|
This is the easiest thing in the world for the players to handle without in-game repercussions.
All they need to do is say “I trusted that Mr Summoner (it was he that started the attack?) knew something I did not, and that He/She would not kill children”.
As it was illusions, they were correct to do so, and the only “evil” act of the others was to trust a fellow part member that initiated the combat. To strip a Paladin of powers for that is vindictive to say the least.That fact that from meta perspective things might look different is another matter.
Ummm.... no. Especially since that character (player) has a history (as related by RD) of hosing NPCs and PCs alike, unnecessarily-- it's metagaming for the PCs to just blindly trust someone who has already shown that that is an area in which he cannot be trusted. Especially in the case of the Paladin, willful blindness to his comrade's excesses and excusing them instead of saying something about it, is not acceptable behavior on the Paladin's part. Stripping the Paladin of his powers is justified, whatever the excuses used on the part of the other players.
The player has a history of happily killing fellow PCs and innocent NPCs whenever he is afforded the opportunity (such as being charmed).The player's character was under the effects of the fly spell and could easily have flown behind total cover in a single move action, if not two. He could have protected himself without harming the children.
If he REALLY wanted to take out the bad guys quickly and efficiently in order to prevent them getting off another volley, he wouldn't have chosen a spell that was unlikely to kill the bad guys right away, but was almost guaranteed to kill the kids quickly (he chose 1d6+4 black tentacles over something like a 10d6 fireball against gnolls). He even had a CL 10 wand of fireball with ~30 charges at his disposal, so he wouldn't have been missing much.
And that takes care of the question of whether or not the caster was using an appropriate level of force (he wasn't) and whether or not he was being sufficiently careful in his targeting (he wasn't), and whether in general he had considered other, better options (he didn't-- and he definitely had better options to choose).
Casting character and companions are guilty as charged-- morally even if not legally.
Side note to all on this thread (and others where the topic of the 'Laws of War' has come up in the discussion): the modern day 'Laws of War' that I often refer to, that are enshrined in the Geneva and Hague conventions, other treaties of international law, and other points of international customs governing conduct in warfare, generally conform to the moral idea that there are limits to what is and is not acceptable behavior in the conduct of military operations-- IMO, this principle does apply to adventurers exercising the profession of violence, since clearly looking to the moral and legal constraints of civil law codes (of almost any period in history) has never applied to the activities of adventurers in the game. As stated by Alfred P. Rubin, in a seminar conducted by the American Society of International Law: "A primary purpose of the laws of war is to minimize human suffering and destruction of values." That's a pretty good 1-sentence summation of what the Laws of War were instituted to do.
So, the point is-- when I use the 'Laws of War' as support for a particular position-- I'm not doing so out of the idea that characters in a game should respect a modern legal code-- rather, I'm using it as an illustration & support for the codes of ethics that the Laws of War are based on, and as support for basic ideas for characters trying to remain 'good' (in a moral and alignment sense) and trying to conduct their affairs in a moral fashion, while necessarily engaged in conflicts and in wreaking violence upon the characters' enemies.
No. He was, as another player put it, just "being himself."
Definitely going to have a talk with him. Not that I really expect him to care in the slightest what I have to say.
Why is this player still in your game? Boot him. Comunication so much aviods these kinda things from happening...but he if he is not going to even bother to listen...boot him. He is not worth the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has become a wheel that just keeps turning and turning on the same points and counterpoints.
To summarize the main points as I see them...
1. Setting up these sorts of deliberate, some would even say "contrived," moral dilemmas is a very delicate thing that needs several "outs" pre-planned in case just to avoid the "no good choices, may as well go crazy" reaction of the PCs. Simply based on the reaction of these players in this situation, it is clear to me that they felt they had no positive choice and had nothing to lose by going nuclear. I hope the GM here considers this for future scenarios. I personally find the "moral dilemma" to be almost entirely a GM indulgence unless it is very carefully set up, deliberately foreshadowed, and the consequences of each choice are clearly understood.
2. The player characters choices here are very difficult to resolve in any sort of reasonable alignment oriented role playing way. This was a party comprised mostly of lawful good characters including a paladin. Deliberately using indiscriminate spells which would kill the children is totally inexplicable for characters such as these to have done. This means to me that the players simply aren't role playing their characters in any sort of relationship to their supposed alignments, or else this entire encounter was metagamed by the players and their characters reacted not according to their backstory and alignment, but instead reacted according to player frustration with the scenario and/or the GM.
