I haven't read through the entire story yet (I'm waiting for Book 6 so I can do a straight read-through, and we won't be ready to start playing this for several months) but just flipping through some parts I've noticed places where the PCs are expected to make short-term alliances with Chaotic Evil creatures.
My group of players are not hack-and-slash maniacs; they do roleplay and are happy to entertain non-combat solutions to problems. However, they tend to skew very heavily toward Good themselves and paladins tend to be very comfortable in their company.
I'm concerned that the expectation of cooperation with "Eeevil" (there are at least a couple of these in Book 5, and at least one of those offers something like 16,000 XP more for cooperation than for combat) may produce some congnitive dissonance within the group.
As a general rule I'm in favor of non-combat solutions being worth more XP, but I don't like sending the message to players that the best way to succeed is to compromise their characters' principles regarding alignment.
There was a certain amount of this in Rise of the Runelords as well, but as that played out, the party never [knowingly] allied with any evil creatures:
- the party refused the offer of the two red dragons under Jorgenfist to aid them against Longtooth;
- the giant-slayer dwarf fighter in the group wasn't happy about dealing with Conna, but she's Neutral;
- the PCs took a route through Xin-Shalast that kept them from ever meeting Gyukak;
- Morgiv the skulk was too low level to register as evil when the paladin checked.
As a general rule I'm in favor of non-combat solutions being worth more XP, but I don't like sending the message to players that the best way to succeed is to compromise their characters' principles regarding alignment.
If only in RL the easiest way to succeed was always to act iaw your principles! (I know you said best, but...) In my opinion, having this kind of "do I/don't I" dilemma is a real storytelling gift between the players & GM.
I'm concerned that the expectation of cooperation with "Eeevil" (there are at least a couple of these in Book 5, and at least one of those offers something like 16,000 XP more for cooperation than for combat) may produce some congnitive dissonance within the group.
Now this I have some sympathy with - why don't you just award the extra bonus XPs if the characters have made an effort to RP their characters with a bit of depth and manage to progress past the challenge, irrespective of method?
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some moments in the campaign where you CAN make alliances with evil enemies... but the adventures are built so that you don't have to.
In fact, there's one big one where if you make such an alliance, it makes things easier at the start but ends up being a real bad idea later on.
There are also several points in which you can redeem evil foes.
But I can't think of a single encounter in Shattered Star that is set up so that you MUST ally with chaotic evil foes in order to survive...
Of course, unless you tell the players that they "missed out on XP" there's no way for them to know that there was a reward for allying with the drow in the first place.
There are some moments in the campaign where you CAN make alliances with evil enemies... but the adventures are built so that you don't have to.
But I can't think of a single encounter in Shattered Star that is set up so that you MUST ally with chaotic evil foes in order to survive...
Not so much to survive as to prosper, if they get smaller rewards of any sort for Doing the Right Thing. The two encounters I noted in passing in Nightmare Rift were --
1. General Stom asking the PCs to go kill Jubbek and his followers for her; 19,200xp for accepting her deal. Now that I've actually read through that, I withdraw the objection as it's as much an offer of terms of [her] surrender as anything. Unless we have another seriously giant-hating PC in the group, or an ultra-abolitionist who would object to Stom's treatment of hill giants, this should be fine.
2. Morcruft offering to act as guide to Leng. It's going to be tricky at best to make this bunch of players feel like they can cooperate with bestial necrophagic undead -- Gollum on steroids! -- or that having his brothers and sisters treat them well is necessarily a good thing. As a rule they share a paladin's view of undead: they are an abomination and exist to be destroyed.
But yes, the drow are a big issue as well. It's not always easy to completely separate the player from the character, and most of this bunch is currently running through Serpent's Skull, so it's not like they have warm fuzzy feelings about Zura to begin with. And even if Xaivanshee could be trusted to keep her word (which they will not assume) her goal of becoming a vampire isn't one they'd support. So, no 25,600xp for them.
I don't get the "good" side's need to fight all the time. Why I had many a wonderful meal and evening with paladins on a regular basis but then you always get that guy who just has to ruin everyone's evening by pulling a sword and swearing to kill you just because you register incorrectly to some radiation device he believes he keeps in his head (because that doesn't sound insane in the slightest).
