Ok so a lot of people don't like my scenario. Well lets see what we can do to fix it. And hey i might like yours better than mine. So the the BBEG evil guy will be testing the PCs as individuals. They rest of the party isn't in real danger at the time of the test. So i ask you internet peers, i want a moral challenge for a paladin that isn't going throw the entire internet into a frenzy.
So internet, challenge accepted?
I think the point was that forcing a moral challenge is kinda not nice. Because it will result in dead paladin (perhaps even dead party) or fallen paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
actually he is. 3 CN and a LG pally. What a party.
think the Joker from the Dark Knight. A madman that wants the one that stands for justice and law to break and crumble. To fall in the way of chaos. The way the world was first intended. The world was not created with laws and morals. It just was, until people started to impliment law and order. He is trying to break influential people to cause society to crumble. Hence he kidnapped the noble's son. As well as any other hostages he may or may not have.
The paladin has built a church to his deity in the major city that they are in. The rest of the party has done some influential things but were low key about it. Therefor they do not have the reputation that the pally has. which is why he was singled out a bit more than the rest of the party although the rest of the PCs were tested.
but how to do so? Still a baby GM so fill me with ideas!
How far are you willing to walk the faded line to get what you want. Its a fantastic question for a moral event horizon. "Your standing right before your goal with a mighty sacrifice if you take the short cut. Are you willing to take the plunge? How much is it worth to you. Its all for the greater good. One tiny step."
Being evil and temping is fun. Its also a good way to scare players, and the build up can be pretty intense. Be sure to beat them up a little to make them desperate. I don't know the party or its goals. So really I can only give general advice.
Ok so a lot of people don't like my scenario. Well lets see what we can do to fix it. And hey i might like yours better than mine. So the the BBEG evil guy will be testing the PCs as individuals. They rest of the party isn't in real danger at the time of the test. So i ask you internet peers, i want a moral challenge for a paladin that isn't going throw the entire internet into a frenzy.
So internet, challenge accepted?
It's called a Crisis of Faith. If the Paladin is worthy of all his sparkly holy powers, he'll keep acting like a Paladin even if he doesn't have sparkly holy powers. So his god(s) take them away to test his worthiness.
The Setup: BBEG summons powerful Celestial representative of Paladin's deity and makes the accusation that the Paladin is unworthy of his holy powers because of X, Y and Z (hanging out with 3 CN adventurers is a good start). Why are the heavens supporting this jerk and persecuting the BBEG?
Inscrutable Celestial Being decides to test the Paladin by removing his powers and setting him a difficult (possibly fatal given his being stripped of powers) task. Make sure the Celestial Being is capable of Raise Dead or similar, because whether or not the Paladin succeeds (or even lives) is not relevant, only that the Paladin proceeds to do good and law in the course of this test. The Paladin does NOT receive any warning or information as to why his powers stop working, his powers just stop working, suddenly he's a nerfed Fighter. But look, some Evil and Injustice to fight! (A decent KS: Religion roll probably would hint that Paladins and Clerics have run into this problem before, though most Paladins don't have buckets of KS: Religion).
So, if Paladin says "Screw this, how am I supposed to win when I've got no sparkly Holy powers?", he's basically failed the test...but!
This isn't where you permanently remove his powers, this is where Inscrutable Celestial Being appears and informs him that is was indeed a test and yes, he failed it, and he'll have to do better in the future. Being a Paladin isn't about the powers. Assign penitential quest (IOW extra adventure hook) and restore powers.
OTOH, if Paladin says "Screw powers, this Evil and Injustice shall not stand!", and one triumphant victory (or glorious death and subsequent Raise Dead) later, Inscrutable Celestial Being appears, pats the Paladin on the back for a good job remembering what being a Paladin is all about, and hey have this shiny Holy Magic Item that would be super handy for defeating BBEG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually suggest against removing the paladin's powers as part of any test. You can challenge him without forcibly removing his powers. That, and its boring if they're gone.
The fact that you are specifically targeting a paladin with this situation is the main problem that I see. Would you present the same dilemma if the party did not include a paladin? If so, then you would be fine -- but if not, that combined with the fact that none of the other player characters are even of good alignment suggests that you "have it in" for the paladin.
