Does anyone remember "blue bolts?" Back in first edition, I had many DM's who, if the party had decided to do something as evil as aoe innocent children, would have ended the adventure with:
"The Gods of good and purity take mercy on the innocent children you have just tried to murder. A maelstrom of lightning bolts descend from the blue, striking the party and the army of gnolls dead on the spot. The children hobble back to the village sobbing, to be enfolded in the loving arms of their relieved mothers. As village elders, they would often tell the tale of the day they were caught between two warring factions of evil, and the gods showed them mercy. It would become a legend across the empire, and from that day forward, the village would be known as Mercy Storm."
Does anyone remember "blue bolts?" Back in first edition, I had many DM's who, if the party had decided to do something as evil as aoe innocent children, would have ended the adventure with:
"The Gods of good and purity take mercy on the innocent children you have just tried to murder. A maelstrom of lightning bolts descend from the blue, striking the party and the army of gnolls dead on the spot. The children hobble back to the village sobbing, to be enfolded in the loving arms of their relieved mothers. As village elders, they would often tell the tale of the day they were caught between two warring factions of evil, and the gods showed them mercy. It would become a legend across the empire, and from that day forward, the village would be known as Mercy Storm."
Uh, never heard of blue bolts, though I've been playing/DMing since '83...
now, dropping a red dragon on annoying players...I'll admit I did that when I was 12 or 13..
|
Does anyone remember "blue bolts?" Back in first edition, I had many DM's who, if the party had decided to do something as evil as aoe innocent children, would have ended the adventure with:
"The Gods of good and purity take mercy on the innocent children you have just tried to murder. A maelstrom of lightning bolts descend from the blue, striking the party and the army of gnolls dead on the spot. The children hobble back to the village sobbing, to be enfolded in the loving arms of their relieved mothers. As village elders, they would often tell the tale of the day they were caught between two warring factions of evil, and the gods showed them mercy. It would become a legend across the empire, and from that day forward, the village would be known as Mercy Storm."
Yes, I've usually heard either blue or purple bolts. Also, of course, "Rock fall, everyone dies." But the bolts send a bit clearer message, I'd say. :)
Not that I think they should be used in this particular situation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never used either the blue bolts or the "rocks fall, everyone dies" in any of my campaigns. In fact I think they are so commonly parodied because they are almost universally recognized to be GM tantrums.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never used either the blue bolts or the "rocks fall, everyone dies" in any of my campaigns. In fact I think they are so commonly parodied because they are almost universally recognized to be GM tantrums.
Oh, they are definitely GM tantrums. But tantrums are social creatures, and tend to appear in twos and threes.
I suppose it is worth noting that for the first half of the battle, the party could not see all of Paegin's forces due to it being the dead of night. Nevertheless, most everyone had darkvision 60 ft. at the time except for the half-elf, who had an everburning torch and could therefore see more than anyone across the 90-foot long bridge.
The entire party had fly cast on them (to help catch up in their pursuit), were hasted (though that ended almost as soon as the talks began), and the sorcerer was invisible up until he cast his first blast spell (which was after the illusion was discovered if I recall).
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.
Only the paladin prepares spells. The summoner and sorcerer are spontaneous casters.