The first module alone
It depends on a GMs and the Paladin player's point of view. The first example in my spoiler would require (imho of course, but ymmv) the GM to really play up the importance, and maybe the urgency of recovering the shards ASAP. The first module doesn't really add any urgency as the story is just unfolding. Overall the group is motivated by personal gain and prestige with the Pathfinder Society, which isn't much help on convincing a Paladin to side even temporarily with the former spoiler example.
Again, ymmv based on interpretation of the Paladin class and what it can or can't do.
Overall the group is motivated by personal gain and prestige with the Pathfinder Society, which isn't much help on convincing a Paladin to side even temporarily with the former spoiler example.
When you cite group motivation above, I think you can only infer what the writer(s) hoped would motivate them; obviously different PCs, in groups or individually, will be motivated by different things and no module can ever be all things to all characters.
I'm talking about my particular group of players, who don't play the same characters over and over, but nevertheless invest those characters with their own sensibilities to some degree. We haven't started the Shattered Star AP so there is no party yet, and it may or may not include a paladin when the time comes. Even without a paladin or lawful good cleric in the group, this bunch of players isn't going to be happy being put into one situation after another where they must (or should, or are expected to, or are significantly penalized if they do not) cooperate with the fantasy world moral equivalents of rapists, slavers, serial killers, child molestors and cannibals in the name of expediency.
This sort of thing happening rarely can provide an interesting roleplaying challenge. If it happens a lot, it's stressful to tbe point of becoming less fun.
As the author of Red Hand of Doom, James may be amused to hear that my paladin in that game offered a certain lich the return of his phylactery in exchange for a promise to stay out of the conflict altogether and take no actions that would harm any creature outside the current boundries of his domain. Both parties understood, although it wasn't spelled out, that this didn't imply the lich could expect to be left unmolested by our group once Brindol was safe from the immediate threat. We judged (correctly as it turned out) that the lich would prefer to prepare for our eventual return with his phylactery in hand than to act in support of those who'd stolen from him in the first place.
Even so, I'm using Shattered Star as an example of the problem -- mainly because it and Carrion Crown are the next two APs we're likely to play through (and I believe Carrion Crown has some similar issues, but I'll be a player in that one so please don't mention any specifics) -- not as the sole or main source of the problem as I see it. That is, while I applaud non-combat solutions to problems, and I recognize that the logical extension of that is that there will be evil opponents who are not killed in the course of the adventure, I am not happy about the [perceived, by me] frequency with which actual cooperation with these opponents is encouraged and rewarded.
CC Is an easier sell, that's all I can say without specifics.
*Shrug*
I don't really think this is a problem at all. Sometimes evil solutions get more exp and sometimes good ones do. The adventures never "expect" anyone to make the agreements, and typically no one is ever forced to compromise their values to get through, whether they're good, evil, or anything in between.
If there's an exception, it's probably Skulls & Shackles, but that warning is given ahead of time.
My players are still running the same characters they have for years...they do not take to dealing with evil...
It might take them a bit longer but I can predict that on tomorrows game there will be a slaughter of evil. Heroes kill the bad guys, not make a deal to let them slink of to kill some other victims somewhere else.
...no one is ever forced to compromise their values to get through, whether they're good, evil, or anything in between.
This much I freely admit, and I don't think I've said otherwise. But I respectfully disagree with your statement that the adventures never expect the PCs to take morally ambiguous courses of action. The mere fact that those courses of action are outlined in the adventure, and given higher than base XP values, means the action is not only expected but encouraged, if only after the fact.
Yes, PCs are entirely free to take other actions not outlined in the adventures, and I believe some, perhaps even most, APs even make that point in print, as a sidebar or whatever. But the expected path is the one covered in the main body of the adventure text, and that's where I'm finding the things I'm offering as examples.
...no one is ever forced to compromise their values to get through, whether they're good, evil, or anything in between.This much I freely admit, and I don't think I've said otherwise. But I respectfully disagree with your statement that the adventures never expect the PCs to take morally ambiguous courses of action. The mere fact that those courses of action are outlined in the adventure, and given higher than base XP values, means the action is not only expected but encouraged, if only after the fact.
This is where I disagree. I don't see why listing something as a possibility means that it is the expected way to go. The book provides detailed combat strategies for the enemies as well, so it clearly anticipates players fighting evil NPCs as well.
And yeah, it probably should give more exp. That's because you don't get any loot for NPCs that you ally with instead of killing. It's a pretty fair trade off.
I can't speak for the authors, but I'm fairly certain they aren't trying to encourage or expect anyone to side with evil characters.