How would you have judged this situation? (mature / violent content)


Advice

51 to 100 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Gandal wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Since 1974.

And no, a good DM doesn’t need to “trick” his players.

Pushing players to act OOC in accordance with their personal views and modern sensibilities is just sophomoric DMing.

Again, I ask the OP- Why did you put the PCs into this trap? What were they supposed to do?

I thought i already answered.

I needed to test a mission with a lot of enemies.
It isn't my fault if slave auctions are made like this (and in Rome they were far worse.)
I already said i never use girls in my games like that, that has been a natural consequence of the player's actions (they carelessly inquired nearby the gnolls and lamia).
I should specify my players are adult males, and i asked them if they were bothered by my descrption of what was happening (by their negligence);i assure you if i had little teenagers girls as players things would have been different (the mission would have been.)
And i would like to specify that i'm not gm'ing table RPs since 1974 for two very pratical reasons:
  • In 1974 i was 3
  • RPGs were first published here (Italy) in 1983, and i started GMing in 1985, so i don't think i'm a newbie GM.

    Edit: And please stop making too many assumptions out of thin air, you don't know me or my players, and i told from the very beginning of the thread this was about disturbing content.If you don't want to read things like these don't open the thread.
    Apologize for the harshness

  • All very very valid points, you don't need to defend yourself from attacks like that. There are plenty of people who troll the forums to try to incite, ridicule, and criticize without any kind of help. Just ignore it and them. You did a good job with what you had going and hindsight is always 20/20 with what you "could've done" differently. If you feel like you did a bad job of it, you learn from it and move on to become a better DM.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gandal wrote:
    Apologize for the harshness

    No need to apologize. At the same time, don't ask for others' opinions unless you're willing to hear some dissent.

    Gandal wrote:
    It isn't my fault if slave auctions are made like this (and in Rome they were far worse.)

    You, yourself, described the world as "homemade." Everything in it is your fault. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong it. But it does mean you can't write it off as "the way things are."

    We have to make assumptions. We weren't there. All we have to go on is your description of the events. And based on your description, this is how I would have felt as a player:

    GM: You're doing this wrong, so now someone is going to be raped.
    Me: Bye!

    Lastly, because I don't want to be a big fat hypocrite and tell you you're doing it wrong: there isn't necessarily anything wrong in dealing with mature themes in your game. That's between you and your players. But I will ask you this: you said you wouldn't have played this scenario with teenage girls. Would you with adult women? If not, it may be worth considering why.


    ub3r_n3rd wrote:

    @Gandal - You did a fantastic job with this scenario and there wasn't much else you could do to get the PC's through it especially since they were all out of ideas. You enabled them to try to work through the problem and then provided a small distraction that was in-game realistic to allow them the chance they needed to finish the quest of rescuing the girl.

    I wouldn't dock them anything for not coming up with a solution to the problem that would've saved the NPC unnecessary harm. I'd role play it out with her suffering from PTSD and this would open up more story lines for you to work with as well as they try to help her with her recovery.

    Don't listen to people who are saying that you put them into a trap, you put them before a tough scenario and they made it through it without any important NPC or player deaths. The job of a DM is to challenge PC's not to coddle them in my opinion and this is what you did. If you have to play to the Player's sensibilities rather than that of the Character's to motivate them and to push them into some heroic action(s) that's fine as well, as long as people know the difference and are motivated to play your game.

    In the end, it's all about everyone at YOUR table having fun and if you accomplished doing this, you are a great DM no matter how long you've been doing it.

    My 2 coppers,
    UN

    I try to be, thanks a lot :)


    redward wrote:
    But I will ask you this: you said you wouldn't have played this scenario with teenage girls. Would you with adult women? If not, it may be worth considering why.

    The inquire was about the teenage girl who plays a big tough male fighter, and so i used the expression "little teenager girls".

    If you just said i shouldn't apologize for answering someone else's dissense don't ask me questions whose answer is obvious:
    "Of course not.I would never touch the matter of raping/harass/torture female char in game should i have women of ANY age at the table"

    The Exchange

    If the kidnapping and slavery was legal the paladin couldn't do anything about it with out risking his powers.

    My advice, when players throw you off like this. Take a short break and think it through first. Anytime a large plan is hatched by the pcs it might be best to take a break to think how it effects any/everything else.


