Just end the ****ing campaign already since it's what they apparently want.
Yes I did, Loaba. I made it absolutely clear that he would likely lose his powers if he continued on his present course.Out of curiousity did the character know what they were doing before the fireball roasted all the children because I thought identifying what spell is being cast as it's going off required spellcraft or knowledge arcana or something. In which case he wouldn't know what was going on until after the kids were all dead and no sense crying over spilled milk at least not until after the current threat is removed then maybe some serious inquiries and dragging his allies back to town to confess regarding their failing or something of the sort.
The summoner cast black tentacles twice. The first attempt was counterspelled by Paegin and a scroll of dispel magic (CL 10th) in order to protect his minions. There's no way the paladin didn't know what was going on by the second casting.
WWKD What would Kirk do?
1. Lie
2. Make a compelling speach having figured out the missunderstanding.
3. Seduce the female enemies.
4. Have the party spell caster teleport him and BBEG to an isolated areana planet where they can fight to the death.
5. Yell "Paegin!" and hit everyone with that double close fisted chop to either sid of the neck that was one of his super moves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WWKD What would Kirk do?1. Lie
2. Make a compelling speach having figured out the missunderstanding.
3. Seduce the female enemies.
4. Have the party spell caster teleport him and BBEG to an isolated areana planet where they can fight to the death.
5. Yell "Paegin!" and hit everyone with that double close fisted chop to either sid of the neck that was one of his super moves.
In a situation dire as this, I think Kirk would have gone straight to the double-drop-kick.
da-da-daaa--daaa--daaa--daaa--daaa-da-da-daaa--daaa
Political leaders do not negotiate with political leaders who are trying to gain power through acts of terror. Police men send in negotiators to hostage situations all the time. This instance is not a government responding to a terroists it is a lot closer to the police dealing with a hostage situation. Granted this is more about tactical advantage and buying time.
This reminds me of one of my players who, if she can't immediately think of what to do in any given situation will turn to one of the other players (her boyfriend) and ask him what to do. And then if he doesn't hand her a solution (which he usually doesn't because he wants her to try figuring things out too) she immediately declares most situations impossible.
She's getting better, but it's taking a lot of gentle nudging from both her boyfriend, and her GM (me). And not just in-game, as that's where she's on the spot and most likely to declare something impossible. It takes a lot of time discussing outside of the game what could have been done in that situation (luckily for me she's my roommate, so we get lots of opportunity to talk outside of the game), and repeated assurances that I don't give impossible situations or try to deliberately kill anyone's characters, so sometimes she should just take risks and try things.
Paegin wasn't stupid. Had they surrendered, Paegin likely would have had them throw their weapons and obvious magical gear into the chasm.
*GASP* You'd take away their gear???
RIOT! RIOT! RIOT!
No wonder they fireballed children.
I also totally agree with Bruunwald. Unless, of course, you ARE their daddy. In-game response is fine, but if you're metagaming to "punish" someone, then it's not really a co-operative game any more is it? Uh, unless your players are into "co-operative punishment" >_> There's other words for that ;D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me of one of my players who, if she can't immediately think of what to do in any given situation will turn to one of the other players (her boyfriend) and ask him what to do. And then if he doesn't hand her a solution (which he usually doesn't because he wants her to try figuring things out too) she immediately declares most situations impossible.
She's getting better, but it's taking a lot of gentle nudging from both her boyfriend, and her GM (me). And not just in-game, as that's where she's on the spot and most likely to declare something impossible. It takes a lot of time discussing outside of the game what could have been done in that situation (luckily for me she's my roommate, so we get lots of opportunity to talk outside of the game), and repeated assurances that I don't give impossible situations or try to deliberately kill anyone's characters, so sometimes she should just take risks and try things.
I know what that's like. I once had a player play a changling in Eberron (similar to a doppelganger). She wanted to join the assassin's guild and was tasked with killing an artificer while making it look like an accident--plenty of opportunity for creativity. She, through no effort of her own, found her way to the artificer's workshop, a tall tower. Rather than change shape and infiltrate the facility (which had people coming in and out all day long) she hid outside the facility until nightfall trying to think of a way in (there were numerous windows, not that they mattered to a changeling that could infiltrate the place with ease). After waiting for FOUR HOURS of real time for her to figure something out, I threw her a bone. The artificer left the facility and started for home. She trailed him, keeping to the shadows, loaded her heavy crossbow, and tried to shoot him in the back.