CHANDRA GO, IFRIT SUMMONER
4th – purified calling, summon monster V
3rd – black tentacles, charm monster, dimension door, fly
2nd – barkskin, haste, invisibility, slow, summon swarm
1st – ant haul, enlarge person, lesser rejuvenate eidolon, magic fang, shield
0 – acid splash, detect magic, light, open/close, read magic, resistance
HIHACHI BELACQUA, HALF-ELF FIGHTER
Feats: Cleave, Critical Focus, Dodge, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword), Furious Focus, Great Cleave, Greater Sunder, Greater Weapon Focus (bastard sword), Improved Critical (bastard sword), Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (bastard sword), Weapon Specialization (bastard sword)
PAEGIN, GNOLL INFERNAL SORCERER*
5th – contact other plane
4th – charm monster, enervation, wall of fire
3rd – fireball, haste, phantom steed (appears as an infernal dire hyena mount rather than a phantom horse mount), suggestion
2nd – alter self, blindness/deafness, darkness, flaming sphere, scorching ray
1st – burning hands, comprehend languages, mage armor, magic missile, protection from good, shield
0 – arcane mark, bleed, detect magic, detect poison, light, mage hand, message, prestidigitation, read magic
ROGAR IRONSIDE, DWARVEN PALADIN "OF THE PEOPLE"
2nd – bull’s strength, resist energy
1st – bless weapon, cure light wounds, divine favor
SELFANE GOLDBOUND, HUMAN DRAGON SORCERER
4th – black tentacles
3rd – fireball, fly, haste, lightning bolt, major image
2nd – hold person, invisibility, resist energy, scorching ray
1st – charm person, comprehend languages, enlarge person, feather fall, mage armor, magic missile, ray of enfeeblement, shield
0 – acid splash, detect magic, ghost sound, light, mage hand, message, prestidigitation, spark
* Paegin's highest spell DCs came to 17, making most of his offensive spells next to useless against the party. He also had a single CL 10 scroll of dispel magic, had drunk a potion of see invisibility prior to the battle, and possessed the Bouncing Spell, Lingering Spell, and Selective Spell metamagic feats.
|
My first thought with the Sorcerer's spells involves using Lightning Bolt to destroy one end of the bridge and casting Feather Fall (an immediate action) on the children, and using Fly to catch the couple Feather Fall didn't work on (or just cast Feather Fall again the next round, since it'll take more than one round to fal 200 ft.).
My second thought involves the use of Summon Monster 5 to put a Bralani in among the children and yell at him to Wind Wall them off from the Gnolls and protect them physically. Combined with an attack by the PCs to distract the enemy and that should keep the kids fairly safe.
I never play casters and those are off the top of my head. I could probably come up with something else if I had time to think on it. The first, particularly, would be hilarious, and would've still left the Barbed Devils and Paegin to deal with, but taken care of basically everyone else.
No matter what happened, a fireball or other AoE should have never been tossed into the mix. The PC's should have charged, used single ranged attacks etc... If the monsters kill the children then that's one thing but when the PC's do it then that's a whole different can of worms.
I disagree, there is in fact no difference whatsoever. If the PC's actions, direct or indirect, lead to the death of the children (real or illusory), than they are still responsible. The only way the PC's make it out with honor intact is to either surrender or somehow save all of the children before they can be killed in the melee.
But the caster used a non metamagiced spell. he didn't even tried using targeted spells.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.
This is true. The wizard tried black tentacles first, and the BBEG counterspelled them.
Twice.
I have to ask RD, did your BBEG have those spells in your notes, or did you shut down that solution as a retcon to get more excitement out of the scene?
My first thought with the Sorcerer's spells involves using Lightning Bolt to destroy one end of the bridge and casting Feather Fall (an immediate action) on the children, and using Fly to catch the couple Feather Fall didn't work on (or just cast Feather Fall again the next round, since it'll take more than one round to fal 200 ft.).
You fall roughly 500ft in the first 6 seconds, and a thousand feet each round after that. The kids would hit the ground halfway through round 1.
I think the party had the right idea, shut down all movement with black tentacles and then take out the bad guys, but they got stymied trying that. They also could have tried putting a ring-form wall of fire around the kids. The summoning is a good idea but could take too long.
Looking at the parties capabilities I think this is doable with a bit of thinking and teamwork. Obviously we can't see the exact terrain lay out, but from memory RD had in a post that the bad guys were on a bridge so given theres just two ways off a bridge the PCs can control the battlefield.
The key is to get in amongst the kids and get them out with surprise. You've got an Ifrit Summoner with Dimension Door and Invisibility so as far as I see it you've got the right hero for the job.