3. It is not clear if the GM made any attempt to stop the play at the point that the neutral character announced his first attack which would include the children. If there was any "time out folks... OK, are you REALLY, REALLY sure you want to do that? That would be a choice with dire in-game consequences, has your character truly considered all the ramifications of going nuclear on the children?" it isn't clear to me.
4. The decision to retcon the children into illusions was a poor decision on several levels. The most important level though is that it is an example of how the player character's choices don't have consequences. I think this is a very interesting revelation considering the GM here has a completely separate thread where his players are complaining how their character's choices don't seem to have much impact on the GM's plans. I can't quite see how that is a total coincidence.
5. The GM now wants to punish the characters for events that he retconned away. This, to me, is metagaming and is the GM wanting to punish the characters for the metagame actions of the players.
That's the bottom line of this as I see it.
I would retcon the retcon. Have the Bad Guy watch as they rescue the 'children', then laugh as they all turn into gnolls and attack the PCs. Then the bridge illusion falls and the ripped apart and blasted bodies of the real children are shown on the bridge. The bad guy having fun playing with their minds, and setting up a sneak attack.
Even better, have the children transform back into gnolls after being brought home, and they go on a murder spree killing the towns folk in the middle of the night.
The player that laid down the black tentacles claims he did it because the gnolls had just pumped him full of arrows and he didn't want to die. The children never entered into it. He was taking out the bad guys before they could take him out.
I don't buy it.
The player has a history of happily killing fellow PCs and innocent NPCs whenever he is afforded the opportunity (such as being charmed).
The player's character was under the effects of the fly spell and could easily have flown behind total cover in a single move action, if not two. He could have protected himself without harming the children.
If he REALLY wanted to take out the bad guys quickly and efficiently in order to prevent them getting off another volley, he wouldn't have chosen a spell that was unlikely to kill the bad guys right away, but was almost guaranteed to kill the kids quickly (he chose 1d6+4 black tentacles over something like a 10d6 fireball against gnolls). He even had a CL 10 wand of fireball with ~30 charges at his disposal, so he wouldn't have been missing much.
No. He was, as another player put it, just "being himself."
Definitely going to have a talk with him. Not that I really expect him to care in the slightest what I have to say.
Whoa. Hold on there, RD. So your player's didn't initiate hostilities? The gnolls opened fire on them? That changes things a bit, don't you think? Perhaps you can tell us the exact sequence of events, because if the gnolls are shooting arrows at the party, before before they party throws that AoE spell it makes a difference.
Master Arminas
Whoa. Hold on there, RD. So your player's didn't initiate hostilities? The gnolls opened fire on them? That changes things a bit, don't you think? Perhaps you can tell us the exact sequence of events, because if the gnolls are shooting arrows at the party, before before they party throws that AoE spell it makes a difference.
I expect we haven't gotten the full story by half and I don't expect we ever will ever get all the details. My sense is that RD isn't really looking for any response other than "dude, your players a wankers and they deserve to get the shaft." Maybe I'm wrong, but that is the vibe I'm getting. Seems like his table is the adversarial sort, where he's actively playing against them.
/ note: I played with an adversarial-type GM throughout high school and it wasn't fun. Same thing in my early 20's. Now, I'm almost 40, and I'm playing with the best DM I've ever encountered. For me, age and maturity is everything. Our group simply wouldn't have this problem.
Whoa. Hold on there, RD. So your player's didn't initiate hostilities? The gnolls opened fire on them? That changes things a bit, don't you think? Perhaps you can tell us the exact sequence of events, because if the gnolls are shooting arrows at the party, before before they party throws that AoE spell it makes a difference.I expect we haven't gotten the full story by half and I don't expect we ever will ever get all the details. My sense is that RD isn't really looking for any response other than "dude, your players a wankers and they deserve to get the shaft." Maybe I'm wrong, but that is the vibe I'm getting. Seems like his table is the adversarial sort, where he's actively playing against them.
/ note: I played with an adversarial-type GM throughout high school and it wasn't fun. Same thing in my early 20's. Now, I'm almost 40, and I'm playing with the best DM I've ever encountered. For me, age and maturity is everything. Our group simply wouldn't have this problem.
That's why it's been suggested throughout this thread (although overshadowed by the good/evil debates) that RD and his players are playing different games. Note that some people love that challenge of beating the GM, but it's not for everybody. That's why it's so very important that what the players and the GM want out of the game coincide.