    GeneticDrift wrote:
    If the kidnapping and slavery was legal the paladin couldn't do anything about it with out risking his powers.

    lawful=/=following laws


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Emmit Svenson wrote:
    So the rogue posing as a slave buyer didn't think to offer to buy the cleric of Calistra from the gnolls? "And I want her unmarked! Unspoiled for my master!" Promise some stupid sum of gold, leave "to retrieve it," then start whittling away at the gnoll encampment.
    Gandal wrote:

    Whoops, forgot to tell.

    Yes, the rogue said she wanted that elven woman,but rolled low on Bluff, and the gnoll chieftain wasn't convinced enough.

    This is the only place I might fault you.

    Given that the other players were playing supporting roles, I’d have had them make Aid Another rolls for the Bluff. I’d also have given the rogue’s roll the “The target wants to believe you” +5 bonus, because what slaver gnoll doesn’t like the idea of a quick sale? That combined with the low Sense Motive of even a CR6 gnoll cheiftain would make it rather unlikely that the bluff would fail, and if it did, they could still try again at -10 and have a not unreasonable chance to succeed.

    Basically, I’m in favor of rewarding players for coming up with appropriate solutions to social situations.


    Emmit Svenson wrote:
    Emmit Svenson wrote:
    So the rogue posing as a slave buyer didn't think to offer to buy the cleric of Calistra from the gnolls? "And I want her unmarked! Unspoiled for my master!" Promise some stupid sum of gold, leave "to retrieve it," then start whittling away at the gnoll encampment.
    Gandal wrote:

    Whoops, forgot to tell.

    Yes, the rogue said she wanted that elven woman,but rolled low on Bluff, and the gnoll chieftain wasn't convinced enough.

    This is the only place I might fault you.

    Given that the other players were playing supporting roles, I’d have had them make Aid Another rolls for the Bluff. I’d also have given the rogue’s roll the “The target wants to believe you” +5 bonus, because what slaver gnoll doesn’t like the idea of a quick sale? That combined with the low Sense Motive of even a CR6 gnoll cheiftain would make it rather unlikely that the bluff would fail, and if it did, they could still try again at -10 and have a not unreasonable chance to succeed.

    Basically, I’m in favor of rewarding players for coming up with appropriate solutions to social situations.

    My bad, forgot of that possibility.But the players forgot as well, or else they would have asked "can we aid the rogue?"


    DrDeth wrote:

    And no, a good DM doesn’t need to “trick” his players.

    Pushing players to act OOC in accordance with their personal views and modern sensibilities is just sophomoric DMing.

    But the point is that it's not to "trick" them, it's to challenge them, push their limits as players. And like people their characters are defined by their choices and actions, so if I can take use a "trick", "shortcut", or "trope" to help do so what's wrong with that?

    And how it's not designed to make them act on their personal views, it's to subtley confront the differences between their player and them and ultimately help the two "sync" as it were. If they are able to stick more to their character good. If they progress their character to make playing it more organic, also good. How is this at all sophmoric? Please explain why this is bad?


    Gandal wrote:


    If you just said i shouldn't apologize for answering someone else's dissense don't ask me questions whose answer is obvious:
    "Of course not.I would never touch the matter of raping/harass/torture female char in game should i have women of ANY age at the table"

    I don't want to derail the thread any further since this is clearly not what you came here to discuss.

    I will just say again that if you feel comfortable pursuing this subject matter in this vein with one group, but not with another, it is worth contemplating whether it is necessary or appropriate to the narrative. And I will leave it at that.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    GeneticDrift wrote:

    If the kidnapping and slavery was legal the paladin couldn't do anything about it with out risking his powers.

    I don't want to threadjack, but good GODS I would hate to play at a table you GMed. I don't mean offense, but wow. Being Lawful is an attitude, albeit a Cosmic attitude, not just a mindset, but much more than that. It is not about following "laws". Anyone can draw a line in the sand, and because they are stronger than the other people on their side of that line, start abusing them and call it their "law". That is a perversion of the term law, and though Lawful Evil creatures may also behave that way, they are following a cosmic mindset of law that focuses on what they think is right in a "Might makes right" sort of fashion.

    A Paladin, being Lawful Good, follows a "Justice makes right" code. What justice is there in someone deciding that it is ok to enslave and rape people just because they are stronger and on the other side of some arbitrary line like a border on a map? I'm sorry, but there seems to be widespread problems with this in the community where Paladins are going to fall because they violate the "laws" of Evil societies when they oppose them. I, on the other hand, would make them fall for not being Good for NOT opposing such practices, and treat them as heroes for opposing such things.