She missed. The would be target called for the city guard and ran around a corner while she struggled to reload her crossbow. He got away. Even if he hadn't, it wouldn't have looked anything like an accident.
It was such a waste. I even had a cage full of girillons inside the facility that the artificer adn his colleagues had been experimenting on. She could have released the enraged beasts and let them kill everyone while she made her escape in the distraction, thereby fulfilling her obligations to the assassin's guild. Pactically handed the entire mission to her on a silver platter--and she never even made it through the front door! A CHANGELING!
She never got the target. We didn't invite her back after that. Clearly the young blonde wasn't cut out for creativity or problem solving.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
WWKD What would Kirk do?1. Lie
2. Make a compelling speach having figured out the missunderstanding.
3. Seduce the female enemies.
4. Have the party spell caster teleport him and BBEG to an isolated areana planet where they can fight to the death.
5. Yell "Paegin!" and hit everyone with that double close fisted chop to either sid of the neck that was one of his super moves.
You forgot "Get his shirt ripped". That's when you know Kirk is serious.
|
Rav group is at least 9th level (the paladin has just cot Remove curse, and he get that as a mercy at level 9 or as a spell at level 10).
Unless they have painted themselves in a corner with their choice of spells, abilities and equipment they had plenty of possibilities.
Just to point out a few that have come to mi mind:
- dim door part or all of the group near the children. Delivering a coup de grace is a full round action that provoke an attack of opportunity. I doubt most of the NPC would care to do that with a bunch of hostiles in their middle.
- stall discussing with the Evil NPC while some member of the group using stealth or invisibility get in position to defend the children.
- say you will surrender and approach the enemy to consign your weapon, then use fear (if the group players are in any way similar to Rav at least one of them would have a Fear scroll), then attack the NPC that saved.
- I see there was a summoner. While someone is stalling the NPC he could dismiss his eidolon and then summon a Bralani in the diddle of the enemies and go on doing that.
- Have the party face use intimidate on the enemies wile negotiating with them. The devil would be almost immune, but the others?
The problem is that from Rav posts they didn't even tried. They were set to resolve it blasting away the opposition and they stick to that , without care for the situation.
@Rav
I think that you don't need to expose them through the use of children witnesses.
The paladin will and should lose his powers.
The party is under the curse of ages.
So they are ageing visibly every day, someone will start ugly rumours about that and the characters will suffer some serious drawback (the should suffer the physical part of ageing, but not benefit for the mental part).
The paladin will have to get an atonement spell to recover his powers so not removing the ageing effects can be part of the atonement, the good gods clerics Remove curse will not work on the party unless they repent and that will cast doubts on them again.
Their action will have an effect by themselves.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading the OP I have a few thoughts on this situation and these types of encounters:
1) I agree with one of the previous posters who said something about your GM style might not match the game that your players are looking for. For this scenario to work your PCs need to be creative thinkers that are willing to go with indirect tactics and I think there needs to be in game set up for them to know that its possible to pull off.
2) GMs need to keep in mind that your previous games set a precedent that players will make decisions with that in mind. Even previous campaigns in different game worlds will affect how players view the current world you're running. If all your encounters are a fight to death why would surrender ever be an option for them? If you don't put in negotiation challenges then why would they think this encounter was one to talk their way through. Same goes for skills and save DCs. If your DCs are always high or 50-50 shots with bad repercusions on failure then PCs are going to avoid putting themselves in situations where their lives are in the balance. PCs like assured wins/survival and if they can't get that then they'll go for the highest odds possible of survival. Low % success is typically avoided like the plague unless its something with zero to minor consequences. Looking at your later post about the characters I'm not sure your PCs would have felt they had the right skills to pull it off. I'd have slipped a rogue NPC with them who offers to hide a blade on each one and surrender with them to break them out. Sometimes you just gotta hold your PCs by the hand...
