whether or not some of us like this game is of no consequence..it's the Paladin's player who matters....and he's not having fun.
Cheers
Mark
And it might not be the only one who has problems with the game, others may have but not mention them yet.
I have played in games like the OP is running (where there is no hope, where every and any choice you make will make you feel evil), of course it was nWoD so i was more prepared than i would be if i was playing a DnD game, and a lot of players had complaints but only i voiced my problems, you know why? because the other players didn't want to hurt the feeling of the GM by telling him that they don't like his game.
So i will say it again, ask your players if they are enjoying this type of game, if they honestly do then simply ask the paladin player to sit this game out.
Not to derail the conversation too much but . .
With that said, I don't especially like situation the OP presented, but it has the makings of a great story line. I agree that the paladin should be treated like every other character. I'm not a fan of lose/lose situations. However, some of the problem is also in storytelling (in addition to the player's expectations). If the player is on-board this could still be a great plot. The paladin can still confront and redeem his son, which would be awesome to see played out. (if the player is onboard)
In retrospect too, if I were playing the paladin, I would have abandoned the pursuit of the mystery-group, and saved my wife. This is often a trope in fantasy fiction stories where the hero needs to stop pursuit of the villain to rescue his love (who is tied to the train tracks and the locomotive is speeding toward her).
I personally like GoT type games. One of the longest homebrews I ever ran used elements similar to that series. In that game a ranger actually took center stage, kind of like a Jon Snow role, but he could have easily been a paladin.
Their general was assassinated and they had to deal with the turmoil.
The ranger actually fell in love with an assassin. He won her to their side of the conflict. Killed her masters. Had a child. She dies in a similar way because he chose to complete a mission rather than act on rumors that she was in danger.
The ranger (and other PCs) had to hide or protect family members from increasing assassination attempts as they rose in political power.
The ranger was surprised to be nominated as their new leader because of his reputation with the legion.
The PCs often had to negotiate diplomatic situation with leaders who had varying interests. In one case, a PC was betrothed as part of a treaty.
And through it all there were plenty of battles as they led armies and took on the leaders of opposing armies.
I've actually been mulling over a Galactia type campaign. Refugees or slaves from an evil non-human empire, trying to find a way to a rumored homeland through a dangerous world while being pursued by their former masters.
Well its all good and well to say the Paladin is getting the 'Game of Thrones' treament, but if the rest of the party is getting Dr Seuss then you are picking on the Pally.
Well its all good and well to say the Paladin is getting the 'Game of Thrones' treament, but if the rest of the party is getting Dr Seuss then you are picking on the Pally.
Exactly. The same rules need to apply to the whole party. The OP needs to ask himself if he is treating everyone at the table the same.
It sounds like your campaigns aren't very fun to play a lawful good character in.
I agree, it sounds like your trying to break good characters or faith for your own diablical plan to fart in his general direction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have an issue with...
For example the paladin was on a mission and got an message that his wife was dying, he choice to continue the mission for the greater good (ignore the message) so I killed of his wife...
This paladin on a mission doesn't have friends (clerics or other paladins) back home who could heal/save his wife? How long did it take the message to get to him? How long would it take for him to return home? And no one in his paladin order/church could save her in all that time.
With regard to the situation with his son, that could make for a very powerful redemption quest for your paladin, with commensurate rewards, one would hope.Some good stuff.
This is a very good point. Others mentioned earlier that the son's conversion also seems too quick too which is a problem story wise. I'm hoping this is still a new development in the plot, and the son hasn't taken that final step into the blackguard.
This could be corrected by finding that the son is in the company of blackguards as they are trying to turn him, convincing the son of the father's betrayal. The paladin would need to overcome several blackguard strongholds in search of his son.
I have an issue with...For example the paladin was on a mission and got an message that his wife was dying, he choice to continue the mission for the greater good (ignore the message) so I killed of his wife...This paladin on a mission doesn't have friends (clerics or other paladins) back home who could heal/save his wife? How long did it take the message to get to him? How long would it take for him to return home? And no one in his paladin order/church could save her in all that time.
that's very true, wouldn't the families of paladins get speacil aid or something? Or are they just not good enough for that kind of treatment.