Remember that the villain gains little from a paladin falling, especially if he decides to become an extremely vengeful anti-paladin instead. Whether the player would retain control over such a character would be irrelevant to the villain, who should see himself as a person with his own motivations rather than a mere DM's tool. Note that even though a villainous NPC actually is a mere DM's tool, you as a DM should try to get into his head enough that you can separate his motives from your own.
Honestly, the way you initially presented it (like you would to your players) sounded like, "Kill this kid or you all die."
Knowing the characters, levels, and abilities they have, I don't think this is so bad. I wouldn't have the BBEG tell the paladin to kill the kid, but just the party in general.
They have enough abilities (and should be able to hit the knowledge religion check on the portal) to either a) save the kid and avoid the portal, b) Save the kid but fall in the portal while doing so, or c) fall in the portal with the kid, and have to protect him while in hell. D)Kill the kid is the stupid option, as the BBEG will just say "perfect, you've done what I wanted, no way i'm opening up this door." and then leave via however he has planned to get out.
So no, its not evil of you to do this, and its kind of silly for the BBEG to. The only tweak I'd suggest is not calling the paladin out specifically in the monologue to kill the kid.
I think the point was that forcing a moral challenge is kinda not nice. Because it will result in dead paladin (perhaps even dead party) or fallen paladin.
Yeah - how *dare* a GM force a paladin to act like a paladin even when it's inconvenient.
Next thing you know, he'll be expecting Lawful Good characters to spare surrendering enemies, and after that, it's just a short skip to total anarchy.
Snark aside, I recently gave my PCs a moral choice: I gave them a ring of three wishes, but what they would discover just before they made each wish was that if the wish was granted, the soul of a child would be imprisoned in the Nine Hells. They were always given the option of NOT making the wish once they learned this consequence, of course. As an added twist, I made the "price" for the final wish the soul of one PC's wife.
In short, I gave my players a powerful tool that could make their lives easier, but at a tremendous roleplaying/moral cost. Later on in the adventure, they will be traveling to the Nine Hells, and they will have to literally confront the consequences of their actions (they used all three wishes, but the PCs who used them never revealed the hidden cost to any of the other PCs).
Something like this might feel a little less "railroady," and may even be more fun to roleplay, since succumbing to evil is often a matter of trying to take shortcuts.
Now, the tricky thing about giving paladins moral challenges vs other classes it that you have to work harder to demonstrate the consequences of evil to other classes - NPCs have to treat them poorly, people have to stop trusting them, good temples have to stop providing healing, etc. Paladins have an instant "punishment" button that makes it easier for them to do the calculus.
Though it's worth pointing out that it's easier to get an atonement than a raise dead, so no one should really be complaining about paladins being forced to risk falling unless they also think that forcing other PCs to risk death is unreasonable.
I think the point was that forcing a moral challenge is kinda not nice. Because it will result in dead paladin (perhaps even dead party) or fallen paladin.Yeah - how *dare* a GM force a paladin to act like a paladin even when it's inconvenient.
Next thing you know, he'll be expecting Lawful Good characters to spare surrendering enemies, and after that, it's just a short skip to total anarchy.
I don't think that statement has anything to do with a Paladin who purposefully breaks his code or doesn't act Lawful Good. You don't need moral questions constantly to force the paladin to be a paladin. His choice is almost pre determined by his being a paladin, which is one of the things I hate most about playing one.
Unrelated note, why would you damn the soul of a child behind the party's back!? That's just bad mojo there. Damning the soul of a child was bad enough.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My basic philosophy is this: for Paladins to exist, the basic premise must be true that evil is never necessary. It can be easier. It can be tempting. But in a universe where paladins are chosen by the gods and endowed with holy power so long as they are unswervingly righteous, it must be fundamentally possible to be unswervingly righteous and still succeed--or else the gods are malevolent.
In a world where the paladin exists, anyone who says 'I did what I had to do' is wrong, and a way exists to be unfailingly good while still accomplishing good. Now nothing says that the Paladin will always emerge unscathed, or even alive. But if you ever put a Paladin in a position where any choice he might make causes him to fall, or where he must fall to save the world, then you might as well have just banned the class from the outset.
Judging from the further details you've provided, that is not the case here; the presentation just makes it look that way. If you're ready and willing to accept third options the party devises, you're probably fine, though a cleaner, less ham-fisted presentation might go a long way to forestall player irritation.