If I recall correctly, talks broke down when the barbed devil summoned another barbed devil at Paegin's order. Apparently, my players consider calling for backup to be a hostile act. It didn't make any difference that this happened the moment the players showed up (talks were very brief*).
The first tentacles went off and was counterspelled. Arrows flew. Cavaliers and hyenas charged (to little effect as nearly all the PCs were flying). Second tentacles spell went off successfully.
I was stunned**. Not really knowing how to react I counterspelled it with a scroll (dispel magic is NOT on Paegin's known spell list). When the player insisted on casting it a second time, I retconned the kids into illusions. Likely a mistake made in a brief moment of panic, but hindsight is always 20/20 as they say.
"How about we trade some of us for some of the children?"
"Not good enough, it's all or nothing."
Please note that there is a difference in apparently taking joy in such things and actively acting on such impulses. I think this is the first time he's ever acted on it with such a feeble excuse.
In any case, the one player I have spoken to already (not the one mentioned above) is putting it all on me, saying this mess is solely because I don't know my players better--something I intend to rectify through a nice long talk.
If I recall correctly, talks broke down when the barbed devil summoned another barbed devil at Paegin's order. Apparently, my players consider calling for backup to be a hostile act. It didn't make any difference that this happened the moment the players showed up (talks were very brief*).
*And basically amounted to "surrender yourselves to me or the children die."
"How about we trade some of us for some of the children?"
"Not good enough, it's all or nothing."
So you set them up to fail and it sounds like they gave you the finger. Now you're being encouraged by various posters to give 'em the finger right back. Joy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the BBEG (Paegin) doesn't have dispel magic on his list. He was just carrying around a scroll of black tentacles just in case? Or did you simply have him with a 'scroll' ready to counterspell the party?
Meta-gaming goes both ways, RD. And yes, summoning in another devil as reinforcements is a hostile action in my book.
How about we trade some of us for some of the children? Not good enough, it's all or nothing.
So they did try to get the kiddies without resorting to violence; you didn't let them. How did the gnolls know that the party member was casting the spell? Did Paegin order them to attack him? Was he shouting out the verbal components like Elminster on PCP? Did they target anyone else other than the character who tried to cast black tentacles?
If not, if you deliberately stopped his spell, and then responded by having a large number of gnolls target him, making him a pin cushion and bringing him to the verge of death; then yes, that second spell was self-defense (I would have used deep slumber or stinking cloud myself, but that is beside the point).
Master Arminas
Ah, so the PC's did attempt to do some parley, then?
"How about we trade some of us for (the children)?"
And you promptly shut down that avenue.
"All or nothing."
A LE diabolist says he will kill the kids (and obviously has the means to do it) unless ALL of the PC's surrender immediately? Yeah, not a great scenario for the PC's. They don't even get a surprise round to try and pull a fast one because everyone is on high alert.
I think I would have (if I were a PC) continued to try to parley until talks broke down completely and combat was initiated. At that point you just do what you can to protect the kids (wall of fire around them or something?) and hope for the best. Ugh.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, the one player I have spoken to already (not the one mentioned above) is putting it all on me, saying this mess is solely because I don't know my players better--something I intend to rectify through a nice long talk.
Again, maybe it is just me, but it sounds like you're intending to have some kind of "come to Jesus" meeting.
So you set them up to fail and it sounds like they gave you the finger. Now you're being encouraged by various posters to give 'em the finger right back. Joy.
Heh, a rather more direct and concise summary of the basic points I've been trying to make on the thread, albeit with a bit higher diplomacy roll...
|
Let's try less criticism and more constructive advice.
I think the players did feel like surrendering was a death sentence, so they didn't consider it an option. I can understand why they'd feel that way with what you'd set up. It sounds to me that you didn't intend it to be a no-win moral dilemma, but the players read it that way and decided killing the kids wasn't any worse than the alternative.
These things happen, even in the best of groups. It's not the end of the world. Maybe in the future you just need to make it clearer to them the difference between a real option and certain doom.
I don't think you should punish them for misunderstanding this. I recommend that you use this as a learning experience, for yourself and for them. Tell them explicitly how you expected the situation to go, and ask them how you could have made that expectation clearer. Talk to your players like you're planning to, try to figure out what precisely led to the misunderstanding of your intent so that you can avoid it in the future, and then move on.
Make sure that in the immediate future, you don't use any similar situations for a while until you feel confident that you've figured out how to avoid a similar snafu. Maybe just have some very straightforward good vs. evil fights for a bit, and then very slowly introduce some more creative situations back in.