I think I would have the Summoner staying hidden while the rest of the party draws attention through the negotiations by being as loud as possible and a bit antagonistic. The Paladin and the Fighter would move up to within charge range to ensure they were drew the focus on the villains and make a bit of noise. The Ifrit Summoner would invisibly move in amongst the children and then d/door back with them to a safe position. After that its on and I'd have the Sorcerer readied to drop the tentacles on the in space between the Paladin and Fighter, but still occupy space of villains if possible. L'Bolt across a bridge should be a pretty sweet follow up.
The Summoner could use Summon Monster before moving in for an Air Elemental to help out. Place it directly above the enemy, but up high out of immediate sight ready do drop in to grab any kids left behind or simply drop in and tear into the villains. Really the Summoner is the key here and must be willing to take a risk that he won't be detected.
Only possible problem with this approach would be is if the summoner is out in the open at the start of the encounter. The sorcerer is the key here and would need to coordinate with the Summoner by creating a Major Image of the summoner over the top of the summoner as the summoner casts invisibility. With enough distance between the two groups and that it was night time it should be easily pulled off. The Summoner can then invisibly sneak in and do the d/door move.
Dunno about anyone else, but it seems doable to me.
|
|
This is true. The wizard tried black tentacles first, and the BBEG counterspelled them.
Twice.
Uh...re-read his posts. That's not what happened.
The Sorcerer tried to Black Tentacles the children and was counterspelled by the bad guy using a Scroll of Dispel Magic (a perfectly reasonable thing for him to have and do, IMO), and then tried it again, this time successfully murdering the children.
So the order of events was:
1. Black Tentacles attempt.
2. Bad guy Counterspell with Dispel Magic.
3. Second Black Tentacles, which works perfectly.
Are people just not reading Ravingdork's posts? Because a lot of people seem to have just not caught the Dispel Magic reference.
You fall roughly 500ft in the first 6 seconds, and a thousand feet each round after that. The kids would hit the ground halfway through round 1.
Heh, alright, just have the Paladin swoop down with Flight (which the PCs apparently all had cast on them, again, read the posts) and grab a few kids, and use Feather Fall on the rest. The plan still works.
I think the party had the right idea, shut down all movement with black tentacles and then take out the bad guys, but they got stymied trying that. They also could have tried putting a ring-form wall of fire around the kids. The summoning is a good idea but could take too long.
Black Tentacles automatically (well, with a +15 Grapple Check, so automatically vs. small children) do 1d6+4 damage every round, and were cast specifically on the children. Casting such a spell in the middle of non-comabatant 1 HD creatures is just plain murderous, and any intimations otherwise are silly.
As fgor the Summoning, the enemy were apparently doing it, so it seems likely the PCs could've gotten away with it for long enough. Hell, a Bluff check on someone's part probably could've kept it from being noticd until the Azata popped up.
Ah, my bad, I'm thinking a version of BT that just grappled and held you.
I am still not sure how paegin counterspelled?
The summoner was invisible according to RD, and he doesnt have see invisibility on his spells known, so he shouldnt have been able to counterspell a spell he couldnt see.
Paegin had drunk a see in invis potion before the encounter.
I'm curious why none of the players have the feat that lets them choose targets in an AoE (just woke up can't remember the name of it...), that would have been perfect...deselect the children, while tentacling or fireballing the badguys. From their spells they seem to be a very combat oriented party.
Maybe in the future just give them the hack 'n slash they seem to want
First, I confess I have not read through all 267 pages of replies...
There is a fine and dangerous line between punishing the *characters* and punishing the *players*. I always worry when I hear talk of punishing a player for character behavior.
There is a (understandable) tendency for folks to occasionally make judgements about players themselves based on the nature of characters they play in RPGs; I know there are at least a couple of people who *only* know me from sitting at gaming tables where I've played an evil character who actually don't like *me*... because of in-character actions! While it's preposterous, it's a common enough occurrence that I make a point of being extra-nice personally to compensate for my character - for example, when I was playing Legend of the Five Rings, if I was running my despicable Lion Spymaster I'd bring cookies to the table (or whatever palliative comestible was at hand). Well, it works :)
The issue here is - did the players act *in character*? It was a desperate action, but was it *appropriately* desperate? If not, and if the characters were role-played *poorly*, THEN we might dock xp or otherwise punish the actual PLAY itself. Otherwise, storytelling thrives on conflict and the unexpected, and I say it's best to roll with "whatever"... often it leads to an interesting place.