    Sure, depending on the situation, sometimes just whipping out a sword and going to town on a bunch of aristocrats in a LE city would still be murder... but storming in and killing slavers who are stripping people naked and raping them? You'd make a Paladin fall for that? Give.Me.A.Break.


    setzer9999 wrote:
    GeneticDrift wrote:

    If the kidnapping and slavery was legal the paladin couldn't do anything about it with out risking his powers.

    I don't want to threadjack, but good GODS I would hate to play at a table you GMed. I don't mean offense, but wow. Being Lawful is an attitude, albeit a Cosmic attitude, not just a mindset, but much more than that. It is not about following "laws". Anyone can draw a line in the sand, and because they are stronger than the other people on their side of that line, start abusing them and call it their "law". That is a perversion of the term law, and though Lawful Evil creatures may also behave that way, they are following a cosmic mindset of law that focuses on what they think is right in a "Might makes right" sort of fashion.

    A Paladin, being Lawful Good, follows a "Justice makes right" code. What justice is there in someone deciding that it is ok to enslave and rape people just because they are stronger and on the other side of some arbitrary line like a border on a map? I'm sorry, but there seems to be widespread problems with this in the community where Paladins are going to fall because they violate the "laws" of Evil societies when they oppose them. I, on the other hand, would make them fall for not being Good for NOT opposing such practices, and treat them as heroes for opposing such things.

    Sure, depending on the situation, sometimes just whipping out a sword and going to town on a bunch of aristocrats in a LE city would still be murder... but storming in and killing slavers who are stripping people naked and raping them? You'd make a Paladin fall for that? Give.Me.A.Break.

    it all kind of depends. Absalom has a slave trading quarter, where slave trading is legal. The whole silver crusade of the PFS has to let it ride.


    Hakken wrote:
    setzer9999 wrote:
    GeneticDrift wrote:

    If the kidnapping and slavery was legal the paladin couldn't do anything about it with out risking his powers.

    I don't want to threadjack, but good GODS I would hate to play at a table you GMed. I don't mean offense, but wow. Being Lawful is an attitude, albeit a Cosmic attitude, not just a mindset, but much more than that. It is not about following "laws". Anyone can draw a line in the sand, and because they are stronger than the other people on their side of that line, start abusing them and call it their "law". That is a perversion of the term law, and though Lawful Evil creatures may also behave that way, they are following a cosmic mindset of law that focuses on what they think is right in a "Might makes right" sort of fashion.

    A Paladin, being Lawful Good, follows a "Justice makes right" code. What justice is there in someone deciding that it is ok to enslave and rape people just because they are stronger and on the other side of some arbitrary line like a border on a map? I'm sorry, but there seems to be widespread problems with this in the community where Paladins are going to fall because they violate the "laws" of Evil societies when they oppose them. I, on the other hand, would make them fall for not being Good for NOT opposing such practices, and treat them as heroes for opposing such things.

    Sure, depending on the situation, sometimes just whipping out a sword and going to town on a bunch of aristocrats in a LE city would still be murder... but storming in and killing slavers who are stripping people naked and raping them? You'd make a Paladin fall for that? Give.Me.A.Break.

    it all kind of depends. Absalom has a slave trading quarter, where slave trading is legal. The whole silver crusade of the PFS has to let it ride.

    Just another reason for me to avoid PFS I guess. I'd make the whole lot of them fall for not going to war over it.


    Just another reason for me to avoid PFS I guess. I'd make the whole lot of them fall for not going to war over it.

    lol good luck with that even outside of PFS---absalom in non PFS has slaves. qadira and cheliax have slaves. ulfen keep slaves---heck most countries except the andorans do. Paladins in your campaign are destined to be dead or powerless.


    Hakken wrote:

    Just another reason for me to avoid PFS I guess. I'd make the whole lot of them fall for not going to war over it.

    lol good luck with that even outside of PFS---absalom in non PFS has slaves. qadira and cheliax have slaves. ulfen keep slaves---heck most countries except the andorans do. Paladins in your campaign are destined to be dead or powerless.

    Either that or have triumphed and freed many slaves. And if they die trying, they have sacrificed themselves attempting to be noble and fight for justice. No one said Paladins don't die, and indeed they might when they oppose Evil--but oppose it they must, even at danger unto themselves. If they don't, they are not Good, but Neutral, and have no business being Paladins indeed.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I already said that things went out of my hands, and that i have never allowed such acts at my tables.
    I'm not going to discuss whether this makes me a good or a bad GM, simply that it may happen to females NPC (because we are talking of a NPC,and this is not a thread about the morality, or its lack, of rape. I know no one should suffer that or any other form of violence).
    The game is based on a world similar to ancient societies where similar horrors were the normality,and if the possibilities for abuses over a girl during a game arise i cannot simply ignore the event ; i can simply say "You have the feeling she will undergo ill-treatments" without going too much deeper into details OK.....but i'm not the first GM who opens a thread on this topic and i won't be the last.