Heh, a rather more direct and concise summary of the basic points I've been trying to make on the thread, albeit with a bit higher diplomacy roll...
So you set them up to fail and it sounds like they gave you the finger. Now you're being encouraged by various posters to give 'em the finger right back. Joy.
Well, I'm a Fighter-type, so my CHA and Diplomacy are decidedly on the weak side.
As for your posts on this topic, they've been well-reasoned and politely worded. And no one, especially RD, has responded in kind. That's largely why I think RD isn't really interested in honestly resolving the issues that he has with his players and their game.
Had I been a player in that game, I would have made this counteroffer to the villains: "Let the children go and we will not pursue you. That is your only chance to live." Then if they persisted in trying to use the children as hostages, I would have used lethal force on the villains. The trick is to limit harm to the hostages while at the same time convincing the villains that it is in their own best interests to put as much distance between themselves and the hostages as possible -- admittedly a difficult task.
If the PC's kill everyone and no one witnesses it, they get to spin the tale however they want. Maybe the PC's came pon the gnolls as they were burning the children.
Please explain how a Paladin is ever in a situation where his actions have no witnesses, given his god is aware of his actions at every given moment, as well as his intentions (not just his actions, but what he intended to happen).
Please cite rules mechanics, not vague hand wavey 'in certain game worlds' fluffery.
I never said the paladin wouldn't lose his powers, as per the rules. I said the entire party shouldn't get magically flagged by the campaign morality police if there are no witnesses. If the GM's campaign world is such that his gods monitor and report everyone's actions, then that's another story, but in most cases, you need someone to witness your bad behaviour and report it in order to get an appropriately bad reputation for it.
This response is to a few pages old comment, so it'a a little out of place.
As many have said, it sounds like this group needs to sit down and have a chat. When the GM is metagaming what a player is thinking based on the person, and not the character, then there's a real break down in party trust.
CaptLobi: The royal mage recognized that someone else would be better for the job, just like a concerned parent calling the police and SWAT instead of going after his son's kidnappers himself.
Loaba: First, calm down. There's no need for such harsh accusations. Yes, there was brief parlay. No, I did not shut them down. They could have easily sought alternative options. The SWAT team does not shoot the hostages just because they fail to reach an agreement with the kidnappers in the first five seconds of opening talks.
Kakitamike: There were a dozen surviving witnesses on the far side of the bridge, any one of which could report that the PCs would have readily killed them.
|
|
Loaba: First, calm down. There's no need for such harsh accusations. Yes, there was brief parlay. No, I did not shut them down. They could have easily sought alternative options. The SWAT team does not shoot the hostages just because they fail to reach an agreement with the kidnappers in the first five seconds of opening talks.
By responding all or nothing you did shut them down. Your NPC needed to give an indication that he was willing to discuss terms but instead it sounded like he was set on all or nothing.
"Your offer is intriguing. How many of you for which children?"
One of us for 1/5th of the children including that dark haired one with green eyes.
"Hmmm, he must be important. Two of you, unarmed and unarmored. I want the holy warrior and that guy with the axe."
Just the paladin.
"You will need to offer more. Hey, hey I see you summoner guy. No spell casting or this pretty little girl gets eaten by these here gnolls."
etc.
Yes, there was brief parlay. No, I did not shut them down.
Putting it in terms that Players can understand - you gave them only one option: fight.
They could have easily sought alternative options.
Besides surrendering, what were the other options?
CaptLobi: The royal mage recognized that someone else would be better for the job, just like a concerned parent calling the police and SWAT instead of going after his son's kidnappers himself.
Loaba: First, calm down. There's no need for such harsh accusations. Yes, there was brief parlay. No, I did not shut them down. They could have easily sought alternative options. The SWAT team does not shoot the hostages just because they fail to reach an agreement with the kidnappers in the first five seconds of opening talks.
Kakitamike: There were a dozen surviving witnesses on the far side of the bridge, any one of which could report that the PCs would have readily killed them.
Oh, okay, i misread it then. I thought there were only survivors after you decided to have the kids on the bridge be an illusion. I thought originally they killed everyone of consequence on the bridge, and all that was left were bad guys.
But if there were good people standing around that lived and got away, then it would all make sense.
Loaba: First, calm down. There's no need for such harsh accusations. Yes, there was brief parlay. No, I did not shut them down. They could have easily sought alternative options. The SWAT team does not shoot the hostages just because they fail to reach an agreement with the kidnappers in the first five seconds of opening talks.By responding all or nothing you did shut them down. Your NPC needed to give an indication that he was willing to discuss terms but instead it sounded like he was set on all or nothing.