With regard to the situation with his son, that could make for a very powerful redemption quest for your paladin, with commensurate rewards, one would hope.The only thing that made Anakin's redemption acceptable storywise was that his death was the price of it.
I think this demonstrates a lack of imagination. As a few off-the-cuff story seeds, the paladin can defeat the son, who escapes for a rematch in round two, where he's again defeated and is then set along a lengthy path toward redemption (echoes of Rocky II for the cinematically inclined). The paladin can work toward destroying the entire organization that is the corrupting influence upon him on the path toward redeeming his son (like Luke and company bring down the Empire in Star Wars). There's a lot more than just Anakin's death that makes the story worthwhile; if not, it never would have held up to audiences. Heck, you could even incorporate twelve Herculean tasks for the paladin or his son related toward the redemption epic. The point is, it has potential and may be useful to the original poster.
whether or not some of us like this game is of no consequence..it's the Paladin's player who matters....and he's not having fun.
THIS
... So I was wondering what do people think is the perfect scenario for the paladin to shine without any moral quandary what so ever? ...
The classics. Evil outsiders, evil dragons, and/or evil undead.
I like your style, and gritty settings myself, but next time, maybe a warning before beginning the campaign about the mood that you intend to give it would be a good thing.
Also, I always feel you can have two different ways of playing the game. (most game a a mash-up of those, but tend to be heavily loaded on one side or the other.)
1) The GM create a story for the characters - the reward is for the player to see his character overcome challenges and shine.
2) The Players and GM togethers create a story for the sake of the story - the characters are tools to craft an interresting narrative - the reward being the global narrative. As tools, character may suffer or even (in the most extreme cases) die for the story to be good.
Both ways are very fun and I don't think one is better, but the second one is the best way to get a tragic, hopeless, game-of-throney campaign to work properly. And you MUST explain to the players that if they want to enjoy the game, they have to get in this way of thinking.
I, for one, would love to play that Paladin - the character is in a very good place to tell a great tragic story. Maybe a little positive feedback after the game, like, "wow, man, your character is really fantastic - making that choice was not easy, and what you did made the story we are telling each other so much better." or something along that line.
But, maybe your players just want to play option 1. That's cool too, and they have the right to want it and to feel betrayed if you had 2 in mind but they got into the game not knowing it and thinking they would get 1.
Maybe taking some time, before next game, to talk about what you hope to achieve and asking feedback from your players would stop the "moaning" - if they want to get into a type 2 game, good, now everybody knows what they are in for, and if they don't want it, you may switch to a type 1 game.
What wont work, I think, is to have some players in a type 1 mood along with some players in a type 2 mood. Seriously - that will be bad - and players may even come to dislike playing with each others.
Anyway, my 2 cents.
|
Let the pally know that his son walked upon the streets where people he saved spoke highly of him and the help he provided. Following his father's steps to kill him, the son slowly begins to understand what doing the greater good means. This initiatic journey also slowly increases his grief toward these people that the pally father helped while his wife was dying alone; conflicting him between jealousy and understanding.
When the son finally meets the father, he's so depressed and angsty that he secretly renunces his antipaladin way, and attempts to convince his father to "do the right thing" by killing him to right the wrongs he did. Because after all, he did this all his life, and letting him go would mean more crimes.
There, the pally has two choices :
- Kill his son, performing a "good" act but ultimately the worst.
- Spare his son and let him go free, asking for his pardon and begging him to renunce the evil ways.
Since the pally will go for the right choice (and I hope you will make it subtle enough that he will feel like playing his character like he always does), he will be REWARDED. His son understands and renunces his evil ways. Time freezes, a great, warm light veils the paladin's eyes who hears a voice in his head telling him he did the right thing, and lived as a true, worthy champion despite the numerous hardships. He may now rest with a warrior's sleep, and he shall be rewarded for his sacrifices.