    I never said i made the paladin fall,or that i will, for not saving the elven cleric when he knew he would have died if he tried.
    Sure i think he metagamed too much, but that has happened beyond my expectations, so both made a mistake:i could have allowed the cleric to flee when she was assaulted; when the rogue tried to talk the chief into not torturing/raping the elf but insted to sell her to the PCs, she rolled low on Bluff, but both me and the player forgot the "aid another" possibility.

    In the end many of the posters here said it was a good scenario despite what happened to the elven girl, but i'm developing further her background and the thing will have repercussions.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    This scenario was awesome. If your players had fun then there's no problem, because that's what most important.
    Incidentally, I'm going to start a new campaign with adult themes and am hoping to create encounters as good as this one.


    ImperatorK wrote:

    This scenario was awesome. If your players had fun then there's no problem, because that's what most important.

    Incidentally, I'm going to start a new campaign with adult themes and am hoping to create encounters as good as this one.

    Thanks, am always interested in games with more mature themes.


    redward wrote:
    Gandal wrote:


    If you just said i shouldn't apologize for answering someone else's dissense don't ask me questions whose answer is obvious:
    "Of course not.I would never touch the matter of raping/harass/torture female char in game should i have women of ANY age at the table"

    I don't want to derail the thread any further since this is clearly not what you came here to discuss.

    I will just say again that if you feel comfortable pursuing this subject matter in this vein with one group, but not with another, it is worth contemplating whether it is necessary or appropriate to the narrative. And I will leave it at that.

    To be fair, they are adult/potentially offensive themes and a GM must know their players fairly well to bring such subjects up that does not mean they are wrong, many players enjoy to explore the dark side of the foes to make them feel more justified about killing them.

    I'd have second thoughts treating such subjects with women at my table not the least because I myself am less comfortable with it and potentially affects how everyone at the table might react differently even if the woman in question was completely okay with it. You read your players and play with what you have, group dynamics matter.


    Gandal wrote:


    The dwarf cleric said "He wants to sell her, so they won't kill her, and my spells will cure every wounds and even make the scars disappear once we'll have bought her" (which again i think it is metagaming too much)

    But not the mental scars. To me this looks like the players treating the elf like a set of stats rather than than as a living, breathing, feeling person. That in itself is metagaming.


    Skullking wrote:
    Gandal wrote:


    The dwarf cleric said "He wants to sell her, so they won't kill her, and my spells will cure every wounds and even make the scars disappear once we'll have bought her" (which again i think it is metagaming too much)
    But not the mental scars. To me this looks like the players treating the elf like a set of stats rather than than as a living, breathing, feeling person. That in itself is metagaming.

    I'm taking that i account;this will have consequences.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    redward wrote:
    Laithoron wrote:
    The other problem is that human history has shown us that morality IS something people WILL have differences of opinion on. What one GM might see as a clever way of honoring the spirit and letter of the code, another might cry foul on. I'd say it's a character choice that definitely requires a higher-than-normal level of understanding between player and GM.
    Absolutely agree. I think the Alignment system is such a broken mess that playing a Paladin without knowing your GM is just asking for trouble.

    The much easier - and more appropriate in my opinion - way to run a Paladin is as an agent of a specific deity and as such an adherent to a specific philosophy and set of standards instead of some generic 'always do good even if it doesn't make sense' cardboard cut-out. It might require minor tweaking of the class from God to God, but its worked out much, much better for us than the arguments I so often see on these boards.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gandal wrote:


    Edit: And please stop making too many assumptions out of thin air, you don't know me or my players, and i told from the very beginning of the thread this was about disturbing content.If you don't want to read things like these don't open the thread.
    Apologize for the harshness

    Don't sweat the haters. Obviously DrDeth doesn't speak for everyone - you know what's appropriate for your table and that's all that matters... when you want a moral judgement on how you run your campaign from someone who knows nothing about your players or yourself i'm sure you'll ask for it.