My view: the best RPG campaigns have a novelistic character, meaning two things - the characters should change over time (and not necessarily in a positive way) based on the conflicts they face, and there should be *conflict* which does NOT have an easy/best solution.
I guess a question to ask your players, is not whether they want a heroic campaign, but whether they want to have to make tough decisions.
I know I've come to points in campaigns, where I just don't care anymore about what happens. Tired of weighing every decision because of the possible outcomes of my actions.
I'm not sure how far into your campaign that this particular encounter happened, but how often is your party dealing with the life and death situations of others?
Sometimes you want to have fun, and having to figure out how to save lives with dignity isn't fun for everyone.
|
No matter what happened, a fireball or other AoE should have never been tossed into the mix. The PC's should have charged, used single ranged attacks etc... If the monsters kill the children then that's one thing but when the PC's do it then that's a whole different can of worms.I disagree, there is in fact no difference whatsoever. If the PC's actions, direct or indirect, lead to the death of the children (real or illusory), than they are still responsible. The only way the PC's make it out with honor intact is to either surrender or somehow save all of the children before they can be killed in the melee.
Surrender, is essentially suicide without doing the children or the adults back in the village any real good. There are no other heroes evidently capable of bailing the PCs out if they'd surrendered, and no reason (other than perhaps metagamed excuses for stupidity) to expect that the bad guys are going to the give the PCs any reasonable chance at escape. So-- as with modern hostage situations-- surrender is not a realistic option. Nor is it one that leaves your honor intact, according to most codes of honor, under these sorts of circumstances.
If the PCs are doing their best to try to save the children, and fail because the bad guys kill them anyway-- then no, the PCs are not responsible-- the bad guys are. Even if that was a foreseeable and likely outcome, under the best plans the PCs could come up with, the bad guys are still responsible for the deaths of the children (although I think a couple of people-- BQ and Deadmanwalking-- have presented some good plans after this post of yours was made-- Deadmanwalking's post also includes another excellent summation of the problems with the PC's chosen course of action). The only way the PCs truly share in responsibility for the death of the children is if they either A) kill them themselves (which they did, in this case), or B) intentionally choose an option that presents much more risk to the children (and much less chance of successfully saving them), than other reasonable options available to them.
Saving everyone in a hostage situation is very often not possible to achieve. I do not believe it is fair to blame those who attempted to save everyone they could in a rescue effort, for the deaths of the ones they couldn't save (so long as they did not act in a grossly negligent manner). Your other suggestion-- surrender, is essentially saying they should hand themselves over to be murdered, in the hopes that the kids won't be. Even if true (and even if appropriate for some Paladins)-- I not only don't see it as a viable option, I don't think the failure to hand themselves over to their mortal enemy makes them at all responsible for the deaths of hostages at their enemy's hands because they refused to do so-- Their enemy is the one who chose to threaten the children and if this case came to pass, their enemy is the one who actually killed them.
At this point-- with some of the ideas flying around on this topic... I really wonder what most of the people on these boards would actually do, if they (not their fictional characters) were faced with choices like these-- if they actually had to take the consequences seriously, instead of leave it solely in the game-- if a wrong choice or action on their part could lead to the hostage's deaths... or could lead to their own death, or both. Now, it's great that this is a game, and we can treat this as hypothetical and think, thank the gods that isn't me personally ever having to face these problems...I still prefer my fiction to take a more 'realistic', 'serious' approach to ethics, morality, and consequences-- to make choices that people actually facing these circumstances might make.
Some of the ideas and solutions I've seen on this thread are IMO very good-- and meet the seriousness of thought I'd like to see applied. Some of the ideas and solutions presented have been thoroughly unworkable and unrealistic approaches to solving the dilemma these characters face. There have been a few that I think are downright insane and/or just plain evil-- although some of these do represent the 'final solution' style options some people actually have chosen to apply in real historical situations.