3) PCs never surrender or let themselves be captured alive in my experience. They always go down swinging. If PC surrender was your intention for this encounter you need to set it up with some in game info about the villain ransoming off prisoners. Set up so that the PCs know that this guy isn't a murderer he's a hostage taker looking for the most profitable ransom. He never hurts the hostage unless pushed into it and always true to his word. Because players tend to drop in IQ when they pick up their dice (I am guilty of this) you'd need to spell it out to them several times before doing an encounter like this. In fact smack it over the back of their heads with it as thats what it normally takes for me when I'm a player. You had in your second post that the villain is known for deals, but how well is it known to the PCs. Have they made a deal with him before?
4) Consider your PCs capabilities and your players' style for handling encounters, obstacles and challenges. If your PCs approach all opponents head on with their biggest and loudest punch then they are never going to negotiate or accept being exchanged. If your PCs didn't have the escape type abilities (escape artist, stealth, invisibility, etc) then they're not going to attempt it either.
Ultimately I think this is a case where the GM sees the encounter from a story point knowing the PCs won't be killed and will have an opportunity to escape whereas the PCs see assured death if they surrender.
I probably would have left the kids as the kids on the bridge and have the PCs deal with the consequences. It could have been a key moment for your players and changed their play style to look for alternatives to the "get in first attack" mind set. Personally I like to put choices on my players. Part of being a hero is making the tough choice so I think by turning the kids into illusions you've taken that away and potentially set a precedent that they won't see future prisoners as more than just an inconvienance.
Consequences could have been lose of reputation and the PCs having to do in game things to build it back up. You could have some mechanical affects here with negatives to interactions with locals and people of the region as word spreads. Maybe they're brought to trial or the Paladin must atone.
Given you've changed the kids to illusions I wouldn't have any consequences. At most I'd have maybe a spirit of a legendary long dead paladin approach the Paladin saying he's been watching him for sometime. He'd say that he's there to offer guidance and that the Paladin caught a break there and questions the paladin on what if the kids weren't illusions and were actually kids. The spirit could tell the Paladin that he made an oath to be held to higher code and he could have failed irrepairably. Throw in something like its a toughline to walk, but if you're gunna do it then do it all the way.
And finally theres nothing wrong with saying to your guys, "okay just stop for a moment and think things through a bit. You're not considering all your capabilities and possible ways to approach this."
Oh yeah and as for your Changling assassin I have to laugh...had similiar stuff myself...sometimes you just can't help players. I think players need to be trained/taught as I know when I started (que old voice) way back in 2nd ed we just thought about gear and damage spells until we had a couple of older and more experienced players join us who spent their hard earned loot on strongholds, guilds, etc. They also used stealth and other tactics to our usual kick in the door and kill stuff. Its one of the great things with convention play is that you get to see other play styles and tactics. Might be worth bringing in some experienced players who have a different style to your current group to hopefully rub off on them. Or at least show them there is a different way to doing things.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a well established ethical doctrine that it is always wrong to negotiate with terrorists. If you don't like your players making you uncomfortable don't put them in moral dilemmas where a common school of real world ethics gives an answer you're not comfortable with.
It is very easy to argue that they did the least bad thing they could. In the context surrender would be evil and the good of rescuing the children would not be guaranteed. Indeed, if RD'd been going with the illusion plan in the first place surrender would have been completely futile.
It's one thing to refuse to negotiate with terrorists. It's another thing entirely to shoot the hostages yourself. :P
in my opinion you shouldn't punish them if they brought back the children, and them seeing what happened is a long shot, and they are only children and memory is always vague, especially under shock.
I think however that you're a softie (never got that impression on the board before), you should have / could have let the children die, and the town doctor could have made a heal check to notice the cause of death, tell your players the DC, the bonus and roll in front of their eyes, see the fear in their eyes.
Then you've either got players who've learned their lesson for the next time, or they will be known in the whole land to cold-heartedly have slain several children, and will never encounter such a situation ever again because everyone hides their children from them.
Hi RD
I have a few players in my group who sometimes push the morality boundary and go beyond their alignment, with one in particular who tries to turn reasonably clear situations into excuses to stray deep into the naughty book and coerce others along with him.
I don't have any easy answer to that however in practice rather than punish him I tend to give him, and those he drags into his misdemeanours, the appropriate rewards. Things such as the positive attention of an appropriately evil villian who senses a possible recruit, or the justified and usually unfortunately timed fear responses from the local villager who just happened to be wandering in the woods at the time of the misdemeanour and witnessed the whole thing, only to encounter the character when he is in the local tavern or store in the nearby village and run screaming.
