Aaron Mayhew |
Had this pop up at another table today when I played it, and wanted to fact check it before I end up running it.
Finlanderboy |
The picture means little for the stat block.
Me, brian, and jerry looked over it after the game and nothing prevents the creature from doing what he says.
I think though as a DM he should have helped the platyers more alerting them it was entangled, severly damaged, and deadly at close melee.
Espcially for a low level table. The only reason I ran to hit it was because our GM alerted us it was stuck and I had a reach weapon.
Aaron Mayhew |
Ah, I was only glancing at it and had it on my mind at work. The way the text described it made me think it had swords for hands and one of them literally got cut off. That along with the picture made me think that was what was going on.
Still, overall fun adventure. Look forward to running it at some point.
Zach Klopfleisch |
The picture means little for the stat block.
Me, brian, and jerry looked over it after the game and nothing prevents the creature from doing what he says.
Nothing in the stat block says it shouldn't coup de grace downed players, either, but that doesn't mean it's kosher to do so. What possessed the GM to think attacking first level players for 1d8+14 damage at +6 (+8 when not entangled) was reasonable? That's the damage output, attack bonus, armor and HP of a CR 5 monster, against level 1s and 2s, and nothing in the stat block or tactics indicated it should use its weapon two handed.
I, personally, would not have a GM run any more games for me if his reasoning behind a TPK is "nothing prevents the creature from doing what he says." I'm fine with GMs not softballing, but if they can't tell the difference between increasing the difficulty far beyond what the scenario tactics call for and softballing, he's got no place running games at my events.
David_Bross |
Finlanderboy wrote:The picture means little for the stat block.
Me, brian, and jerry looked over it after the game and nothing prevents the creature from doing what he says.
Nothing in the stat block says it shouldn't coup de grace downed players, either, but that doesn't mean it's kosher to do so. What possessed the GM to think attacking first level players for 1d8+14 damage at +6 (+8 when not entangled) was reasonable? That's the damage output, attack bonus, armor and HP of a CR 5 monster, against level 1s and 2s, and nothing in the stat block or tactics indicated it should use its weapon two handed.
I, personally, would not have a GM run any more games for me if his reasoning behind a TPK is "nothing prevents the creature from doing what he says." I'm fine with GMs not softballing, but if they can't tell the difference between increasing the difficulty far beyond what the scenario tactics call for and softballing, he's got no place running games at my events.
There is a blanket rule preventing coup de grace against downed PCs.
No monster ever 2hands any weapons (stat-block wise) in any scenario unless it is a 2 handed weapon, despite the fact that almost every PC would, and it isn't unreasonable to imagine an NPC, particularly an intelligent one, doing so.
As a small aside, taking a quick look at the lower tier stat block it should be +6 or +8 (for entangled) with damage of 1d8+8, vs 1d8+12 when 2 handing it, not 1d8+14. If the scenario chooses to depower a creature they should be very explicit about the tactics they choose, and nothing indicates to the GM they shouldn't 2 hand it here. The tactics do very explicitly say you power attack the entire time.
If you feel they're being unreasonable here you should talk to them as a GM, not state they should no longer GM for PFS in your area from doing something you disagree with.
In the 4-5 subtier I had the second guy try to disarm the one person who had an adamantine weapon (everyone was fascinated at this point), and after he failed (he had to drop his weapon to attempt the disarm) he proceeded to 2hand his long sword for the rest of the fight.
Iammars |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zach Klopfleisch wrote:There is a blanket rule preventing coup de grace against downed PCs.Finlanderboy wrote:The picture means little for the stat block.
Me, brian, and jerry looked over it after the game and nothing prevents the creature from doing what he says.
Nothing in the stat block says it shouldn't coup de grace downed players, either, but that doesn't mean it's kosher to do so. What possessed the GM to think attacking first level players for 1d8+14 damage at +6 (+8 when not entangled) was reasonable? That's the damage output, attack bonus, armor and HP of a CR 5 monster, against level 1s and 2s, and nothing in the stat block or tactics indicated it should use its weapon two handed.
I, personally, would not have a GM run any more games for me if his reasoning behind a TPK is "nothing prevents the creature from doing what he says." I'm fine with GMs not softballing, but if they can't tell the difference between increasing the difficulty far beyond what the scenario tactics call for and softballing, he's got no place running games at my events.
No monster ever 2hands any weapons (stat-block wise) in any scenario unless it is a 2 handed weapon, despite the fact that almost every PC would, and it isn't unreasonable to imagine an NPC, particularly an intelligent one, doing so.
I think this is an artifact of how they make their stat-blocks. Certainly if they aren't using a shield you could grab it with two hands if you want. But...
...If the scenario chooses to depower a creature they should be very explicit about the tactics they choose, and nothing indicates to the GM they shouldn't 2 hand it here. ...
If you're worried about the scenario being deadly, why would you, as a GM, make a choice to go off of what's written to make it harder? It is perfectly legal to make the choice to keep swinging that sword one-handed, and it will probably be the one to generate more fun for the table. So why would you do otherwise?