"Your offer is intriguing. How many of you for which children?"
One of us for 1/5th of the children including that dark haired one with green eyes.
"Hmmm, he must be important. Two of you, unarmed and unarmored. I want the holy warrior and that guy with the axe."
Just the paladin.
"You will need to offer more. Hey, hey I see you summoner guy. No spell casting or this pretty little girl gets eaten by these here gnolls."
etc.
That is a great RP way to do it, karkon. And I dare say it's completely okay for the DM to hold up his hands and say "guys, c'mon, there are lots of ways you can handle the negotiation."
RD says the negotiation was brief and that leads me to think that he didn't push the issue. He gave 'em the rope let them hang with it.
RD the actions of the party completely aside, one of the big issues with recurring villains is that if you use them too much, eventually the PCs can feel irrelevant.
I.e. If they're only there to as actors in a play tightly scripted by the director/author GM... sure they might get to improvise a few of the lines along the way, but overall, they can feel like nothing they do has any impact on the story. If they hadn't Fireballed the BBEG he would have gotten away yet again... and to be blunt if you hadn't retconned the kids death out of shock, it seems like there's a very good chance you would have retconned the BBEG death with a similar illusion mechanic.
If you've hit that point, and the PC's don't feel relevant or that their actions have meaning, I can completetly understand why they would act out.
It might just be a case of PC burnout or you running a game different than the ones the PC's are playing, but I've rarely if ever seen the moral dilemma work with a recurring villain. The PC's are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. (And I don't buy the arguement that the GM in such circumstances is giving the PCs the opportunity to be more heroic later. Too often the GM forgets that they've taken something away and the PC ends up having to play with a gimped character because they couldn't think faster than the guy with power over space and time in his/her game world.)
Petrus222: This was the first villain in this campaign to ever become a reoccurring villain. This was the second time they encountered him.
I'd say that's hardly "too much" reoccurring villain. :P
Loaba: First, calm down. There's no need for such harsh accusations. Yes, there was brief parlay. No, I did not shut them down. They could have easily sought alternative options. The SWAT team does not shoot the hostages just because they fail to reach an agreement with the kidnappers in the first five seconds of opening talks.By responding all or nothing you did shut them down. Your NPC needed to give an indication that he was willing to discuss terms but instead it sounded like he was set on all or nothing.
"Your offer is intriguing. How many of you for which children?"
One of us for 1/5th of the children including that dark haired one with green eyes.
"Hmmm, he must be important. Two of you, unarmed and unarmored. I want the holy warrior and that guy with the axe."
Just the paladin.
"You will need to offer more. Hey, hey I see you summoner guy. No spell casting or this pretty little girl gets eaten by these here gnolls."
etc.
Something like this is exactly what I would have attempted to do had I been a PC. Well said, Karkon. Failing that, you go into combat and do the best you can.
|
|
No, given the situation it is not metagaming, in fact it is as far from meta as possible. From the perspective of the other characters he/she is acting, but in those seconds they do not know if it is out of his usual reckless self, or if she has spotted something that you missed yourself that needs instant reaction. It could be that the enemy magic user is about to launch an attack, or that the children are an illusion or that children are doppelgangers, you just do not know. So in that moment hope that he knows something you do not and act in concert with the party is probably the most natural thing to do. Contemplations about timing and method would have to wait.
This sounds to me more like the excuses you'd be telling yourself every day for the rest of your life, so that you could sleep at night after watching all the kids die knowing you might have stopped it, than it sounds like real justification for the failure to intervene and stop your psychotic friend from deliberately wasting the hostages. Sounds like it was at least 2 rounds (12 seconds)-- which is damn near like an eternity in combat. Good thing the kids were just an illusion, even though your idiot friend had no idea when he cast the spell deliberately targeting the hostages. Actually, I do suppose it's not just metagaming, because people in hostile situations in real life have been similarly sheep-like and stupid, with similarly drastic consequences for their failures to act.
Yeah, you just don't know. You do know your buddy is a loose cannon with a history of being unconcerned about 'friendly fire' casualties. Sounds like someone I would not trust in that situation.
|
|
Had I been a player in that game, I would have made this counteroffer to the villains: "Let the children go and we will not pursue you. That is your only chance to live." Then if they persisted in trying to use the children as hostages, I would have used lethal force on the villains. The trick is to limit harm to the hostages while at the same time convincing the villains that it is in their own best interests to put as much distance between themselves and the hostages as possible -- admittedly a difficult task.
