|
Having GM'ed that particular module, my fist question rather is "why did those monster go to the village and massacre it?"
Spoiler alert carrion crown.
The PCs explored a couple rooms of the underground dungeon and teleported back to town to rest. Right after having encountered the Mi-Gos and the Oracle. They were taking a beating and decided to escape, I decided the monsters would probably take actions to respond the incursion from these humans who slayed all their slaves (they had killed the skum). I also decided that timing the birth if the dark young if Shub niggurath to the second expedition they would make was cheesy so I decided that because the PC's left the MiGo alone the first day they had enough time to complete the transformation on the Rider. So the MiGo devised the following plan for revenge: the cleric room the Dark Young to town to draw the adventurers back to the lair. The rest of the MiGo and the Oracle would slay the invaders when they came back, having laid some traps and thinking they had home field advantage. As it turned out, in the second expedition day they slayed the cleric and isolated the MiGo on the cavern they come out of. Thy circles out through the secret door and tried to sneak behind through the main entry but another wall of force stopped most of them again. This effectively trapped the PCs inside for a few rounds, the MiGo decided to exact vengeance an left for town, where they summoned some GnopKhes from the Dark Tapestry to help them tear through the village. Being scientists, the MiGo were laying the bodies in the town centre for some twisted final experiment when the party (after exploring further and a couple encounters) returned to the temple.I chose to do this because a few comments like "we can come back later, the monsters aren't scripted to do anything but wait in their lair". It felt like a sensible approach based in the MiGos fluff and it helped develop the adventure path's race against time feeling. It was also one of the most memorable sessions, everyone enjoyed it a lot btw.
I am in favor of non-static dungeons. I like the addition of the monsters attacking the town. Monsters should be monstrous, not just live a quiet life in their cave. There are reasons people are afraid of monsters and send adventurers to kill them after all.
I do hope you won't make the paladin fall though, see my past post on that. No reason to repeat myself. :)
|
|
I am in favor of non-static dungeons. I like the addition of the monsters attacking the town. Monsters should be monstrous, not just live a quiet life in their cave. There are reasons people are afraid of monsters and send adventurers to kill them after all.
I do hope you won't make the paladin fall though, see my past post on that. No reason to repeat myself. :)
Yes, I've very much decided I was completely wrong on that. Also, as I mentioned I wouldn't have made him fall if he wasn't agreeing to it. I must say he is a very fair player and I've never distrusted him yet.
Yes, I've very much decided I was completely wrong on that. Also, as I mentioned I wouldn't have made him fall if he wasn't agreeing to it. I must say he is a very fair player and I've never distrusted him yet.
YAY! Glad to hear you all worked it out. :)
Spoiler alert carrion crown.The PCs explored a couple rooms of the underground dungeon and teleported back to town to rest. Right after having encountered the Mi-Gos and the Oracle. They were taking a beating and decided to escape, I decided the monsters would probably take actions to respond the incursion from these humans who slayed all their slaves (they had killed the skum). I also decided that timing the birth if the dark young if Shub niggurath to the second expedition they would make was cheesy so I decided that because the PC's left the MiGo alone the first day they had enough time to complete the transformation on the Rider. So the MiGo devised the following plan for revenge: the cleric room the Dark Young to town to draw the adventurers back to the lair. The rest of the MiGo and the Oracle would slay the invaders when they came back, having laid some traps and thinking they had home field advantage. As it turned out, in the second expedition day they slayed the cleric and isolated the MiGo on the cavern they come out of. Thy circles out through the secret door and tried to sneak behind through the main entry but another wall of force stopped most of them again. This effectively trapped the PCs inside for a few rounds, the MiGo decided to exact vengeance an left for town, where they summoned some GnopKhes from the Dark Tapestry to help them tear through the village. Being scientists, the MiGo were laying the bodies in the town centre for some twisted final experiment when the party (after exploring further and a couple encounters) returned to the temple.
I chose to do this because a few comments like "we can come back later, the monsters aren't scripted to do anything but wait in their lair". It felt like a sensible approach based in the MiGos fluff and it helped develop the adventure path's race against time feeling. It was also one of...
That sounds like a completely reasonable course to take if the characters were dragging their feet. My guys ( five players ) just tore through the whole dungeon like a hot knife through butter, so "what happens if the PC's don't hurry enough" didn't come up for me.
I feel that any paladin code question is strictly between gm and player. If they cant work together than instil a no paladin rule at the table.
I Play a paladin often my dm would never require me to commit suicide to keep my paladinhood but with that being said my paladins have been know to self sacrice for the greater good or to protect innocents if he feels it will do that.
Playing a paladin has sometimes caused intresting situations to come up in party. For example in a recent game my pally and his mostly neutal aligned party cleared a bad guys keep, and the party wanted to burn it to the ground so that it may never be used for evil again ( they just wanted to set fire to something). I said no. It might not have been an issue but the building set in the middle of the lower districts in town.
