know that just because I ask for a perception check or a will save it doesn't mean there's actually something to perceive or resist. Of course it doesn't mean it there isn't either although it might just be a really nice bird for that wizard with a hobby in ornithology.


Stubs McKenzie wrote:
karkon wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
CaspianM wrote:
If you had an optimal output for the problem it's best to let people know what it is or have some way they can make rolls to figure out stuff the players would not figure out under stress. You really shouldn't punish players for not mind-reading the scenario.

.....

You really spoon feed your players?
At that point you can roll the dice for them too. RD players think he is railroading them and you are suggesting him to feed them the "right" solution or the adventure?
[shake head in disbelief]

I made this point earlier in the thread. Players take their cue from the DM. If solutions other than combat are available you need to give them some indication or clue. Your descriptions are their window to the world so if you keep pulling the blinds over that window then they will go to the default mechanic. I start every game by reminding my players that combat is not the only or best solution to problems. I am rewarded with games that have a lot of role playing. Either way they are rewarded with XP and treasure.

I think you play a slightly different game than I, and Diego do (separately). If my Dm were to say what you do at the start of your games, I would think something like the following: I am not a child, nor have I been for a decent period of time, and don't need my dm to speak to me as if I was. I know I have any options available to me that I can possibly think of... that is pretty much the entire point of this game.

Edit: the point I am trying to convey, I suppose, is that I will get an idea of how to act in your world by interacting with the world, not through pre game declarations. You can say whatever you like before the game begins to set the world up, but it is how I interact with the various peoples within it that will determine if I think there are options available to me past hack-and-slash.

A solid description of surroundings is vital, yes, but I don't want my dm to follow it up with "and it...

Bro, you're putting up some rather leading text here.

When I say problem its specific narrative stuff I want to happen for my own amusement. So for when the kill happy PCs come through the adventure every once in a while I'll outright tag someone with a subtle "please don't kill, rape then eat" hint. Its not as if I'm suggesting railroading everything just that sometimes as a GM you want stuff to happen in your game. And as the arbiter of the world it'd be nice to see it happen every once in a while.

Silver Crusade

Stubs McKenzie wrote:
karkon wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
CaspianM wrote:
If you had an optimal output for the problem it's best to let people know what it is or have some way they can make rolls to figure out stuff the players would not figure out under stress. You really shouldn't punish players for not mind-reading the scenario.

.....

You really spoon feed your players?
At that point you can roll the dice for them too. RD players think he is railroading them and you are suggesting him to feed them the "right" solution or the adventure?
[shake head in disbelief]

I made this point earlier in the thread. Players take their cue from the DM. If solutions other than combat are available you need to give them some indication or clue. Your descriptions are their window to the world so if you keep pulling the blinds over that window then they will go to the default mechanic. I start every game by reminding my players that combat is not the only or best solution to problems. I am rewarded with games that have a lot of role playing. Either way they are rewarded with XP and treasure.

I think you play a slightly different game than I, and Diego do (separately). If my Dm were to say what you do at the start of your games, I would think something like the following: I am not a child, nor have I been for a decent period of time, and don't need my dm to speak to me as if I was. I know I have any options available to me that I can possibly think of... that is pretty much the entire point of this game.

Edit: the point I am trying to convey, I suppose, is that I will get an idea of how to act in your world by interacting with the world, not through pre game declarations. You can say whatever you like before the game begins to set the world up, but it is how I interact with the various peoples within it that will determine if I think there are options available to me past hack-and-slash.

A solid description of surroundings is vital, yes, but I don't want my dm to follow it up with "and it...

It comes down to knowing your players. My players tend to default to "screw it, just kill everything" when presented with problems. I use several methods to set expectations and prevent scenarios like the one presented by RD. My players seem to enjoy it and it works for us. I also let the players know when a certain game might be much more dangerous than usual. Then when I am faced with one or two dead PCs the players can't be wingeing about not expecting it as they were clearly warned. To be honest I give a lot more information than most DMs would consider prudent. I like my players to be very informed about the game world and go to some lengths to make it so (writing up newspapers, writing out knowledge check results, etc). They seem to enjoy it and that works for us.

Obviously it would not work for you. That is fine also. Some people enjoy the challenge of finding out every last detail on their own. I used to be like that but now we don't have the time to explore the game world in depth so I give them a free primer when needed.


Ravingdork wrote:


In the end, the court wizard will be furious with the PCs for their actions during the bridge battle, forever having lost any faith in them as "good" heroes. Combined with his sudden disillusionment stemming from the Emperor's decision to not immediately declare war on Dorter (instead relying on spies to get more information first) will cause him to dramatically dismiss himself from the Emperor's service.

He'll later return as a recurring character who is good-aligned, but also so self-convinced of the PCs' evil...

I'm not sure that I would play it that way. If I recall correctly, the paladin is going to zone of truth the summoner for his confession that his intent was to harm the children. If I were the court wizard and understood that confession, I would most likely only be furious at the summoner. I don't think that the others were really that culpable in the attempted crime. I wouldn't hold them guilty by association, especially when it's the party that is outing thier teamate.

-
If the pally doesnt turn in the summoner, then his kid can recount the story to the court wizard, who may ask the summoner if he knew it was an illusion. Under this scenario, I think he may hold more malice towards the rest of the party for thier role in how things played out. But with the paladin turning in the guilty culprit, I think the rest of the party is forgiven.

Of course, your way provides some interesting story hooks though ;)


EDIT: Posting a couple days later than intended, due to boards being inaccessible.

