|
From page 90 of WotW 1:
There is a further requirement and it is something of
an intangible quality. At some point in this adventure
path every character is going to have the chance to join
an evil organization and swear allegiance to the master
of that organization and its patron – the lawful evil god
Asmodeus. The adventure path assumes you say yes to
this chance. Therefore, you should make a character who
can say yes.
^This is very important for the campaign to work. If a character cannot do this, that character will not survive. See example below.
From page 25 of WotW 1:
This adventure path assumes that the player characters say yes. If after all his best efforts the PCs still refuse
the Cardinal, Adrastus is unlikely to be forgiving. These
ungrateful fugitives know too much to be set loose. The
knowledge that there still exists an active cult of Asmodeus in Talingarde is more information than Cardinal
Thorn will risk.
Tiadora is nearby and if at the end, no deal can be
reached, the Cardinal sighs and says, “A pity. So much
wasted time and effort. Tiadora, shred them.”
The way around it is to let that player know that their character just died because of that decision and now they need to make another.
Preferably one with a more accentuated taste for revenge against the insipid do-gooders who dared imprison and brand him/her in the first place and whose thirst for payback would drive even them to make a "deal with the devil"...literally. It might help to point out that the contract also protects them from each other. If they betray their immediate allies then their soul is forfeit just as surely as if they betrayed Thorn.
The contract is quite central to the plot. Do not let them avoid signing it. It is all that holds their alignment in check.
Do not be flexible about that contract. If you do you will regret it for the rest of the campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that, before you kill the player's character, take her aside and have a quick talk with her. Explain that the point of the contract is to keep the campaign from devolving into backstabbing but that there are ways to get out of the contract later on. Then tell her that Thorn will kill her character if she doesn't sign the contract.
Why do this? She made a character for an evil campaign, but unless you told her that she should make a character that WOULD enter into a contract then it makes her character death seem arbitrary and makes it look like the group is being railroaded.
If the players knows you are running a published campaign it's perfectly fine to say "look, it's early in the game and the rest of the campaign hinges on you saying yes to this contract. You will have opportunities to get out from under it if you want but you have to say yes to this one event or else we might as well play something else."
Because the other option is kill her character outright and ensure that she goes into the rest of the campaign with a very negative attitude.
Be an adult and be up front. It'll help the players trust you with the rest of the campaign and keep the players positive about the game even if bad stuff happens. If she still refuses to sign the contract after getting a warning, just kill her character. It isn't like she didn't know it was coming at that point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Tobias said +1.
Be mature about it, be communicative. The base-line of the campaign is rather strict in that regard. I have run a 4-year evil campaign sans such a plot-device and it was a serious pain. Don't make any compromise there. Also: In-game, saying "no" to this immensely powerful benefactor should seem like suicide to the character, but that's just my 2 cents. ^^
Tobias & EndZ,
I assumed that the OP HAD told the players to write up PC's that would sign the contract. It is stated in several places that he should as well as in the players guide which all of the players should have read before making a character.
To my mind that would mean the player in question was wasting the GM's and others players time by trying to wriggle out of the contract. Something I do not take kindly to and make a point to send a clear message about.
Naturally, if the player in question does not have this information, which again, is in the players guide that they should have read before creating a character, then they should be pulled aside and spoken to about playing a character more inclined to accept the contract.
Somebody appears to have forgotten their basic sequencing. In this case the difficulty in question is as much the OP's fault as the player. Players guides exist for a reason besides just picking campaign traits. They exist precisely to head off these types of problems. My advice is to provide the PDF's of all future Players Guides to players at least a week before play starts.
Well, provided the OP's player was aware of the intent and now tries to wriggle out...I'd give the character an in-game Int/Wis-check. Against something like...DC 5. (Don't poke the sleeping Tarrasque...) Then tell him "You consider this an unwise idea..." If s/he still tries to wriggle out of the contract, then so be it - Choices and consequences - short-lived, unwise and lethal though they may be for the respective character.
(And yes, I had characters like that as well - after dying a gruesome death, the player in question wizened up - after all, he had been warned both out- and in-game...)
Definately let her know that this is the way this campaign is. If she cannot comply, then maybe she should sit this one out until the next campaign begins. I assure you that if you allow her to go on with the "me against the world" concept, it will not go well for the party. As for the party, they should be anti anyone that goes against Thorn's, and therefore Asmodeus'. Mostly because of their belief but secondary because it would put the entire group in very much danger due to one out of control character. I doubt she would like having her character killed in her sleep by the party for her actions and Im sure it would just lead to the next PC she makes having a chip on her shoulder.
Nope. This way or the highway.
Nuff said
As a GM to this campaign almost at the end I 100% agree that you have to be firm. I only allowed people who were experienced, were ok with evil, and were ok with the contract. Can seem harsh but this is not a normal campaign, and any willful disagreement was to be quashed at the get go.
One player being disruptive is not being fair to the whole table IMO. I wont put up with it for long, I will talk, both in game and on the side. If this does not resolve I ask them if they may just want to move on. My game is not for everyone, we role play a lot, combat is brutal, and the world is very organic.
Edit: this also sets up a lot of latter stuff, team play and following loose rules is the only thing that holds back the chaos and lets the story unfold.
Thread revive for those about to embark.
This was an issue that came up at my table too. All my players jumped at the chance for an "evil campaign", but all have very different ideas about what evil means. I had one player tell me "I can't play a rogue because at some point I'd just HAVE TO steal from the other players". Alarm bells start ringing.
"Evil" campaigns only function when there is glue to hold the characters together rather than pursue their own agendas. Way of the wicked does this very well because it's based on a narrow theme.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a GM setting some 'ground rules' for a campaign, any campaign. It you are playing fantasy you don't allow sci-fi concepts. This is no different.
My ground rules;
Alignments must be lawful evil
Characters must be able to see the "big picture" beyond their own desires
Characters must be willing to work in a team and sign the contract
No PvP
No "demonic" influence or summoning
I worked with the players to craft character concepts that worked with the setting. I vetoed several concepts from a single player who struggles with the nuances of evil beyond homicidal maniac.
Granted, players should be given creative control of characters, but within the scope of the adventure path. No good alignments, no lightsabres and no villains that go around randomly committing "evil" because they 'just can'.
Players should respect that the AP is offering them a chance at a type of story that is rare, if not unique. A few restrictions to make it functional is not a terrible burden to bear.
Any player not willing to work within these bounds is being as selfish and difficult as if they expect a spacecraft in a standard fantasy setting.
My 2 copper