It isn't evil in that you are giving a tough choice. That's what bad guys do... it's evil if you punish him for choosing the noble path. Does he have flying armor? Can he "iron man" it around the kid? I mean, let him choose to do the bad thing and need some redemption, but make it epic if he chooses to sacrifice himself. Maybe the pali does fall in the pit to hell and then take your player to the side and tell him about his noble act serving to have angels from his deity help him fight his way out (maybe a one off? Where the other players have to do something on this side to get him back? Very "Buffy"). Honestly, I don't think it is horrible to put them in a moral conundrum, only horrible if it is a no-win situation.
Talk to the Paladin player before the game, and get his okay; conspire with him. Something like...
"so this game I'm going to be putting you in a REALLY bad situation, and I want you to know that so long as the choice you make is done with some degree of style (like you don't do a childish ragequit or do something out of spite), your paladin and the party won't get screwed over. In fact, this is a sort of big dramatic spotlight thing for your character. Worst case scenario you'll lose your powers for awhile, but I'll totally give you the chance to get them back at a superheroic moment. Are you okay with this; are you ready?"
Then just follow through. Make it about the epic story, get them involved, and be ready to go with the flow when they make choices that surprise you. Most importantly, make sure that the story is about the characters, not about whatever campaign you made up.
As for falling from grace, I have no problems with having a Paladin fall from grace. But I would also always provide a good sidestory to redeem the character and recover his powers... or else allow a fastforward where he rebuilds as a cavalier or fighter or something if that's his preference. Further, if the paladin falls from grace in a selfless way "for the greater good", or by solid RPing despite metagame knowledge, then I'd even reward said character a bit extra, fudging some treasure rolls or giving bonus RP XP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how there is one constructive player (paladin) and three that couldn't give two coppers (All CN) so the GM decides to completely shaft the Paladin for 'teh Lulz'.
Clearly in this GM's campaign it pays not to actually be invested in any way shape or form.
I feel sorry for the paladin as he learns once again that in a Geek hobby no good deed goes unpunished.
I like how there is one constructive player (paladin) and three that couldn't give two coppers (All CN) so the GM decides to completely shaft the Paladin for 'teh Lulz'.
I like how some people imply that it's impossible to play a Chaotic Neutral character that is well-rounded and realistic.
I also like how some people apparently know the entirety of the game as the GM has run it, and apparently knows for certain that he hasn't presented similar moral challenges to the other players in the game.
...
Seriously, the ridiculously judgmental attitude in this thread, especially in the face of knowing next to nothing about the particular group of players or what they enjoy, toward the OP gives me heartburn.
I like how there is one constructive player (paladin) and three that couldn't give two coppers (All CN) so the GM decides to completely shaft the Paladin for 'teh Lulz'.
Just throwing it out there, but there is a good chance the chaotic neutrals wouldn't want the kid to die for a number of reasons. He's more profitable alive, and I'm usually against children dying in my games. Even evil has standards.
I like how some people imply that it's impossible to play a Chaotic Neutral character that is well-rounded and realistic.
Then you aren't playing CN, because by sheer definition the AL is not well rounded. There's no implication here, I'm simply saying it flatly.
I also like how some people apparently know the entirety of the game as the GM has run it, and apparently knows for certain that he hasn't presented similar moral challenges to the other players in the game.
What 'moral challenge' would seriously face a CN character? was he faced with the hellish choice of an 'conform or conform' situation? That must have been really...emotionally confrontational.
Sorry Xara, we have all seen it all before; the 'moral conundrum with the Paladin' was getting a bit hackneyed back in the day and has only become more worthy of scorn and derision as time went on.
The CN sticker is also a 99% certain sign that you are dealing with a player who wants to be evil, or just generally act like a complete hat and not have any consequences... all the fun of being evil without Paladins detecting you or leaving you vulnerable to anti-Evil countermeasures.
I did not read all of this, but here are my two cents.
D&D is about the illusion of choice. I have made players pick choices I wanted for them and made it seem like they were their choices the whole time.
If you are a strong Dm capable of this. Then it is a very epic story. You need to know your player and their characters and them give them choices you know they will take. Use these choices to show a future at first, and then the later choices obsure the future that is designed for them.