QFT. TY, David.
Now this, IMO, is a better solution. An excellent one, from the military perspective. Yes, some of the hostages would still die if the enemy didn't take up your offer to run away while they still could-- but you might save at least some of them, and you'd eliminate the threat. David also has the tricky part accurately identified, as the real critical point of action for a hostage rescue effort.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By responding all or nothing you did shut them down. Your NPC needed to give an indication that he was willing to discuss terms but instead it sounded like he was set on all or nothing.
How many times have you heard someone open up with the hardline?
Shutting them down, would have been Paegin and cronies attacking them. Since Paegin was still talking, even if he was trying to give a hard option, RD hadn't shut them down yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once upon a time, in my campaign, I had the players discover an Intelligent ring inside of a departed lich's laboratory. The Ego was feminine, and refused to be worn by anyone but the one female character (played by a female friend of mine). The ring itself was powerful; it could cast any combination of Blur and Invisibility three times per day. It also bound itself to its wearer and refused to come off while using its spell like abilities at its own leisure all the while screaming hypo-feminist remarks to the wearer. By the end of the first fight they had it for, everyone was convinced that the ring was going to try and possess its wearer and that it had to be removed.
Later in the same dungeon, the PCs encountered a puzzle that summoned a Mothman. The Mothman offered the PCs a single wish of their choice, and the ultimate decision was for the Mothman to remove the player's ring. He did so, dropping it into a wormhole.
After exiting the dungeon, one of the players decided to do research on Mothmen. He discovered that they are associated with Catastrophes and only appear when something terrible is about to happen. He couldn't figure out what, if anything, that "something awful" could be though. Then another player, our investigator, who was the same player who wore the ring in the first place decided to research liches (most of the players metagamed this knowledge, admittedly, but this player is relatively new to fatasty stuff). Because of her reading her research aloud, she discovered the important clue within the 'Bestiary' itself; the fact that phylacteries commonly take the form of rings.
That's the moment you're looking for, Raving. You don't want to quickly and suddenly pound your player's faces in with the consequences of their actions. You want time to pass. You want things to happen. You want them to wallow in their own misguided attempts at controlling their petty little lives. Be subtle. Be sneaky. Tie the noose slowly around their necks so they don't realize that they're on the gallows until its too late.
First, I probably wouldn't have retconned the PC's decision in that way, I would have let them live with thier choic... However, since it has already been done I see it potentially played out like this:
The sorc who AOE'd the children on purpose was the only one who actually carried out an evil act. IMO, the next time the party Paladin decides to Detect Evil, he may very well find a big "kill me I'm evil" sign hanging from the sorcs neck. Paladin then proceeds to "take care" of your party problem PC.
|
Literally nobody has said they should've flat-out surrendered, not even RavingDork.See the top of the page:
Had I been the paladin I would likely have attempted to negotiate an exchange of the children for myself as hostage, and promised not to attempt to escape on my honor as a paladin, if all the children went free. Failing that I might even offer the exchange for as many children as I could manage to get free.And the implication was silly, because it implied that killing the hostages was done to remove the bargaining chip, rather than an unfortunate result of attacking the BBEG. Had the fireball/black tentacle(or whatever it was) have been a selective metamagiced spell, I would wager to guess that the caster would have spared the hostages.
EDIT: Fixed quoting format
But the caster used a non metamagiced spell. he didn't even tried using targeted spells.
It is the difference between firing rocket against the bank to kill the robbers and the hostages be damned or having a sniper take a bead and try to kill the leader of the robbers band.
The FBI could try the second option if all else fail, not the first.
Except at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Master Arminas
|
|
Ah, so the PC's did attempt to do some parley, then?
"How about we trade some of us for (the children)?"
And you promptly shut down that avenue.
"All or nothing."
A LE diabolist says he will kill the kids (and obviously has the means to do it) unless ALL of the PC's surrender immediately? Yeah, not a great scenario for the PC's. They don't even get a surprise round to try and pull a fast one because everyone is on high alert.I think I would have (if I were a PC) continued to try to parley until talks broke down completely and combat was initiated. At that point you just do what you can to protect the kids (wall of fire around them or something?) and hope for the best. Ugh.
Wow. You know parley is all about starting with the other guy saying "No" and trying to get him to say "Yes".