He and the rest of the party get to deal with some relatively low level consequences and make determinations on how that works for them whilst I get to think about how to avoid morally ambigious scenarios so that behaviour doesn't impact too much on the paladin in the group who wants to tear him apart every once in a while.
A few clarificaitons:
The bridge was made of sturdy wood, being no less than 30 feet wide and 90 feet long. No ropes to cut.
Paegin wasn't stupid. Had they surrendered, Paegin likely would have had them throw their weapons and obvious magical gear into the chasm.
Players hate that. Half or more than half of their power is in their stuff, and players hate their stuff being stolen or destroyed. Only a truly awesome player is going to be OK with this. Sorry, but that's gamer psychology.
He then would have had his men take them into custody, dispelling the illusion shortly after they were detained. Under the impression that they couldn't/wouldn't bring harm to him directly due to their prior contractual arrangement, Paegin likely would have toyed with them for some time, trying to illicit military secrets (giving them ample opportunity to escape and make his life a living hell).
You might know that, but your players didn't. They may have had the opportunity to get their stuff back, or more stuff, but they didn't know this.
So far as your players knew, this was a TPK the moment they surrendered.
The party consists of a human sorcerer/dragon disciple, a half-elf fighter, a dwarven paladin (not in the military), and an ifrit summoner with dragon-like eidolon. All were 10th-level at the time of the encounter, now 11th.
At that level I can think of half-a-dozen ways of getting out of the situation without surrendering. To begin with, I'd buy time by demanding proof that these ARE the real children kidnapped, and asking exactly how he guarantees that the children will be released if the party do surrender. You can keep someone talking for ages while the party think up a way of performing a rescue. There are several ways of getting the escape, not losing gear etc. if you have time.
Political leaders do not negotiate with political leaders who are trying to gain power through acts of terror.
Yes they do, they just do not admit it until they have negotiated an end to the hostilities. How else do you think Northern Ireland got it's peace process and the IRA disarmed?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dabbler's got some good points there. Why should the DM punish the players for driving them into such a desperate situation in the first place? Why didn't the DM take a moment to think about this?! The DM has only himself to blame for putting the players in a "hopeless" situation!!
As an example of DM mentality conflicting with PC mentality, I knew my players really were more roll-players than role-players last time I was DM, so I didn't bother them with "trivialities" after the first four times they said "GET ON WITH IT" instead of actually going along with the narrative. However, I didn't act like a childish **** (unlike some DMs) and go backstabbing them out of frustration for them playing the game in a way that they liked and I didn't.
Adding to this, most DMs I know (including myself) don't do Saturday Morning Cartoon type villains (goblins and some ogres are possible exceptions), but actually menacing, effective ones. Only a bumbling moron would give a surrendered party a chance to get away, and bumbling morons don't make for good BBEGs, right?
|
Even if they convince everyone that they knew it was an illusion, that doesn't help the party paladin, who will most certainly lose his powers for letting it happen in the first place.
The paladin player informed me that "there was nothing he could do to stop the other characters" [due to the initiative order] and that he was fully willing to lose his powers over the matter if that was what it took.
I think I'm going to hold him to it.
However, he just recently acquired remove curse. As per a contract they signed with Paegin earlier in the campaign, they are all now cursed with the curse of the ages and are now aging one year for every day that passes (the contract stipulated that they could not being harm to Paegin in return for services rendered earlier in the campaign). If he loses his powers, they may all die of old age.
Paegin's soul was wisked off to hell the moment he died (having signed a contract with a contract devil for the life long services of a barbed devil) and will not be returning under any cirucmstances, much to the relief of the party.
EDIT: Also, Paegin, being a LE diabolist known for "deals" and "contracts" has yet to break his word the entire campaign. The PCs had little reason to believe he would murder the children if they turned themselves over. In fact, by killing him, they have shown themselves to be MORE dishonest than he.