You can not let them know you are doing this. As a Dm I am very aloof. When players ask me things I often shrug my shoulders and murmur something about not knowing. I find this aides in the illusion if it seems you are just playing off of their responses.
Again it is not easy, but nothing great ever is.
Then you aren't playing CN, because by sheer definition the AL is not well rounded. There's no implication here, I'm simply saying it flatly.
I'd argue that you don't understand the concept of alignments. They're not a straitjacket that guides every single action you make. A CN character can still have strong feelings about things; they can still be a well-rounded character. I'll repeat that if in your experience they are one-dimensional, that's not the fault of an alignment, but either bad players or a grossly simplistic understand of how the alignment mechanics are actually meant to interact with role-playing and characterization.
What 'moral challenge' would seriously face a CN character? was he faced with the hellish choice of an 'conform or conform' situation? That must have been really...emotionally confrontational.
Well, here's a good, if cliched, example: A Chaotic Neutral character's wife and daughter are kidnapped. Turns out he can only save one of them. Guess what? It's still going to tear him apart. Chaotic Neutral does not equal "emotionless".
Sorry Xara, we have all seen it all before; the 'moral conundrum with the Paladin' was getting a bit hackneyed back in the day and has only become more worthy of scorn and derision as time went on.
I'd point out that the GM says specifically that he's a newer GM. So what if you've seen it a hundred times? If this Paladin hasn't seen it before, then you're still foolish for crying "badwrongfun" because it's quite possible that he'll enjoy it.
That's really my point: You're talking out your @$$ about a situation that you really have no clue of the details, and assuming that because you find it trite, everyone else has to as well. Not only ridiculous, but arrogant.
Cool story bro.
I like how some people imply that it's impossible to play a Chaotic Neutral character that is well-rounded and realistic.Then you aren't playing CN, because by sheer definition the AL is not well rounded. There's no implication here, I'm simply saying it flatly.
I also like how some people apparently know the entirety of the game as the GM has run it, and apparently knows for certain that he hasn't presented similar moral challenges to the other players in the game.What 'moral challenge' would seriously face a CN character? was he faced with the hellish choice of an 'conform or conform' situation? That must have been really...emotionally confrontational.
Sorry Xara, we have all seen it all before; the 'moral conundrum with the Paladin' was getting a bit hackneyed back in the day and has only become more worthy of scorn and derision as time went on.
The CN sticker is also a 99% certain sign that you are dealing with a player who wants to be evil, or just generally act like a complete hat and not have any consequences... all the fun of being evil without Paladins detecting you or leaving you vulnerable to anti-Evil countermeasures.
CN can't be well rounded? How is that? I've played plenty of CN characters who aren't evil-lite. Hell I've actually got a LE assassin who'd take the ride to hell rather than kill a child. (Its part of his code)
Cool story bro.
Wow, what a witty retort - or at least half that. Have a good evening; you've shown me everything I need to know that this conversation isn't worth having with you.
The CN sticker is also a 99% certain sign that you are dealing with a player who wants to be evil, or just generally act like a complete hat and not have any consequences... all the fun of being evil without Paladins detecting you or leaving you vulnerable to anti-Evil countermeasures.
Stereotyping is supposed to be a bad thing isn't it? I know where your coming from, but I've seen that subverted often enough. I usually see it with a younger or newer crowd, who doesn't quiet get certain things yet or feels they need some lenience so they felt CN was copping out of alignment because it cops out of responsibility. In any case, I don't think that's quiet right.
Cool story bro.Wow, what a witty retort - or at least half that. Have a good evening; you've shown me everything I need to know that this conversation isn't worth having with you.
Conversation? I thought you were just providing thinly veiled sarcasm followed by outright insults for a while. If you thought your poignant and insightful rhetoric was somehow worth of rewarding by engaging you in further conversation then your judgment in other areas, such as alignment debates, is certainly questionable if not outright doubtful.
So yeah, 'cool story bro' is about the right level of response.
Stereotyping is supposed to be a bad thing isn't it?
No. It's not 'bad' to point out that size 10 feet generally choose size 10 shoes.
That is ignorant to say CN is 99% chance you want to play evil but not be labeled evil.
I admit at my PFS group a guy said to me"I am CN because I can be evil or good when I want to."