To return to the bank robbers example, "We want 10 million dollars and a helicopter in 10 minutes", "It is not possible", "We will kill the hostages if we don't get them", "The city don't have that kind of money ready, we need at least 3 hours to get it, and a helicopter can't land here", "You have 30 minutes and we want a armoured van to get to the nearest airport where a helicopter should be ready for us" and so on.
That is how negotiation work. And that is how you get some sleep gas in the armoured wan, or kill the robbers while they move from the bank to the van while trying not to hit the hostages and so on.
Yes, there was brief parlay. No, I did not shut them down.Putting it in terms that Players can understand - you gave them only one option: fight.
They could have easily sought alternative options.Besides surrendering, what were the other options?
But the caster used a non metamagiced spell. he didn't even tried using targeted spells.
It is the difference between firing rocket against the bank to kill the robbers and the hostages be damned or having a sniper take a bead and try to kill the leader of the robbers band.
The FBI could try the second option if all else fail, not the first.
If the FBI only had rockets they might have to take the chance rather than let the murderous kidnappers go free. That is to say we have no idea what spells he had prepared for that matter the fact that he used black tentacles might have been an attempt to simply restrain the bad guys and hope the children survived long enough for your guys to get in there with the swords and what not.
Now given what we've heard about the player that's unlikely but it's not like he single targeted just the children with the most powerful spell in his arsenal.
Using targeted spells, summon a Bralani Azata (monster summoning V, a standard action for the summoner) near the enemy. A CG outsider with 10/cold iron or evil DR would have been a hard nugget to crack for the gnolls and hyenas and a magnet for the devils attentions, paladin and fighter attacking to draw as many gnolls as possible away from the children.
All the above after trying for a longer parley, and using intimidate on the enemies.Not knowing exactly what spell/options they had available it is hard to say what they could have done, but normally there are plenty of useful spells.
As I already said a simple scroll of fear could have completely changed the encounter.
It is possible but hardly credible that the spellcasters in the party have pictured themselves in a corner choosing only area affecting spells.
At level 10th it is reasonable that they will have at least a few scrolls with other options.
|
|
Except at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Master Arminas
The Waco siege began on February 28, 1993, and ended violently 50 days later on April 19
Sure, instant attack by the FBI, no parley.
Ruby Ridge: 10 days of siege, "The stand-off was ultimately resolved by sympathetic civilian negotiators including Bo Gritz, Jack McLamb and Jackie Brown. Harris surrendered on August 30 and Randy Weaver and his daughters surrendered the next day.", "FBI director Louis Freeh disciplined or proposed discipline for twelve FBI employees over their handling of the incident and the later prosecution of Randy Weaver and Harris. He described it before the U.S. Senate hearing investigating the incident as "synonymous with the exaggerated application of federal law enforcement" and stated "law enforcement overreacted at Ruby Ridge."
An apt example. [roll eyes]
1) it was resolved by negotiations
2) the agents were disciplined even if they did follow what were the rules of engagement at the time.
3) there was an attempt to put to trial a sniper for manslaughter, even if it was quelled.
Don't seem there is support a go an shot on sight policy there.
|
|
By responding all or nothing you did shut them down. Your NPC needed to give an indication that he was willing to discuss terms but instead it sounded like he was set on all or nothing.
How many times have you heard someone open up with the hardline?
Shutting them down, would have been Paegin and cronies attacking them. Since Paegin was still talking, even if he was trying to give a hard option, RD hadn't shut them down yet.
I start every negotiation with a hard line but the people I am talking to know it is a negotiation.
That was my point. You have to signal to the players if it is a negotiation. When the players make an offer (because they were responding to the initial hard line all or nothing) then you tell them to make a better offer or something that indicates it is open for negotiation.
Maybe the LE guy is not interested in the neutral summoner and says "everyone but the summoner" or "I will let all the kids go if the paladin kills this random kid here in cold blood". He can make crazy demands that are different than the first demand. They will still be hardline but indicate that it is a negotiation and not a stand off.
Hostage negotiators are a poor example because for them it is always a negotiation even if the other party does not think so. They are not so much negotiating than manipulating.
|
|
Except at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Master Arminas
One of which another poster has already commented on... and both of which are good examples of how to do things in hostage situations the wrong way. Yeah, Law Enforcement sometimes totally f***s up-- and you get results like Waco and Ruby Ridge when they do.
|
|
I start every negotiation with a hard line but the people I am talking to know it is a negotiation.That was my point. You have to signal to the players if it is a negotiation. When the players make an offer (because they were responding to the initial hard line all or nothing) then you tell them to make a better offer or something that indicates it is open for negotiation.