The summoner wasn't invisible, the sorcerer was. And yes, Paegin had see invisibility active. He was beaten in their last encounter by the sorcerer because said sorcerer flew over him while invisible and dropped a folding boat on his head--Paegin wasn't about to let that happen again.
Personally I do not think that the retcon should happen. Characters need to be held accountable for their actions or inactions especially if you have a paragon of virtue in the party. There are certain things that a good party or individual will not do. Sitting idly by might be considered commission to the act.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The Gods of good and purity take mercy on the innocent children you have just tried to murder. A maelstrom of lightning bolts descend from the blue, striking the party and the army of gnolls dead on the spot. The children hobble back to the village sobbing, to be enfolded in the loving arms of their relieved mothers. As village elders, they would often tell the tale of the day they were caught between two warring factions of evil, and the gods showed them mercy. It would become a legend across the empire, and from that day forward, the village would be known as Mercy Storm."
And the first thing my character would say on arriving at whatever plane his soul was shipped to would be 'Why did the bloody bastards wait so long if they could save the brats themselves? What did they need ME for?'
"The Gods of good and purity take mercy on the innocent children you have just tried to murder. A maelstrom of lightning bolts descend from the blue, striking the party and the army of gnolls dead on the spot. The children hobble back to the village sobbing, to be enfolded in the loving arms of their relieved mothers. As village elders, they would often tell the tale of the day they were caught between two warring factions of evil, and the gods showed them mercy. It would become a legend across the empire, and from that day forward, the village would be known as Mercy Storm."And the first thing my character would say on arriving at whatever plane his soul was shipped to would be 'Why did the bloody bastards wait so long if they could save the brats themselves? What did they need ME for?'
Dang right. I wondered that myself, while I was trying to dislodge my palm from my face. :P
I am going to assume this is sarcasm. So any firefighter who has to pull out of a building because the structure was to unsafe, and negotiator who has lost a negotiation, any teacher that has fled a school shooting should hang their head in shame? Any war hero that failed to take an objective point in WW2 is responsible for the death of millions? The PCs did not steal those kids and put them on the bridge, that was the BBEG, sometimes you do not win. That is ok, happens in real life too. Situations are out of your control to some extent, and bad things happen. Now that is not to say dropping a fire ball on the kids was a good thing to do, but that is not the same as failing to save them.No matter what happened, a fireball or other AoE should have never been tossed into the mix. The PC's should have charged, used single ranged attacks etc... If the monsters kill the children then that's one thing but when the PC's do it then that's a whole different can of worms.I disagree, there is in fact no difference whatsoever. If the PC's actions, direct or indirect, lead to the death of the children (real or illusory), than they are still responsible. The only way the PC's make it out with honor intact is to either surrender or somehow save all of the children before they can be killed in the melee.
Somewhere, some how, my point got lost in translations...
Surrender - bargain honored, kids alive and free - PC honor intact
Fight - some or all kids die in melee - PC's are responsible for those deaths, because they didn't surrender when given the opportunity.
It's a real sucky situation to be in, isn't it?
The summoner wasn't invisible, the sorcerer was. And yes, Paegin had see invisibility active. He was beaten in their last encounter by the sorcerer because said sorcerer flew over him while invisible and dropped a folding boat on his head--Paegin wasn't about to let that happen again.
He should have used an Instant Fortress.
More seriously, how did the gnolls react to the BT?
Perhaps Peaglin could have realised there and then that the characters were prepared to sacrifice the children to get him, and ignored the children after that, either retreating to a more defensible position or getting them out of the way (over the edge of the bridge).
|
|
Surrender - bargain honored, kids alive and free - PC honor intact
Fight - some or all kids die in melee - PC's are responsible for those deaths, because they didn't surrender when given the opportunity.
It's a real sucky situation to be in, isn't it?
There was no bargain to honor. There was an offer by the bad guy and an offer by the good guys and both refused the other's offer.
By fighting the PCs were trying to get the kids out of danger. Danger that the bad guy put them in. The bad guy had the power to put those kids out of danger at any time.