A long time ago I ran a campaign in Cyberpunk 2020 where the PCs were a crime family. The basic idea of the campaign is that they started out powerful with rival families and law enforcement trying to bring them down. The game was unrelenting. Every session I built the tension. One game they were so paralyzed that their characters stayed in hiding the whole time. I was proud that I was able to do that....until the Don blew himself up because it seemed so hopeless.
When I got feedback on the game they told me they felt that I should take a lesson from horror movies and let up once in a while and then build up the tension again. Constantly building tension does not work as it starts to feel like there is no hope and no win which might work in a movie but does not work in a game.
So let up on your players once in a while. Let Paegin screw up once in a while. Give the players the win without strings attached. Give them a few assignments that seem hard but are actually easy to solve. Let them feel like heroes again.
The fallen paladin might be a good way to do this. Take them away from the base campaign for a while on a heroic quest to regain the paladin's honor. Make it all heroism and sunshine. Let them enjoy their characters. Maybe a god puts the aging on hold for a bit while they do that. Then when they return with the restored paladin....bring on the pain again. When they seem dispirited again then start again with a new hero's quest to find the lost something of somewhere.
I don't see how you could assume the players would just walk up drop their weapons and surrender themselves to the forces of evil.
How could they possibly think they would not be killed on the spot or worse? How can they assure the safety of the children after they surrender?
You put them in a loose loose situation and they took the path that gave them the best shot at living, I don't see how you didn't see it coming.
At least let the kids walk across the bridge at the same time as the heroes after they have put down their weapons, that way they could fight with hidden weapons or cast some spells, not every fight needs to be fair but it needs to be a fight, taking a knee and exposing your throat gets it cut.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want someone to not coup de grace the kid they're holding , forcing them into a position where they need to run away or attack you instead is a perfectly viable option. You can't hold a coup de crace attack (since its a full round action) so if the kid gets stabbed, goes down and is bleeding the cleric (or paladin) can channel energy to keep them all alive.
Make it clear that those who run will be allowed to leave. Those who fight will be killed. Those who harm the children will beg for death. Those who switch sides... get a full pardon and twice what he's paying them.
Palladin gets on (is already on?) horse, rides as far into the crowd of enemies as he can , leaps off the horse and channels to keep the kids up from the cuts they recieved.
.
Wizard uses magic missles, scorching ray, or some other crowd friendly spells. Hypnotic pattern would be perfect, but if the wizard concentrates on people near the kids and starts making their heads explode people will move away from the kids. Mooks are characters too, and presumably they want to LIVE to spend the money they're being paid.
One shotting the big bad with a save or die would also be an option: take out the head and the body will fall. People aren't going to get paid if you turn their boss into a pile of ash or a Pekinese.
It won't work with all of the kids , but its probably better in the long run than leaving nutsy there on the loose (who could keep his word by comming back with his gnoll army and killing all the parents, leaving the kids orphans)
AOE blasting the kids and all is just not acceptable though. I don't see any perfect options but there are a lot of better ones.
|
|
I'm sorry, but, while I agree that giving up shouldn't have been on the PCs agenda, nor what the GM expected, neither should fireballing the children.
I've never played a character, in any system, who, under those circumstances would've done that. And that includes an Evil aligned mass-murdering Drow Evil Overlord, a Sabbat Pack Leader from a Vampire LARP, and assorted other unsavory types, as well as my more typical heroic characters.
I mean seriously, even leaving morality aside, personally killing the children you've been sent there to save by their extremely powerful relatives is the height of suicidal stupidity. Even if things have been a little railroady...that's just completely insane, and not in a good way.
And it's not even like other alternatives are hard, I mean, the idea of talking with him and trying to make a different deal leaps immediately to mind ("No, you let the children go and we'll take them home and let you live and carry on. For precisely as long as that trip takes us. Alternatively, we kill you right here and now." Just for example.), as does using non-area attacks specifically to take out those threatening the kids without hurting the children. And those are off the top of my head. This isn't rocket surgery here.
As for what to do to bring consequences home, well, a single Level 5 Inquistor being on hand to hear their account of the what happened is enough to poke holes in their story you can drive an indictment through, and anyone with sufficient Sense Motive can sub in in a pinch (+25 or so oughtta do it). Heck, a 10th level Inquisitor could easily have both. Lies are not a good dfense in a world with magical lie detection.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, but, while I agree that giving up shouldn't have been on the PCs agenda, nor what the GM expected, neither should fireballing the children.