    Story Archer wrote:


    Don't sweat the haters. Obviously DrDeth doesn't speak for everyone - you know what's appropriate for your table and that's all that matters... when you want a moral judgement on how you run your campaign from someone who knows nothing about your players or yourself i'm sure you'll ask for it.

    He opened this thread, he asked for advice. "I would like to share something that happened during the last session at my weekend game.

    And to know if you think i did well or i could handle things differently." He titled it "How would you have judged this situation?"

    He didn't ask for validation, he asked "to know if you think if he did well" and "if he could have handled things differently"

    Sometimes you don't get the answer you want. Someone tells you that "No, I think you did not do well" or "Yes, you should have handled thing differently".

    Now, Redward agrees with me, and you have to admit I have considerable DMing experience.

    Sometimes "Tough love" is what is needed, not a bunch of self-affirmation.

    I didn't make assumptions- I made questions: "Again, I ask the OP- Why did you put the PCs into this trap? What were they supposed to do? His reply was "I needed to test a mission with a lot of enemies. " and later "basically the way out was letting the lamia screw with the gnolls putting one against each other and be ready to kill those who survived, so to begin releasing some slaves and giving them some equip, so they could help back. "

    I dont think "I needed to test a mission with a lot of enemies. " is a good excuse for putting the PCs & players into a alignment trap, and the OP's way out- altho workable- is not something most parties would have thought of.

    OP, when you provide moral quandries that can't be solved with "Attack!", you have to expect that the players may not go the way you want/expected. What seems obvious to you they may not even think of. When they do this, they need to be rewarded, not punished. Players usually think of cutting the Gordian Knot, like Alexander.


    Some observations regarding the scenario...

    Gandal, you have stated a couple of times "the way out" was to ally with the Lamia and to recruit the NPC guards against the Gnolls. It may be a language thing, but saying "THE way out" implies there is only one "correct" path to resolve the scenario. If so, that might be a point where you could be "at fault".

    Separately, you said the Lamia noticed what occurred when the PCs were approaching the elf cleric. If the PCs were to look for allies, but the first time they try to approach one she chases them off, that can send the signal that looking for allies is not going to be successful. If another potential ally (Lamia) then acts *against* the first, it undermines any expectation that the second can be trusted at all.

    You have said that the scenatio spun out of your control. You're the GM.. you *always* have control, even if that ends with saying "we need to take a break so I can think". The Lamia was a Non-Player Character. Whether or not the Lamia noticed and reported the elf was 100% in your control. If you rolled for the Perception check, you still have the option, and the responsibility, as the GM to overrule the dice if the result would de-rail the scenario.

    Actively pitting one NPC against another, both of whom were expected to be available as allies for the PCs, sounds like you were actively playing *against* the PCs.

    Again, some of this may be due to language and presentation of the scene here in the thread, so please correcr me if I am mistaken.

    Edit: And, somewhat ninja'd :)


    I haven't been playing games nearly as long as you all but I'd still like to say something. One thing that Immediatley popped into my mind after reading this thread is. Maybe there is a cultural barrier here? My understanding is this game was GM'd by an Itallian and probably played by Itallian men. The cultural difference might change things a little bit. I don't know.

    As for the comment on having real life morals cross with a characters. I think it's a usefull life skill to be able to put yourself into someone elses mindset even when it fully conflicts with your own. This is teaching Critical Thinking and that's a valuable lesson.

    As for the Gaming Scenario. My only suggestion is, did you guys stop for 10-15 minutes and grab a snack take a breather? It can cloud your judgement and they needed time to decide. You kept putting pressure on them and they shut down. I don't know how much time you gave them but my impression is they didn't have a whole lot.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The only thing I've found to be equally reviled as an internet troll is an internet moralist......

    BAck on topic: Nothing at all wrong with this scenario. As Dragon pointed out had they thought quickly, they could have simply said "I don't want her spoiled" etc. That's just a lack of wit on their part. In addition, the Paladin was chicken$#!t pure and simple. He and the rest of your team is guilty of something I see a lot in gaming- folks taking their PC way too seriously. You are supposed to play a hero. Don't be afraid to die or take a chance.

    Level 6 group of 5 heros vs. an overwhelming group of gnolls with only some escaped slaves to help us, hell that's what I game for baby!! I'd have tried the silent approach first and then just stood up and fought. Hell 2-3 fireballs would have dropped half of them.

    Epic $#!T!!!


    Gandal wrote:

    Whoops, forgot to tell.