And there, the paladin's gods performs a miracle. His wife is revived and waits for him in his house, healthy. No one remembers her sickness and death nor the antipaladin son's victims, who are back to their everyday life as if nothing happened. The paladin and his son remember everything, but this one learns that doing the right thing deserves reward, and becomes a proud paladin dedicated to do the right thing like his father.
Meeting with her husband which she left some months ago, the wife is happy but surprised to see him MUCH MORE happy to see her alive, not understanding why... and as he weeps manly tears, she is ready to give him a birthday gift; an old longsword she found under an old shrine dedicated to his God in the forest, in a spot she found by mistake and oddly couldn't remember.
SAY HELLO TO YOUR HOLY AVENGER, MOTHAF%@%A !
|
With regard to the situation with his son, that could make for a very powerful redemption quest for your paladin, with commensurate rewards, one would hope.Here's the problem with that scenario. I'm sure that many folks here would compare it to Luke Skywalker's redemption of his father Anakin. There's just one hitch with that.
The only thing that made Anakin's redemption acceptable storywise was that his death was the price of it. Otherwise a living Anakin Skywalker would still be made to book for countless atrocities on a level that would have made the Gestapo blush, including things such as the slaughter of the room full of children in Episode 3.
The Paladin's son is more than just a "I really hate you Dad because you abandoned us" trope. You simply don't become an Anti-Paladin merely from a flip of angst. You become one by wholehartedly and deliberately embracing the foulest standards of evil. (Anakin's murder of the young Padawans would qualify as the graduating test of such a class) Ignoring that in the idea that such a character can be "redeemed" is something reserved to only the most superficial of storytelling styles.
This a remarkably narrow view from you LazarX. I usually get all sorts of outside the square from your posts, so this one truly surprises me.
As a counterpoint to your Anakin Skywalker story, try reading some David Gemmel. His Drennai novels in particular are filled with anti heros who've done some horrendous things in their past, only to be redeemed in the novels through their sacrifices to save others. His Waylander character is a perfect example in fact.
In his Sipstarssi series, the king of Atlantis (forgotten his name) does horrendous things through most of his life in his madness brought on by the power of Sipstarssi, but he works tirelessly in his later years to reverse all those horrors and becomes a kind of hero for many of the characters in that series.
Characters don't have to die in order to deem themselves. In fact, many great stories are written about those evil characters working for their redemption.
Cheers
One of my players moaned at me what should I do?Aim for the head and double tap.
From the thread title I thought that it sounded oddly sexual.
From the thread title I thought that it sounded oddly sexual.One of my players moaned at me what should I do?Aim for the head and double tap.
I am ashamed that I laughed at that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's so much the 'mechanical' consequences but the fact that the 'narrative' consequences are that $#!t happens to his PC. All the time.
If there are ways out then there need to be clues that lead to that option. It shouldn't be hidden.
Look, you need to talk to your players to see if they're enjoying your campaign and not to us. Our opinions don't really matter and you can't use them to somehow justify your gaming approach if your players don't like it. You can't say "Suck it up!" because the Paizo forum said they like your game style.
Come back and let us know how it went...
Cheers
Mark
Question; do the other characters get the same level of crap in there story? The same hideous decisions with no right answer that affect them personally? I don't object to such scenarios (I'm all about grey morality) but if the Paladin is the only one suffering, then you really need to reconsider why he's the one getting all the crap sent his way. And start throwing him some major bones to make up for the situation.
were i in pally's shoes, i'd simply come to you and ask: 'since there is no point in playing a good character in this world, may i retire this one and play a more fitting character? i'm thinking a CN master summoner...'
were i a more confrontational sort, i'd likely backhand you and leave.
though, thats mostly because i personally play tabletop games to escape incredibly gritty life. going from the frying pan back into the same would rustle my jimmies something fierce, especially in the situations you've presented.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP has not made the paladin lose his powers and that is to his credit. It doesn't mean that the choices he did give didn't have their own problems, though!