You are arguing that the PCs should have submitted themselves to save the kids but there was no guarantee they would be safe. "Oh yes I agreed to let them go but I did not guarantee safe travel back to the village" would let the LE bad guy live up to his deal while pulling the classic devil small print. "I guaranteed that I would not harm them. The gnolls made no such deal" There is also the possibility that other creatures of ill intent could attack or eat the children. I can think of a hundred ways where surrendering does not guarantee the children's safety.
The only sticky parts are the paladin's code and the orders to save the nephew.
By fighting the PCs were trying to get the kids out of danger. Danger that the bad guy put them in. The bad guy had the power to put those kids out of danger at any time.
I would agree with this, had the party not targeted the bridge with area effect spells they knew would kill the children.
Three times.
The only sticky parts are the paladin's code and the orders to save the nephew.
The paladin's code is his to deal with. He could confront the casters, report them to the authorities, whatever. As he didn't cast the spells, he should face the consequences of what he does - or does not - do about the casters.
P: "OMG, you ... you killed them all!"
S: "I know. I'm sorry. But if we had surrendered, we'd be dead, the village would be defenceless, and the gnolls would probably have devoured the children anyway. Now, no-one will ever place an innocent in our path as a hostage again."
P: "Damn you to hell! I should smite your *** into the next life!"
S: "I wouldn't blame you if you did. Or told the sheriff and had me tried for murder. It's your right, and I won't resist if you do."
P: "I hate you..." {stomps away}
You are arguing that the PCs should have submitted themselves to save the kids
It is my understanding that the PC's could have surrendered themselves and the children would be restored to their homes. More importantly, this offer was made by lawful entity that is known for keeping its word.
Is that not the case?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are arguing that the PCs should have submitted themselves to save the kidsIt is my understanding that the PC's could have surrendered themselves and the children would be restored to their homes. More importantly, this offer was made by lawful entity that is known for keeping its word.
Is that not the case?
If the lawful EVIL person tells you the kids will be returned to the village, you assume that its with a catapult.
You are arguing that the PCs should have submitted themselves to save the kidsIt is my understanding that the PC's could have surrendered themselves and the children would be restored to their homes. More importantly, this offer was made by lawful entity that is known for keeping its word.
... and a bunch of hungry gnolls, known to enslave and eat people. Devils are bad for sticking to the letter of an agreement while twisting it to hose you up...
"Oh sorry, I said I wouldn't hurt the children if you surrendered and I haven't. My friends here, though, they just get so hungry, and an army marches on it's stomach."
Restored to their homes in a town that is already under attack by the bad guys and which now there are no heroes to defend. How does that make them safe?
That's the classic LE screw-over. "I said I'd let them return to their homes. I didn't say I wouldn't continue to attack their town and burn it to the ground killing them and their parents with them."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I submit, again, that RD set his players up to fail. Children were going to die. The party got screwed in the moral dilemma and went nuclear as a result. Joy.
/if that kind of game is fun for you, that's cool. It's not my cup of tea. I don't want to kill all the Orc babies, okay? I have enough issues dealing with the real world. I want my fantasy world to be less complex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well they didn't have to do the evil guy's work for him. Let him be the evil jerk who kills children. You know, instead of the party being evil jerks who kill children.
There's a difference between shortsightedly allowing or provoking someone else into killing children and killing them yourself. That difference is what makes a DM shift your alignment one step closer to if not already evil.
The Paladin shortsightedly allowed someone else to kill the children. That has repercussions for him only because he's a Paladin, and because that someone else was part of the Paladin's group.
The person who killed the children has no excuse.
The person who retconned the scenario should be ashamed. Let the children die. Enjoy being able to wreak vengeance upon the dastardly villains known as the party. It could have been an epic turnaround and failure of the party with far-reaching consequences that take them through hell and back, possibly in an effort to reclaim their honor.
Changing reality (okay, fantasy reality) so that the party was weirdly right to attack what they thought were real children is only going to cause more trouble down the line. They weren't right. Shame on you.