    Yes, the rogue said she wanted that elven woman,but rolled low on Bluff, and the gnoll chieftain wasn't convinced enough.
    The dwarf cleric said "He wants to sell her, so they won't kill her, and my spells will cure every wounds and even make the scars disappear once we'll have bought her" (which again i think it is metagaming too much)

    Sorry, but I don't understand. Why bluff? Was she trying to "reserve" her so she could buy her later (later being after they have killed the gnolls)? Did they not have enough money? Because I would react kind of miffed if I go to the bakery and the vendor doesn't want to sell me buns because he doesn't believe me. I guess his boss would feel the same way....


    Gandal wrote:


    Whoops, forgot to tell.
    Yes, the rogue said she wanted that elven woman,but rolled low on Bluff, and the gnoll chieftain wasn't convinced enough.
    The dwarf cleric said "He wants to sell her, so they won't kill her, and my spells will cure every wounds and even make the scars disappear once we'll have bought her" (which again i think it is metagaming too much)

    This is the part where it looks like you deliberately wanted the woman to suffer. He failed the bluff role?!?!?!? That's not that big of a bluff man He didn't want her spoiled, that's like me saying I don't want the meat that just fell on the ground. It's not a bluff - I don't want that burger.

    LOL, so really you are feeling guilty about what you did and want us to console you. It's all good Bro.


    Sounds like the paladin isnt a paladin at all.


    Gandal wrote:

    I already said that things went out of my hands, and that i have never allowed such acts at my tables.

    I'm not going to discuss whether this makes me a good or a bad GM, simply that it may happen to females NPC (because we are talking of a NPC,and this is not a thread about the morality, or its lack, of rape. I know no one should suffer that or any other form of violence).
    The game is based on a world similar to ancient societies where similar horrors were the normality,and if the possibilities for abuses over a girl during a game arise i cannot simply ignore the event ; i can simply say "You have the feeling she will undergo ill-treatments" without going too much deeper into details OK.....but i'm not the first GM who opens a thread on this topic and i won't be the last.

    I never said i made the paladin fall,or that i will, for not saving the elven cleric when he knew he would have died if he tried.
    Sure i think he metagamed too much, but that has happened beyond my expectations, so both made a mistake:i could have allowed the cleric to flee when she was assaulted; when the rogue tried to talk the chief into not torturing/raping the elf but insted to sell her to the PCs, she rolled low on Bluff, but both me and the player forgot the "aid another" possibility.

    In the end many of the posters here said it was a good scenario despite what happened to the elven girl, but i'm developing further her background and the thing will have repercussions.

    Gandel, why do you feel that there is anything 'special' about females in this regard. You are aware that males can be raped too, right?


    Read the whole thread so this is kind of a clusterf*** message.

    Only real problem I see in the scenario is that there should have been more ways to solve he problem. This is going from the hip but something like.

    Fight: Well the characters could try take every possible advantage and wint that way in a straight fight. (Not likely) Get allies and just slaughter the gnolls. More likely both.

    Stealth: Free the slaves by killing the guards at the cells/cages/whatever and sneak with the slaves out of the compound.

    "Diplomancy": Buy the slaves(A theoretical possibility likely.)Bluff them in to thinking you are buying them. Threaten them in to freeing them.( Will need bluffing in addition to make them think you are more of a threath than you are.) Getting in to gladirational matches with soe of the gnolls and betting with the chieftain for the slaves.

    Just some examples, regardless I try to think of at least 3 ways PCs can get out of the situation or solve it when I make the encounters. Of coarse more likely than not the players do their own thing regardless. Since. "No plan survives contact with the PCs"

    The GM always has 100% control thing. That only applies if you are willing to fudge an act that I absolutely hate, if you fudge it's not a game anymore not a true one anyway. I enjoy the role part and game part in equal proportions. If you just want to tell collaborative stories you don't need dice. I am aware that I am in the minority here. Still any fudging or not should be open about when the game starts and shouldn't change at the drop of a hat. Well I got on a little rant here the main point was that not every group fudges.

    The mature themes, I applaud you Sir. I love to play at tables were the evil guys actually are evil. I might question the methods on solely logical viewpoint. Aka some acts didn't make sense to me.(Might be the lack of info given)

    Some actual advice. I think you might want to have a discussion about metagaming with your group. Also try to leave multiples ways to solve problems presented to the characters.

    The Exchange

    Terraneaux wrote:
    GeneticDrift wrote:
    If the kidnapping and slavery was legal the paladin couldn't do anything about it with out risking his powers.
    lawful=/=following laws

    Keep reading the paladin code, they have to respect legitimate authority.

    Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

    Lol Men can be raped, especially when demons/monsters/trees/ do it or die are involved.


    Let's get off of the latest topic and focus on the thread. You people are getting out of hand with it.


    Personally I took ImperatorK's remark to be an attempt at injecting some humor rather than as a serious statement. Of course sarcasm doesn't always come thru in text-only communications... *shrug*

    Story Archer wrote:
    ...when you want a moral judgement on how you run your campaign from someone who knows nothing about your players or yourself i'm sure you'll ask for it.

    Exactly. Asking for advice on how an impasse in gameplay might have been resolved and getting lectured on matters of taste are two completely different things. Also, I agree with your idea on paladins, SA, that might help to make running/judging such a character's actions more approachable.

    Edit: Would a spin-off thread focused on the use of Mature Content be appropriate here? I kind of feel like we're hijacking things too.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    This was an interesting discussion until people started to bring up other topics which aren't really relevant. This also isn't a paladin ethics or morals thread. The OP was asking for advice on how he could have done something differently or better in regards to the situation he put before his players. If we can't give him good and constructive criticism, we shouldn't derail the thread and troll for responses by inciting others. I don't think anyone really enjoys it when people start flaming each other on here.

    Just my 2 coppers


    ub3r_n3rd wrote:

    This was an interesting discussion until people started to bring up other topics which aren't really relevant. This also isn't a paladin ethics or morals thread. The OP was asking for advice on how he could have done something differently or better in regards to the situation he put before his players. If we can't give him good and constructive criticism, we shouldn't derail the thread and troll for responses by inciting others. I don't think anyone really enjoys it when people start flaming each other on here.

    Just my 2 coppers

    1) If the subject matter wasn't relevant, why was it introduced by the OP?

    2) He did ask for advice on what he could have done differently. My advice is to not exploit the sexual abuse of women for cheap emotional stakes. Also to not railroad players into a single expected path. So those two things.


    The point about males vs females is completely relevant based on the OPs comment that he would treat the situation differently based on the presence or absence of females.

    My point was that rape is rape, and the idea that guys should be more comfortable talking about female rape when women aren't present was sort of .... disturbing to me.

    So I asked about male rape for that reason.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    redward wrote:
    ub3r_n3rd wrote:

    This was an interesting discussion until people started to bring up other topics which aren't really relevant. This also isn't a paladin ethics or morals thread. The OP was asking for advice on how he could have done something differently or better in regards to the situation he put before his players. If we can't give him good and constructive criticism, we shouldn't derail the thread and troll for responses by inciting others. I don't think anyone really enjoys it when people start flaming each other on here.

    Just my 2 coppers

    1) If the subject matter wasn't relevant, why was it introduced by the OP?

    2) He did ask for advice on what he could have done differently. My advice is to not exploit the sexual abuse of women for cheap emotional stakes. Also to not railroad players into a single expected path. So those two things.

    Not sure if you think I was talking specifically about your posts, but I'll talk about your points if you really want to go that way.

    To your first question: He introduced it so that we had some background information to go on otherwise we all start asking about that stuff to give advice on it. Not that he wanted us to flame him for the usage of moral dilemmas, he wanted simple advice on how he could have done it better in hindsight or how to possibly improve his skills at GM'ing going forward. This is constructive criticism that he's asking for here in my opinion, yet some people (I'm not going to go through and name names) want to be combative and just tell him he's wrong about doing something without giving a good reason why or a way that they would have done it differently.

    To your second response: I personally don't think he was exploiting women for cheap emotional responses, he was giving them the information required to make a decision which had a timetable attached to it. More of an if/then type of scenario. This just happened to rub some people the wrong way with the way he did it and he posted at the beginning that it was a mature theme which he was dealing with. He also posted that he models his game world after ancient Rome in some respects with slavery and other various nefarious things going on. What I say to posters that get offended by this is to read the thread topic and walk away if they can't handle it.

    To your second response about railroading: As far as railroading goes, in my opinion he didn't railroad them if he had pre-planned 3 options that he could think of to resolve the situation. A railroad (to me) is only 1 possible way to go, not multiple ways. They tried a few other options to do it which didn't work and then he helped them out in-game by tossing them a small bone which allowed them to get through his scenario without party nor NPC deaths, but they have to deal with the situation with an NPC having suffered through some traumatic events, which would open up more role playing possibilities in his mature-themed game. He already stated that in hindsight he would have allowed the aid another option, but everyone at the table forgot. They live and learn and remember next time.