He has also shown that he realises that something is wrong and wants to put it right! That displays a good attitude. It's quite brave to suffer the slings and arrows of our criticism, and his posts throughout this thread have avoided an overly defensive tone, and that shows him in a good light as well.
He has come in for criticism here (including from me), and he deserves some criticism.
I'd be interested in what Wind Chime makes of all our...er...'advice'. : )
Ya know, I was thinking Wind Chime was a bit hard on the pally, but then I reread his OP:
I have apologized to him and he is still willing to play. So I was wondering what do people think is the perfect scenario for the paladin to shine without any moral quandary what so ever?
So--cool. You listen to your players and adjust (but without compromising your dedication to storytelling). Good on you, seriously. That is harder for a GM to do than said, sometimes.
I would turn around and ask this question to your paladin player -- not looking for specifics, mind. But ask him what specific goals he has, or existing enemies he wants to deal with. Build your idea for his shining moment around his existing goals, rather than inventing necessarily a new threat or scenario.
This could revolve around redeeming his son--while that still offers some grey area possibilities depending on the son's story, creating a scenario where he has a good chance of success could be really satisfying hopefully to both you and the player.
Sounds like there's a lot of political stuff in the world so you might be able to create opportunities to do stuff like discover a shapeshifted demon manipulating political events, or something along those lines (I think I'm repeating a suggestion someone else made, but ah well), or prevent an assassin from killing a good man. Something like that. You might also ask your other players for ideas as well.
If I am being honest I kind of want the paladin to get his hands dirty which is probably the root of a lot of the unfairness on my part.
the problem inherent in that is that paladins can't usually "get their hands dirty" without falling, since most people see the paladin code as a pit of banana peels on top of a cliff. if they do anything even remotely dubious most DMs will plunk them down to weaker fighters.
so mad props for not instafalling your paladin, but you gotta realize the wringer you're running him through is fall or fall--you're just not actually letting him fall (I'd've been riding a tidal wave of entrails and the shattered spines of my enemies WAY earlier than he's put up with).
questionable stuff is pretty much the opposite of what paladins do and stand for. the fact that you're twisting his arm for actually playing his class and alignment seriously is kinda mean, for lack of a more fitting but non-insulting word.
I have a paladin player in one of my games and he had a rather big go at me this session. When I gm I gm a game that is pretty morally relativist but I agreed with the player in advance that I would never throw a fall or fall scenario at him. But what I have been doing instead is providing optimal greater good scenario's. For example the paladin was on a mission and got an message that his wife was dying, he choice to continue the mission for the greater good (ignore the message) so I killed of his wife and turned his son in an Anti-paladin set upon destroying his father for his betrayal (he believed his father could lay on hands heal her).
There have been several offer examples like this including murdering an innocent prince to stop a war (he didn't thousands died) and recurring villains he wouldn't let the party kill. So when he moaned at me about not letting him have one untarnished moment of glory (paraphrasing a great deal) I could kind of understand where he was coming from. I have apologized to him and he is still willing to play. So I was wondering what do people think is the perfect scenario for the paladin to shine without any moral quandary what so ever?
I have to ask - and this is for other's benefit as well as your own - do you set up similar 'opportunities' for your other players? Is a Wizard ever asked to abandon a quest to come back to his Master/Academy and if he doesn't he'll be refused any additional spells from there on out? Does your Barbarian ever lose his Rage because he followed the laws of a town? Do you even set up similar moral quandries for Clerics?
I ask because all too often, a player running a Paladin seems to become an opportunity for GM's to have a go at them directly in ways that they would never even consider for their other player characters... its a mindset that's easy to slip into because of the inherent code (which I think is a bogus part of the class anyway), but its an incredibly unfair one when you look at the group as a whole.
I'd say the Paladin controversy is about 50/50 players making life miserable for their group because of their strict adherence to 'the code' and GM's acting unnecessarily punitive towards Paladins whether they realize it or not.