I've never played a character, in any system, who, under those circumstances would've done that. And that includes an Evil aligned mass-murdering Drow Evil Overlord, a Sabbat Pack Leader from a Vampire LARP, and assorted other unsavory types, as well as my more typical heroic characters.
I mean seriously, even leaving morality aside, personally killing the children you've been sent there to save by their extremely powerful relatives is the height of suicidal stupidity. Even if things have been a little railroady...that's just completely insane, and not in a good way.
And it's not even like other alternatives are hard, I mean, the idea of talking with him and trying to make a different deal leaps immediately to mind ("No, you let the children go and we'll take them home and let you live and carry on. For precisely as long as that trip takes us. Alternatively, we kill you right here and now." Just for example.), as does using non-area attacks specifically to take out those threatening the kids without hurting the children. And those are off the top of my head. This isn't rocket surgery here.
As for what to do to bring consequences home, well, a single Level 5 Inquistor being on hand to hear their account of the what happened is enough to poke holes in their story you can drive an indictment through, and anyone with sufficient Sense Motive can sub in in a pinch (+25 or so oughtta do it). Heck, a 10th level Inquisitor could easily have both. Lies are not a good dfense in a world with magical lie detection.
I really agree with this. As a character I most likely would not have surrendered either...certainly not to someone who knows I am charged with capturing or killing him. But, the issue is not that the party failed to save the children, but that they immediately tasked them as expendable. Even if they charged into battle, that would be ok in my book even if it cost the children their lives, it was the fact that they showed absolutely no regard for the children's lives that is the issue. They could have attacked with targeted effects, spells, and attacks rather then blasting the bridge with area affects. Even if they couldn't think up a clever plan, a sane one would have served.
Personally I believe strongly in player agency, so if they decided to kill the kids, they would have, and it would have lead to some rather terrible consequences in the PC's future if anyone had a reasonable chance of finding out (remember divination magic is a b$$!! here, not to mention the high level relatives who might very well have the resources to do a true ressurection on the now dead children).
There was no railroad saying they MUST surrender, they didn't even think the situation through, that would have been a great cliffhanger moment, let the party think it over before the next session. Maybe they're just not that clever, judging by the eff it attitude.
Not negotiating with terrorists...this is more akin to hostage taking in the past, when hostages were expected to be returned alive an unharmed when the ransom was paid.
|
|
I would have started using Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Intimidate and Bluff to see how far I could get with them until direct action needed to be taken. I somehow get the feeling that the PC's figured there would be no witnesses so they could make up any story they liked, now I may be completely wrong but it is a possibility. Depending on initiative order, the PC's could have gotten the jump on those guys and at least tried to save the children. Trying to at least save the children, even if they do die, is a lot better than tossing a fireball into the mix like they were expendable.
There are arguments for the party and against the party. At the time, I bet they thought they were doing the right thing. I bet they will still argue their point.
But, as a DM, why not play it straight? Let the deaths of the children be future plot hooks? Maybe a child becomes a revenant? Or the party is charged with a crime, do they run? Do they just disappear into the wilderness?
What is the alignment of the characters before this encounter?
oh, or they all get the haunted curse like an oracle...the big mistake was retconning the deaths...
Ultimately, the only thing the DM did wrong here was the retcon to illusions... the decision that was made should have had consequences, and now you've established the precedent that you'll step in to protect the PCs from their own decisions in the game.
QFT. This sets a nasty precedent, one which I've made the mistake of doing in the past. Once you do this sort of jazz, the pleasure inherent in characters taking risks is stolen. At worst, it's an insult to players' role in making choices.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ravingdork: I have to say the above...felt very cliche. It was like reading bad fiction. With that in mind I would probably have done exactly like your players did, but not because it was 'unwinnable'...more due the fact I hate railroad type games. Which by the way the entire situration as described was. There are sooo many holes in the situration I would have trouble role playing it without laughing.
Anyway since you retconned the children into illusions...you have lost any possibilties of having in game consequences from happening. The bottom line is the kids were returned. Parents or the kids would not say crap. Even they did the goverment at the worst might not call on the PCs to deal with anymore hostage siturations anymore.