Heh, yeah, take the character's sheets, roll new characters and then let the characters hunt their old characters...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhere, some how, my point got lost in translations...Surrender - bargain honored, kids alive and free - PC honor intact
Fight - some or all kids die in melee - PC's are responsible for those deaths, because they didn't surrender when given the opportunity.
It's a real sucky situation to be in, isn't it?
It is a really sucky situation to be in-- however, no. PCs surrender, die at the hands of their enemies. Children survive... until the next gnoll raid kills them and their parents, along with the countless others who die, because the forces that were stopping Paegin and his gnolls from wreaking evil upon the area surrendered and gave up their lives to stop a one-time act of extortion. PCs are dishonored in retrospect, because they gave their lives cheaply and ceased to continue as defenders/heroes of the Empire and its people.
Alternately, PCs fight, do their best to save the kids-- some of them are killed by the enemy before the PCs can save them. PCs may feel guilty that they were not able to save them all. Responsibility still rests entirely with the bad guys who actually killed the children. The PCs are not forcing the bad guys to kill the children. Paegin's doing that on his own-- the PCs are not obligated to throw all other considerations away to bow down to the wishes of a murderous extortionist, nor will their refusal to do so dishonor them. Paegin and company are responsible for their own actions in all of this-- not the PCs.
And I again submit the question I've asked before-- I'm really wondering what you'd do if you actually had to make this choice yourself-- give up? Fight? Withdraw and seek other options? You seem to believe that making the most suicidal choice is the correct answer-- I wonder if anyone actually facing that choice and having to take the consequences seriously, would really do that.
|
|
Then I submit, again, that RD set his players up to fail. Children were going to die. The party got screwed in the moral dilemma and went nuclear as a result. Joy.
I submit that some of the children dying, is not a total failure if you successfully rescue some of them. I do observe that it's a tricky, complicated, dangerous situation with a moral dilemma resolve-- but it's not unresolvable and situations where there is no entirely right answer are a part of a soldier's/mercenary's/adventurer's life. "Going nuclear"-- the choice the party did make, was the real screw-up, the wrong answer, and the way across the 'moral event horizon', but the players chose to do that.
/if that kind of game is fun for you, that's cool. It's not my cup of tea. I don't want to kill all the Orc babies, okay? I have enough issues dealing with the real world. I want my fantasy world to be less complex.
Got it. No complicated, challenging moral dilemmas for you, no dark, gritty, nasty worlds-- no shades of grey and situations where there is no easy right answer.
I understand some people like that sort of game, and while it's not my preference (I like the shades of grey and the complicated, complex moral dilemmas), it is a viable way to play the game that is fun for a lot of people.
Y'know, devils are getting a lot of bad press, here. Of all the fiends, devils are the most likely to parley, the most likely to bargain, the most likely to keep their word. Because lawfulness is hardwired into 'em.
It is entirely possible that a devil would enforce adherence to a bargain made in its presence, preventing the BBEG from reneging, provided the devil was treated with the requisite deference by the party. Not gonna happen with a paladin, no, but let's not keep treating devils like demons. They really aren't the same thing.
The Emperor's court mage teleported to the PC's location, informing them that he had recieved magical communicades from his brother in a small town far to the west. The town had been (successfully) fighting off incursions by gnoll bandits (the leader of which the PCs had already been tasked with assassinating by their military commanders). The communicade informed the court mage that the gnolls, after having suffered several indignant defeats at the hands of town defenders, abandoned the possibility of sacking it and instead infiltrated the village during the night and kidnapped over a dozen young children as a form of enacting their revenge for their losses. The court mage, worried for his young nephew, sought out the PCs (heroes of the Empire all) and handed them orders to come with him to the town and help recover the children (their top priority). So the party goes with him. As soon as they all teleport to the town, the wizard leaves them to the villagers, who summairly rushed them off into the forest to rescue the children, who had all dissapeared into the night not 10 minutes before.