Reports of someone two-handing the sword here would be a clear sign to me as VO that I have someone who knows the rules very well but needs some work on decisions while GMing.
If you feel they're being unreasonable here you should talk to them as a GM, not state they should no longer GM for PFS in your area from doing something you disagree with.
Yeah, this seems like someone who could do a decent job GMing, but needs some help.
In the 4-5 subtier I had the second guy try to disarm the one person who had an adamantine weapon (everyone was fascinated at this point), and after he failed (he had to drop his weapon to attempt the disarm) he proceeded to 2hand his long sword for the rest of the fight
Out of curiosity, why'd you drop the weapon? You can make a disarm attempt with the short sword. (In fact, you even get a +1 since it's masterwork.)
David_Bross |
Edit: Wow, I've been wrong about the CDG rule for quite a long time. I thought there was an explicit discussion about how you couldn't use CDG unless it was written into tactics, which was what his earlier post in the thread seemed to indicate, the later clarification makes it much more ambiguous, as I *had* been treating it as an entirely banned option, unless called out by the scenario.
Upon reading an encounter and seeing they specifically chose to depower a monster by taking away its offhand weapon, I'd say that using that "hand" in combat is poor form. They took it away for a reason, wasn't arguing that point, simply that the GM in question didn't necessarily do anything wrong, and that because of how they make stat blocks, simply was adjusting the stat block for 2 handing. The issue here is that it makes absolutely no sense NOT to 2hand if you're doing nothing with your 2nd hand. This is why it should have been written into the scenario that he lost his offhand (period, not his off hand weapon), or they should have used a more appropriate creature rather than trying to adjust their existing 4-5 monster. Just trying to give the GM in question the benefit of the doubt.
The disarm thing was me making a mistake. I knew there was a "disarm" weapon type, and I figured that was required to make disarm maneuvers with. Upon rereading I realize that simply gives you a +2. This shows exactly how many times I've tried to disarm with an NPC who uses a weapon in both hands.
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
In the 4-5 subtier I had the second guy try to disarm the one person who had an adamantine weapon (everyone was fascinated at this point), and after he failed (he had to drop his weapon to attempt the disarm) he proceeded to 2hand his long sword for the rest of the fight.
Why? He could've just given the fascinated guy a slap in the face to wake him up.
Fascinated: A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Perception checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect. A fascinated creature's ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.
The fascinated condition is quite easily dealt with. And keeping your teammates in the fight is definitely a good idea.
From all the reviews and experiences with this scenario I read, players/GM misunderstanding the Fascinated condition makes a huge difference in how hard it is.
Finlanderboy |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing the people and situation I would argue his mistakes were in other areas. Using the sword two handed is what I would do as well, but I would prepare the PCs for it.
I would decribe the scene to the PC in that each of the dead bodies have one grievous wound. Suggesting he hits like a mac truck. Also the DM failed to alert the PCs it was stuck by a tanglefoot bag. Describe that to the PCs as well.
When I played this I understood this thing just killed somepeople and for some reason was stuck in place with it's crossbow.
So I got my reach weapon and started poking it pot shots knowing that if it wanted to shoot me I got another pot shot.
For a level 1-5 this is a very teachable moment for a GM. I think this particular GM failed to teach the PCs. If I was playign with new people(or a PC that could not take the hit) I would teach them about this being a bad idea to go toe to toe with this thing. To use the situation to your best ability.
But I do admit I ashamed a VO would say "I, personally, would not have a GM run any more games for me if his reasoning behind a TPK is "nothing prevents the creature from doing what he says."" This is also a teachable moment. Of all the grievous things a DM can do this is one of the items you want to remove them? Seriously? I consistently see GMs cheat and abuse rules
(usually the higher star the more likely in my expereience). A DM following the rules with a legimate excuse is not reason to remove a DM. There is often not enough DMs. I tell people I run things as hard as possible, I plan to if I ever Dm to have the creature do the same thing. But I also tell people I run things a tacically as the monster can before hand. I am very quick to switch to a mod I would believe is easier if thats what the group would have more fun with. You are a symbol of leadership, so lead. Admonishing and punishing is hardly good leadership.
Damanta |
Is it programmed to use 1 or 2 weapons? If it is programmed to use 2 weapons and use power attack, maybe the programming lacks the ability to use 1 weapon twohanded?
Edit: wouldn't it also try to use an unarmed attack with the second hand, thereby provoking if it doesn't have a slam attack?
I haven't looked at the construct/enemy in question, so I have no idea if they used construction points to give it a slam attack.
Zach Klopfleisch |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I do admit I ashamed a VO would say "I, personally, would not have a GM run any more games for me if his reasoning behind a TPK is "nothing prevents the creature from doing what he says."" This is also a teachable moment. Of all the grievous things a DM can do this is one of the items you want to remove them? Seriously? I consistently see GMs cheat and abuse rules
(usually the higher star the more likely in my expereience). A DM following the rules with a legimate excuse is not reason to remove a DM. There is often not enough DMs. I tell people I run things as hard as possible, I plan to if I ever Dm to have the creature do the same thing. But I also tell people I run things a tacically as the monster can before hand. I am very quick to switch to a mod I would believe is easier if thats what the group would have more fun with. You are a symbol of leadership, so lead. Admonishing and punishing is hardly good leadership.