They preceeded to set it on fire and run off to the next leg of the adventure. Well my paladin decided not to go with them and waited for the athorties, and when they arivved he took the to his party and fingered them for the fire. Just because they wanted to do something that was 1. against the law and 2. could but innocents in danger didn't mean he had to fight them to the death or just suck it up. He then told the group they had a job to finish and rejoin to fight the evil ahead, but they understood that he was for real in his morals and paladin isnt a shiny title you slap on to gain smite evil and great saves.
Well my paladin decided not to go with them and waited for the athorties, and when they arivved he took the to his party and fingered them for the fire.
Out of curiosity John, did your paladin lose any sleep over betraying his companions?
I swear every paladin thread becomes the most philosophical thing that I have ever seen on the internet.
Now if only they made a class about sustainable fusion reactions the piazo forums would solve the energy crisis.
No he didnt because he felt he was completely in the right course of action considering what they did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now if only they made a class about sustainable fusion reactions the piazo forums would solve the energy crisis.
Pfft, we don't solve problems! You should find a way to power the world with internet trolling and logical fallacy. That might work!
No he didnt because he felt he was completely in the right course of action considering what they did.
Not all games will accept that a paladin who thinks he took the right course of action is free from falling. Regret and remorse is a human emotion we relate with humanity sometimes. My last GM would turn it into a half hour long argument over how he's right and your wrong if you thought that was a good reason. He also said you had to worship a god within one step of your alignment or your not good enough, and that letting NPCs go was always good, even if they would obviously backstab you. So... grain of salt.
Anyways, yeah! Up to the GM in most situations, but leniency can be a little safer than being strict. Talking about things is always good, especially if you expect the paladin code to be strict.
Why would he, when his actions weren't 'betrayal' at all? Unless you consider turning in your neighbor for kidnapping 'betrayal' too....
It's a bit more serious than that. The players burned down an empty house so it couldn't be used again by evil. They didn't kidnap someone. And they were the paladin's boon companions--similar to fellow soldiers in the same company during wartime--not just neighbors.
My point, though, was that loyalty is a big part of honor and being a paladin. I find it odd that this paladin thought nothing of turning on his party over something minor. And even if the crime had been serious--the kidnapping you mentioned or torture or something--I can't imagine turning on your brothers-in-arms as something that wouldn't cause the paladin some grief.
Or at least my paladin, as always with paladin threads, YMMV. ;)
OP, before I answer your question I have a question for you:
What was the CR of the polarbear monster relative to APL? Would it have meant certain or likely death to attack?
Why would he, when his actions weren't 'betrayal' at all? Unless you consider turning in your neighbor for kidnapping 'betrayal' too....
It's a bit more serious than that. The players burned down an empty house so it couldn't be used again by evil. They didn't kidnap someone. And they were the paladin's boon companions--similar to fellow soldiers in the same company during wartime--not just neighbors.
My point, though, was that loyalty is a big part of honor and being a paladin. I find it odd that this paladin thought nothing of turning on his party over something minor. And even if the crime had been serious--the kidnapping you mentioned or torture or something--I can't imagine turning on your brothers-in-arms as something that wouldn't cause the paladin some grief.
Or at least my paladin, as always with paladin threads, YMMV. ;) [/QUOTE)
Honor is doing what's right even when it's hard ie turning in friends.
The building set in the middle of a part of town. So 1. It's illegal to burn builds 2. It's no close to possible innocent people 3. A building can't be evil in itself. But as we all know gazzebos can be :)
It's extremely debatable as to whether turning in your friends (i.e. a party of adventurers i.e. "The only guys around who can save us all from X Town/Country/World destroying threat") is "what's right" or it's a great example of "Honor before reason" which Paladins are NOT supposed to be.
But they balance their class features by falling every session.
But they balance their class features by falling every session.
That's a lot of trip builds going around! One every session?
Honor is doing what's right even when it's hard ie turning in friends.
No. Not over this. Honor in this case would be remaining loyal to your boon companions, even if they have done something you don't particularly agree with. Again, it's a matter of degree. Burning down a building isn't Evil, it's merely illegal. In this case, there might even be good reason to do so (to prevent evil foes from using the house again as a base of operations.)
The building set in the middle of a part of town. So 1. It's illegal to burn builds 2. It's no close to possible innocent people 3. A building can't be evil in itself. But as we all know gazzebos can be :)
It may be that we just have extremely different ideas of honor and what it means to be a paladin. Turning on your boon companions, with whom you've faced many life-threatening foes, saved lives, and served Good, because maybe there might be innocents near (not even in) the house being burned strikes me as ludicrous. And doing it because it's illegal...
There are countries where only the nobility can bear arms. Would you betray your companions because they chose to carry weapons?
There are countries where slavery is legal. Would you betray your companions for killing slave traders, which would in this case be legal businessmen?
There is no wrong way to play D&D. We all enjoy the wonderful world of make-believe dragons and magic swords. But in all honesty, I'm not sure I could play in a group with your paladin PC. My own PC would quickly consider him a liability, hindering the cause of Good rather than helping it.