    If I was playing the pally I would have pulled a "Guts" and try and become the 100 man killer. Search Berserk for the reference. Heroes are not made because they only act when they have overwhelming odds. They are made because they stood their ground against overwhelming odds.

    As a paladin I would rather be a martyr than stand aside. If the paladin raised enough of a ruckus it could have provided the others enough of a diversion to kill the gnoll leader.

    A level 5 or 6 paladin could probably kill a whole bunch of CR 1 gnolls by himself, save the smites for the higher level gnolls.

    Just not my personality to stand aside and turtle in the wagon.


    Gignere wrote:

    If I was playing the pally I would have pulled a "Guts" and try and become the 100 man killer. Search Berserk for the reference. Heroes are not made because they only act when they have overwhelming odds. They are made because they stood their ground against overwhelming odds.

    As a paladin I would rather be a martyr than stand aside. If the paladin raised enough of a ruckus it could have provided the others enough of a diversion to kill the gnoll leader.

    A level 5 or 6 paladin could probably kill a whole bunch of CR 1 gnolls by himself, save the smites for the higher level gnolls.

    Just not my personality to stand aside and turtle in the wagon.

    Courage is standing up to fight, even if you are afraid you might die.

    Wisdom is knowing that fighting will, should you fail, likely kill every slave you tried to free.

    My two coppers: The paladin made the right choice, meta-gaming or not. Had the paladin gone in there and events had proceeded they way they went, well...a whole lot of people would have died. In all likelyhood, the mercenaries (Warriors), the slaves who would of tried to escape, the cleric they tried to save, and the party as a whole.

    Being a martyr is all well and good, but if it makes things worse because you didn't think ahead? Well, congratulations, not only was your martyrdom for NOTHING, but you died committing an evil action.

    Bolded to get my point across.

    As for the slavery issue: Depends on why they were enslaved. To pay debts, it becomes a legal issue. If they were forced into slavery (through kidnapping, for example), it becomes an evil action.


    redward wrote:
    ub3r_n3rd wrote:

    This was an interesting discussion until people started to bring up other topics which aren't really relevant. This also isn't a paladin ethics or morals thread. The OP was asking for advice on how he could have done something differently or better in regards to the situation he put before his players. If we can't give him good and constructive criticism, we shouldn't derail the thread and troll for responses by inciting others. I don't think anyone really enjoys it when people start flaming each other on here.

    Just my 2 coppers

    1) If the subject matter wasn't relevant, why was it introduced by the OP?

    2) He did ask for advice on what he could have done differently. My advice is to not exploit the sexual abuse of women for cheap emotional stakes. Also to not railroad players into a single expected path. So those two things.

    I would have to agree. The behavior of the characters regarding their alignment is not off topic at all. Paladins are easy prey to become the focus of such conversations because an alignment shift for them is a bit more fatal to their character than other classes... but ethics, alignments, and in-character humanoid behaviors and emotions are fundamental to the way the scenario played out. No one is off-topic for addressing how these characters were being metagamed, and how alignment and real moral ethical questions were being shirked in the name of stat blocks.

    He pointed out the alignments of every member of the group. These are heroic class characters, with Good alignments. They cannot stand by and watch/listen to people being enslaved and raped and remain Good. You can try to use all the sophistry you want on that, but no, they cannot. They aren't EVIL for doing so, but they'd be Neutral at best. How does this relate to how the situation was handled? It relates because YES these players should be "punished" with alignment shifts because this is an EXTREME case of Evil and injustice.

    Someone said something about Paladins having to follow "legitimate authority". Well, no laws that have no justice are "legitimate" authority. When you cannot distinguish between what is law in an Evil society and what would be a crime in good society, that Evil society's "laws" are just crimes that have been rebranded as laws. No one has to respect such criminal organizations just because they are big enough to call themselves a nation. You go to war with such entities as they are the very Evil that as Good you swear to oppose, even to the death. To say otherwise is to drastically minimize how unbelievably awful and Evil slavery and state-sanctioned abuse and rape of sentient beings really is. Its much more evil than just a plot to assassinate a king or a thieves guild stealing from everyone in sight. It is one of the biggest embodiments of evil possible.

    The players in this scenario did NOT behave like Good characters. The GM putting people in positions like this should consider the ramifications of such things, and should help the players out a little in supporting their efforts to be Good and heroic, not let them stammer about confused and out of place.

    51 to 100 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How would you have judged this situation? (mature / violent content) All Messageboards