@CaspianM
So I am clear, I was responding first and foremost to Karkon, if you look at my specific references you will see that is where I was aiming.

But....

I don't exactly see where you are coming from here... you are quoted as saying you don't think it is fair for PCs if you don't give them hints as to the "best" way to resolve a scenario, then suggest someone is asking PCs to be "mind readers". This only makes sense if you set up scenarios in which YOU THE DM believe there is a single "best" scenario. I don't really DM that way, so I can't say I agree. No one is asking anyone to read minds...

what RD *expected* to happen didn't, and so he panicked... but this scenario is way outside the wheelhouse. For instance, if the PCs in my campaign willingly go on a "save the innocents" quest, and at first sight of the innocents blow them to h***, I am going to be blown away as well. The 'hint' in this case, is they are innocents you are trying to save! I am under no obligation to say or do any more than that to sway their opinions just to get a result I see as favorable. I tell the story, but is in effect their world, and they will change it as they see fit (within their power). Now, I think we all agree the retcon was not the best reaction, but I also think RD figured that out on his own about 10 minutes after doing it.

I don't remember suggesting you are railroading at all... in fact I never said the word or alluded to it... so you saying "Bro, you're putting up some rather leading text here." causes me to scratch my head a bit.

Silver Crusade

Ross Byers wrote:
I removed a post that get a little...heated.

Sorry, Ross. Just-- we had that discussion over the last 600 posts, and I snapped back a little too quickly over someone stepping in saying the same things we'd already discussed and moved past about 400-500 posts ago. I should'a taken a deep breath and walked away for a while before coming back and posting without the old soldier's language or the overly aggressive tone in there.

I still think CommandoDude should have read the thread and the arguments already gone before, before posting (or should have paid more attention if he did)-- and should have either used the term 'collateral damage' correctly, or shouldn't have used it at all.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wow. Well. That seems like a lazy response on the part of the players, don't it? Kill the kiddies? I mean, they were dealing with a diabolist here...LE...devils being "contractually obligated" and all that. One of the few, if any, perks of people who follow diabolic code is that they actually STICK to arrangements. The PCs should have taken his deal. It might not have been fair or ideal, but assuming everything I consider abut diabolists correct, he'd stick with it, or at least to the soul of it. Them shrugging and just blasting the damn thing seems like a tad of an over-reaction...

I say, let them suffer the consequences. They succeeded, but the kids died. Good. Now the Emperor's mage (whose nephew was among the bunch) has become their enemy. An NPC...high n power...is now their enemy. As someone said, they've made their bed and should lie in it. That bed is that they've lost the support of a powerful ally...and will be, at some further point, royally screwed over by this shortsighted decision...

that's what I do. All actions have consequences, after all, even when your choices are limited.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Drunken Dragon wrote:
that's what I do. All actions have consequences, after all, even when your choices are limited.

Except RD already changed the script in the middle of the game. The kiddies did NOT die, the players did NOT kill them.

All actions should have consequences...including RD's decision to change the kids into an illusion. Now HE has to deal with the fact that the characters have not suddenly become villains, they're the heroes.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
The Drunken Dragon wrote:
that's what I do. All actions have consequences, after all, even when your choices are limited.

Except RD already changed the script in the middle of the game. The kiddies did NOT die, the players did NOT kill them.

All actions should have consequences...including RD's decision to change the kids into an illusion. Now HE has to deal with the fact that the characters have not suddenly become villains, they're the heroes.

A very good point, actually...ho hum. In which case i suppose I'd just amend my argument to agree with some of the earlier posts and suggest someone returning to authorities and telling people about how the PCs reacted to the illusions...since from what I can understand, they weren't making comments or actions under the assumption the kids were illusionary...huh...you know, nevermind, he fixed it well enough so that punishing them directly doesn't work anymore...

Dark Archive

Ravingdork wrote:

Some of you guys just won't rest until you've had the chance to successfully vilify me, will you?

What exactly in any of my statements honestly leads you to believe that it was my intention to kill everyone and have them instead sit about and listen to my "story hour" about pet NPCs?

Well, to be fair, you've left out several facts of the matter since your original post, and were mistaken about at least one item:

Among other things, you;ve left out:

Problems with mage player before

You left out the party DID negociate(as opposed to the original post which seemed to indicate no they didnt), and your part of them pretty much left them with the impression its all or nothing.

And then its a potion of see invisible, which doesnt exists, you've then said scroll.

after 7 pages thus far, it does seem a bit bias on your part.

Dark Archive

Finn Kveldulfr wrote:


Mogart--

The reason the Paladin loses his powers-- is it took the PC who 'nuked' the children two rounds+ to do it, because his first shot got counter-spelled.... and the Paladin didn't do a godd**ned thing to stop it, not so much as a word of protest; and did not attempt to do something like the fighter in the group evidently did (charging out onto the bridge in an effort to reach and save the children before the guards could cut them all down).

If the Paladin was caught off-guard and couldn't have said/done anything to the summoner to stop him from wasting all the kids (say, for instance, if the summoner's first cast of black tentacles had worked)-- okay, the Paladin doesn't lose his powers for that-- but he then loses his powers if he continues to associate with that caster on friendly terms as standard adventuring comrades, instead of trying to bring that homicidal maniac to justice.

It needs to be pointed out the paladin COULDNT see what the caster was casting and was dispeled- he was invisible. Raving DM there mentioned the BBG drank a potion(later changed to a scroll) of see invsibility or some such.

So how was the paladin suppose to spell craft it?

601 to 635 of 635 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Heroes murdering innocent children (that they were meant to rescue) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.