While my first paragraph might seem a little harsh...I hope it gets you thinking to what the actual problem is. Your players responded in frustration...which if the above is any indication of how you run the game has been building for awhile now.
Step back and examine how you do things as a DM....than have a long talk with your players. Ask them what you are doing wrong. Tell them problems you have with their play styles. To me the problem here, as is often the case, is one of comunication.
Step back and examine how you do things as a DM....than have a long talk with your players. Ask them what you are doing wrong. Tell them problems you have with their play styles. To me the problem here, as is often the case, is one of communication.
He's been getting a lot of the same advice over two different threads. Talk to your players and put it all out there.
Isn't it kind a mean to do that to new players?
Not when they've been playing for over a year and have consistently slowed the game down and ruined the enjoyment of everyone else every time their turn came up.
Someone asked about alignment.
Dwarven Paladin - Lawful Good
Half-Elf Fighter - Neutral Good
Human Sorcerer - Neutral Good
Ifrit summoner - Neutral (Was the first person to openly attack the children.)
I'm not too concerned about setting precidents or hypocrisy since, as far as the players know, the children were always an illusion--an attempt at getting them to surrender without really giving up anything.
You could make a new quest hook for them to atone, especially the pali seems CG at best and more neutral. A quest where the pali has abilites but if he strays once he loses all abilities and they have to roll up knew characters or time is reversed for them to try it again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly:
RD, I enjoy reading your posts. And I mean that. I usually end up learning something from them whether your original inquiry was proven true or false and I enjoy that about them.
In this case however: the only problem I find is that.. you didn't let them murder the children.
*to the PC's* the children on the bridge were an illusion. The fact that they disappeared when the bombs went off showed them that they did the right thing.
If I were a Paladin PC or any PC's in the group IC I'd wipe my brow, we called their bluff, we saved the kids and.. well, AWESOME! I'd be freakin high as a kite (on adrenaline) after that. Just so great to call the bluff and have it work out.
You are upset that what you planned to happen ( them getting captured or whatever) didn't work out.. and thats understandable. But You changed it by making it an illusion and now are trying to punish them because of it. IMO that just isn't right.
I understand you are also privy to the Player's conversations and such and like but the decision was still on you to swap out the reals for the illusions.. and that really, to me, makes the difference.
They Are heroes. They Did save the children. They Did eliminate the Big Bads. They took a big chance that had alot of risk and it paid off in the end for the PC's.
Myself, I'd be very torque'd at losing my powers for nuking an illusion.
Just my .02 on it.
-S
@ravingdork: I have to say the above...felt very cliche. It was like reading bad fiction. With that in mind I would probably have done exactly like your players did, but not because it was 'unwinnable'...more due the fact I hate railroad type games. Which by the way the entire situration as described was. There are sooo many holes in the situration I would have trouble role playing it without laughing.
Anyway since you retconned the children into illusions...you have lost any possibilties of having in game consequences from happening. The bottom line is the kids were returned. Parents or the kids would not say crap. Even they did the goverment at the worst might not call on the PCs to deal with anymore hostage siturations anymore.
While my first paragraph might seem a little harsh...I hope it gets you thinking to what the actual problem is. Your players responded in frustration...which if the above is any indication of how you run the game has been building for awhile now.
Step back and examine how you do things as a DM....than have a long talk with your players. Ask them what you are doing wrong. Tell them problems you have with their play styles. To me the problem here, as is often the case, is one of comunication.
I dont see how it was a railroad. He left a trail of breadcrumbs and shouted go that way, but there was no external force there. They could have done any number of things but instead they just walked up to the bad guys and fireballed the hostages. If anything he did the opposite of railroading, he reacted to what the players did too much, canceling his own plans out completely.
The players could have:
approached stealthfully, trying to sneak up on the bad guys.
used guile or illusions to trick them
pretended to surrender while looking for an advantage
or just charged in head first like they did but without the area affects.
Or the players could have walked away saying screw it and come back to fight the bad guys another time
All these things would have been less offensive and far more in line with the good alignments they have.
The bad guys not playing fair isnt railroading, railroading would be for the DM to fiat a way to stop them if they tried to do anything but surrender, which he didnt do.
I removed a post and some replies to it. Flag it and move on, please.