Well the rest of the party do get some pretty nasty situations too deal with. For example the rogues main side quest was promoting his father in the election to decide the king of the remnant (think of the Holy Roman Emperor elections). The rogue found the body of a serving maid and a rather grotesque torture chamber whilst snooping around the electors castles (rogues make the worst guests). This meant that he had to choose whether to ignore the find, black mail the elector or seek some sort of justice.
While the rogue was campaigning to elect his father emperor, he found blackmail material implicating a potentially useful but emotionally unconnected NPC who he was spying on anyhow. This is bad for the rogue how exactly?
If that's your prime example of a supposedly "nasty situation" that you've thrown at other players then of course the paladin is going to be pissed.
|
Well the rest of the party do get some pretty nasty situations too deal with. For example the rogues main side quest was promoting his father in the election to decide the king of the remnant (think of the Holy Roman Emperor elections). The rogue found the body of a serving maid and a rather grotesque torture chamber whilst snooping around the electors castles (rogues make the worst guests). This meant that he had to choose whether to ignore the find, black mail the elector or seek some sort of justice.While the rogue was campaigning to elect his father emperor, he found blackmail material implicating a potentially useful but emotionally unconnected NPC who he was spying on anyhow. This is bad for the rogue how exactly?
If that's your prime example of a supposedly "nasty situation" that you've thrown at other players then of course the paladin is going to be pissed.
Agreed. I read the above and thought, "Get back to me when the rogue discovers that his father was doing the torturing and/or disowns the rogue and dies as a result of his actions."
Seriously, the other PCs' family members should be dropping like flies and they should be accused of heinous crimes and not allowed in polite society. Then we're talking fair.
|
|
Well the rest of the party do get some pretty nasty situations too deal with. For example the rogues main side quest was promoting his father in the election to decide the king of the remnant (think of the Holy Roman Emperor elections). The rogue found the body of a serving maid and a rather grotesque torture chamber whilst snooping around the electors castles (rogues make the worst guests). This meant that he had to choose whether to ignore the find, black mail the elector or seek some sort of justice.While the rogue was campaigning to elect his father emperor, he found blackmail material implicating a potentially useful but emotionally unconnected NPC who he was spying on anyhow. This is bad for the rogue how exactly?
If that's your prime example of a supposedly "nasty situation" that you've thrown at other players then of course the paladin is going to be pissed.
Had the rogue found the torture room in daddy's home it would be closer to the poking a pally gets
Had the rogue found the torture room in daddy's home it would be closer to the poking a pally getsWell the rest of the party do get some pretty nasty situations too deal with. For example the rogues main side quest was promoting his father in the election to decide the king of the remnant (think of the Holy Roman Emperor elections). The rogue found the body of a serving maid and a rather grotesque torture chamber whilst snooping around the electors castles (rogues make the worst guests). This meant that he had to choose whether to ignore the find, black mail the elector or seek some sort of justice.While the rogue was campaigning to elect his father emperor, he found blackmail material implicating a potentially useful but emotionally unconnected NPC who he was spying on anyhow. This is bad for the rogue how exactly?
If that's your prime example of a supposedly "nasty situation" that you've thrown at other players then of course the paladin is going to be pissed.
Heh - only if the Rogue's decision affects whether or not he ever gets to use sneak Attack again...
The rogue's situation is actually a good example of a dilemma where there's a real decision to make and every outcome is neither perfect nor awful. Try giving the paladin more decisions like that, instead of the "Do you let thousands die that you could have saved, or kill an innocent man [in which case thousands still die and it's still your fault]" or "Your wife dies offscreen because you went on an adventure, your son spontaneously turned into hitler, and your dog committed suicide".
In the opening post, Wind Chime, you said you were offering the paladin "greater good" choices. But that's not what you've actually done. Instead, you've offered the paladin "lesser evil" choices - or, to be even more precise, "slightly less completely terrible and grimdark in every way" choices.