Maybe the LE guy is not interested in the neutral summoner and says "everyone but the summoner" or "I will let all the kids go if the paladin kills this random kid here in cold blood". He can make crazy demands that are different than the first demand. They will still be hardline but indicate that it is a negotiation and not a stand off.
Hostage negotiators are a poor example because for them it is always a negotiation even if the other party does not think so. They are not so much negotiating than manipulating.
My point was that Paegin didn't attack them, and didn't show signs that he was about to attack them the very next round... the players still had options and were not shut down, whatever they felt about how the negotiations (or non-negotiations) were going.
The players chose to start that fight, prematurely, instead of even considering any other options first. I do see what you're writing about negotiations and it might have been a better way to run the encounter, but I do not buy your point that they were 'shut down' and had to attack when they did.
Atarlost--
I'm surprised that you don't realize that deliberately targeting civilians and/or not taking such matters into account at all is an explicit violation of the Laws of War, not to mention most codes of morality involving warfare. Now, if someone's using human shields, and there is no other way to get them than by killing them and possibly, even probably or certainly killing the hostages they've taken in the process, that can be justified, depending on the circumstances... but unless there's a pressing threat that they represent, one usually takes the time to make absolutely sure there is no other way. One does not ever deliberately target the civilians/hostages, however. And one examines all means available, balances the risks involved, and chooses from among the means available, the method that presents the least risk of harming the hostages while not exposing the rescue teams to excessively increased risk in doing so-- while not giving in to the terrorist's/hostage taker's demands and/or allowing the terrorists or hostage takers to escape.
The MODERN laws of warfare...In medieval times hostages were taken ALL THE TIME...for ransoms!!!
Why does everyone always attribute modern laws to medieval fantasy games?
RD can you tell us what spells the characters had memorized?
I'm sure there were PLENTY of ways out of this without nuking the hostages or surrendering.
|
|
I start every negotiation with a hard line but the people I am talking to know it is a negotiation.That was my point. You have to signal to the players if it is a negotiation. When the players make an offer (because they were responding to the initial hard line all or nothing) then you tell them to make a better offer or something that indicates it is open for negotiation.
Maybe the LE guy is not interested in the neutral summoner and says "everyone but the summoner" or "I will let all the kids go if the paladin kills this random kid here in cold blood". He can make crazy demands that are different than the first demand. They will still be hardline but indicate that it is a negotiation and not a stand off.
Hostage negotiators are a poor example because for them it is always a negotiation even if the other party does not think so. They are not so much negotiating than manipulating.
My point was that Paegin didn't attack them, and didn't show signs that he was about to attack them the very next round... the players still had options and were not shut down, whatever they felt about how the negotiations (or non-negotiations) were going.
The players chose to start that fight, prematurely, instead of even considering any other options first. I do see what you're writing about negotiations and it might have been a better way to run the encounter, but I do not buy your point that they were 'shut down' and had to attack when they did.
I did not say they had to attack. I only said that he was shutting down negotiations with his statement. So the option to negotiate was closed off from their point of view. That played into the choice to start the fight but did not rule out other options.
As the DM it was his responsibility to communicate if that option was open. It can be overt "he seems willing to discuss this" or subtle "He seems to consider your offer and discusses it with one of the devils. The devil shakes his head. Paegin says 'I think I still need all of you'. Things need to be spelled out a bit if you don't want the PCs to mistake your intent like they did here.
Why don't we take it as a given that the PCs had a near-infinite number of options other than casting black tentacles on the children.
Coming up with a better approach isn't the point.
The point is for RD to figure out why his players went nuclear.
This sort of thing happening in one of my games would call for some serious soul-searching about my GM techniques.
Which I'm assuming RD must be doing even if he's not revealing any of that because otherwise I don't think he'd have posted this here.
|
|
Why don't we take it as a given that the PCs had a near-infinite number of options other than casting black tentacles on the children.
Coming up with a better approach isn't the point.
The point is for RD to figure out why his players went nuclear.
This sort of thing happening in one of my games would call for some serious soul-searching about my GM techniques.
Which I'm assuming RD must be doing even if he's not revealing any of that because otherwise I don't think he'd have posted this here.
Be more precise on what options are available. There is a difference between "There is only one route through the fire" and "The quickest way through the fire seems to be the wide main street."
If there are choices let your players know there are choices and let them make those choices for good or ill.