So I made my character CN to show him what it means. He is so unpredictable and erratic so much it makes him somewhat predictable. But he is not stupid or evil. For "allies" to get aide from him they have to appeal to him in someway. Be his vanity or selflessly helping him.
I agree many people do not know how to play CN. I would say that and LN are very difficult to play. But it is not 99%.
Despite being CN they also have things they value. You can easily have them challenges things. They can fall in love just as easy as anyone else. I think CN are easy to provide moral dellimas for.
When I was Dming I had the CN jerk, change good because he really liked one of the other characters that was very good and kept following his example of good. You could do the opposite make them hate some NPC so much that they are evil in anyway possible to back at that NPC. I have done both to CN players.
That is ignorant to say CN is 99% chance you want to play evil but not be labeled evil.
I admit at my PFS group a guy said to me"I am CN because I can be evil or good when I want to."
For "allies" to get aide from him they have to appeal to him in someway. Be his vanity or selflessly helping him.
Can you see how these statements don't really line up all that well?
Even the description you so kindly provide paints a very negative and not very well 'rounded' picture.
Think about it, take all the time you want.
CN can't be well rounded? How is that? I've played plenty of CN characters who aren't evil-lite. Hell I've actually got a LE assassin who'd take the ride to hell rather than kill a child. (Its part of his code)
So your assassin, who is neither Chaotic nor Neutral, was the best example you have of how CN can work and isn't evil lite?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of all the gamers I have DM'd for over the years who played CN, about 75% of them just chose CN because they wanted to be evil but be able to claim they were just doing what their character would do...just being a jerk...or shut down the game until they felt like letting the rest of the gamers have fun again.
Yes 25% of the CN were playing the random/erratic card to the hilt...one player flipped a coin to determine his actions...but the other 75% caused our group to ban CN alignments along with the evil ones to let us have fun again...
Still having fun for close to 10 years after we made that choice...your games may be different...
Right on Selunatic.
Even the 25% sound fairly disruptive.
CN can't be well rounded? How is that? I've played plenty of CN characters who aren't evil-lite. Hell I've actually got a LE assassin who'd take the ride to hell rather than kill a child. (Its part of his code)So your assassin, who is neither Chaotic nor Neutral, was the best example you have of how CN can work and isn't evil lite?
I have a Chaotic Evil Anti-Paladin who doesn't like to kill children. He doesn't see the benefit in killing youth, he much prefers corruption and sacrifice. He wants to teach them the ways of the world or find a better use. I also have a NE character who likes to teach and works as a librarian during off time who would be opposed to killing youth because the character is a worshipper of a trinity of matrons who teaches non violence... Among other things. I also have a CN wizard who is absolutely against killing children because he used to be an abused child and goes out of his way to not let this thing happen(Its the reason for his lack of social skills, disheveled appearance, disorganized life). He works with people all the time and doesn't argue with the party, just anti social and anti-government. He has a lot of long term goals that are good, evil, or chaotic, but not one that's about creating law, more destabilizing to improve and to create freedom for himself and what he sees as the oppressed.
Are those better examples? I have yet to try LE. I see a few too many turn into barristers personally. Not a gig I enjoy.
I never said wrell rounded. So do not be a jerk and put words in my mouth. You said "The CN sticker is also a 99% certain sign that you are dealing with a player who wants to be evil, or just generally act like a complete hat and not have any consequences... all the fun of being evil without Paladins detecting you or leaving you vulnerable to anti-Evil countermeasures."
I assumed you meant 99% of the people do not know how to play CN. Maybe I was wrong in the meaning of what you wrote.
Now I am not flipping a coin on what I do. I follow whatever whim he wnats at that moment. I never said well rounded. He is not. Negative is up to eahc person. I have had 2 people I never met on 2 different occasions tell me a story about a character they heard of and it was my character. So something I am doing ebough people enjoy to retell the stories.
This kinda garbage is asinine and vain. "Think about it, take all the time you want." Espcially after you half read what I said and inserted your opinion of what I put.
Accepting that the CE and NE characters still dont have anything to do with CN...
The best you have is that a CN wizard is against killing children?
Somehow he's magically anti-social and anti-establishment, running his own fundamentalist agenda, and yet only manifests this against NPC's and never against the party - even if they turn around tomorrow and do something completely at odds with his disestablimentarianism?
That sounds like totally non-metagamey and completely legit.