After fighting off a number of ambushes along the trail, they finally catch up to the gnoll raider's primary force at a large bridge spanning a 200-foot deep chasm. With the raiders is Paegin, the diabolist sorcerer they were tasked with tracking down and killing. At the center of the bridge are the dozen or so children, all surrounded by vicious, bloodthirsty gnoll infantry. With them, also, are a number of near-wild hyenas, a quartet of dire hyenas bearing heavily armed and armored elite gnoll cavaliers, a pair of barbed devils, and the sorcerer at the back.
Paegin tells the party, whom he and his men have fought and lost to before, that if the party surenders themselves, the children will not be harmed. I fully expected the party to come up with a clever plan, perhaps even let themselves be captured in return for the freedom of the children only to break out and beat up the bad guys once the kids were out of harm's...
Hmm, I've considered this, and if the party isn't huge and really powerful, shelling the bridge really does make the most sense. I am not usually one for pragmatics.
For instance, say they surrendered themselves, kids are let go, and then tried to escape. Why do this? It is a very bad idea to be disarmed and surrounded by enemies. Especially, and I just have to say this, when these gnolls are known to be raiders, murderers and kidnappers. It is a very slim chance of surviving long enough to escape, death and rape are really on the cards. Possibly right then... the minute the weapons are lowered and the party is seized.
They got the foes, killed a lot of children. Maybe the pcs don't like children? I don't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone remember "blue bolts?" Back in first edition, I had many DM's who, if the party had decided to do something as evil as aoe innocent children, would have ended the adventure with:
"The Gods of good and purity take mercy on the innocent children you have just tried to murder. A maelstrom of lightning bolts descend from the blue, striking the party and the army of gnolls dead on the spot. The children hobble back to the village sobbing, to be enfolded in the loving arms of their relieved mothers. As village elders, they would often tell the tale of the day they were caught between two warring factions of evil, and the gods showed them mercy. It would become a legend across the empire, and from that day forward, the village would be known as Mercy Storm."
If you want to use those types of events though, why didn't the good gods strike down the gnolls and rescue the children on their own?
Good gods kills everyone makes me think:
1) players don't seem very necessary.
2) players are killed if they break the linear plot line of being good.
3) thus endeth the lesson.
The Emperor's court mage teleported to the PC's location, informing them that he had recieved magical communicades from his brother in a small town far to the west. The town had been (successfully) fighting off incursions by gnoll bandits (the leader of which the PCs had already been tasked with assassinating by their military commanders). The communicade informed the court mage that the gnolls, after having suffered several indignant defeats at the hands of town defenders, abandoned the possibility of sacking it and instead infiltrated the village during the night and kidnapped over a dozen young children as a form of enacting their revenge for their losses. The court mage, worried for his young nephew, sought out the PCs (heroes of the Empire all) and handed them orders to come with him to the town and help recover the children (their top priority). So the party goes with him. As soon as they all teleport to the town, the wizard leaves them to the villagers, who summairly rushed them off into the forest to rescue the children, who had all dissapeared into the night not 10 minutes before.
After fighting off a number of ambushes along the trail, they finally catch up to the gnoll raider's primary force at a large bridge spanning a 200-foot deep chasm. With the raiders is Paegin, the diabolist sorcerer they were tasked with tracking down and killing. At the center of the bridge are the dozen or so children, all surrounded by vicious, bloodthirsty gnoll infantry. With them, also, are a number of near-wild hyenas, a quartet of dire hyenas bearing heavily armed and armored elite gnoll cavaliers, a pair of barbed devils, and the sorcerer at the back.
Paegin tells the party, whom he and his men have fought and lost to before, that if the party surenders themselves, the children will not be harmed. I fully expected the party to come up with a clever plan, perhaps even let themselves be captured in return for the freedom of the children only to break out and beat up the bad guys once the kids were out of harm's...
Also got to say, it just doesn't make sense for the words of children to lead to the de-commissions of heroes of an empire. As if they would be listened to, and as if they would be calm and organised enough to explain it all, clearly and accurately from the dms perspective. Trying to force the players to do exactly what you want. You gave them a bridge, a lot of foes on it, and no easy solution save killing everyone.