(*Note that I'm basing this on your representation of the story. Face to face, at the time, the situation may well be different than it appears here. I'm basing everything here on my understanding of your statement that he justified TPKing a party simply because his adjustment to the monster's tactics wasn't explicitly forbidden.*)
People make mistakes, and honest mistakes are usually fine, even if it means someone loses a character over them.
But when a GM changes a monster's tactics to make it more deadly, TPKs a party, and then justifies it the way you said he justified it: That "nothing prevents the creature from doing what he says," that goes beyond making an honest mistake. That's making the wrong judgment call and doubling down on it, refusing to acknowledge that he made a mistake.
There could be several reasons for that: He could have a GM verses Player attitude, he could lack empathy for his players, he might not be mature enough to admit he made a mistake so he doubled down. Any number of reasons. But there is something very wrong about a GM who will not back off, will go through with a TPK after diverging from the stated tactics and turning a CR 2 encounter into a CR 4 or 5 encounter against first and second level PCs.
I need GMs, everyone needs GMs, and I wouldn't give up on one simply for making a bad decision that lead to a TPK. The real problem, from my perspective, is that the GM isn't acknowledging that it was a bad decision. It's not the TPK that worries me about this person, it's the statement, after the TPK that "nothing prevents the creature from doing what he says." That, to me, is refusing to acknowledge that he made a mistake and completely eliminates any trust I would have in him to make decent judgment calls in the future.
Would I never allow this person to GM again? I don't know, it would depend on the person and the situation and whether or not they could convince me that they've learned why TPKing that party was due to their bad decision and shouldn't have happened. And there certainly are circumstances where that statement would be legitimate: On a 7-11 table, for instance, or for a group of experienced players who all agreed that they wanted a hard mode scenario. But those don't seem to be the case in this instance.
But I will not subject my players to a GM who doesn't have the wherewithal to reassess the decisions he's made and will go confidently on into a TPK of a party of 1-2s as a result of his choices, rather than he stated tactics. So yes, of all the grievous things a GM can do, not being able to understand that he was wrong is one of the worst to me. I can teach rules, it's a lot harder to teach common sense or empathy.
Finlanderboy |
where does he change the tactics?
Changing tactics is breaking the run as written rule, and thus cheating.
I did not see anything that said an intelligent creature can not use the weapon to the best of his ability. I would argue it is softballing to do otherwise.
I said "nothing prevents the creature from doing what he says,". Not him.
I have no complaint ever against a DM using the rules and strategy given to handle an encounter. The issue is when they change, add or omit was is already written it becomes an issue.
The mistake the DM made was not alerting the PCs the condition the creature was in when the fight started. That was a mistake and he admited that. It caused a severe issue because the players blindly chraged it and got critted.
Howver you jumped right into "never DM again". You recanted on your latest statement. That is admirable you did that. I would argue to let the players decide who they
As a DM when I review a scenario I can see how dangerous things are. I was at the gameday playing at another table. If I knew it was dangerous I would have grabbed the more experienced players to sit with the less expereienced to assist them in the difficult scenario. We had all the power gamers at one table. A few begginers at that table with a well knowledged player leading them.
I would argue those DMing it should have altered us. Had my table known it was dangerous and that the new people could be in trouble I would have happily went to that table.
Arkos RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
That initial robot can easily drop a level 1 or 2 PC in a single hit, even without power attacking or two handing or whatever. It's a moment that shows the PCs that robots can be terrifying. I don't know why in the world someone would choose to look at that stat block and think "Wow, I could totally optimize this for more damage!"
I ran this one and did drop a fighter-type immediately, and the rest of the party's eyes went wide and they focused on beating that robot down (and saving their comrade). You don't need to optimize things to make that point.
I think 6-01 is meant to be a "look at our season of wacky technology" and not a TPK-spree. If someone went out of their way to change stat blocks to turn it INTO a TPK-spree, I wouldn't play at their tables anymore.
Power attack isn't changing things, though I don't think intelligent creatures power attack constantly. But adding two handed modifiers when the developers clearly left them out of a dangerous combat, and then being prideful about it...
I want to play with a GM who is prideful about running a fun game, not optimizing NPCs to kill a party. But that's just me.
Arkos RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
David_Bross |
I don't think anyone in this thread has posted its the right thing to do. In fact I think everyone has said if he loses a weapon to depower the monster, using that as a 2nd hand is not a good idea.
I posted earlier that 1d8+14 was high (its actually 1d8+12), which is 4 damage higher than 1 handing the long sword is.
My thoughts were that someone should talk about "tactics" and what is intended at this tier.
In a 7+ scenario I pull very few punches (I recently took a round to gloat over a total victory, allowing someone who had been moved to safety after paralysis to get up and start summoning rather than killing another PC in that round), but in the 1-5 range you have to be very careful.
Despite my best efforts I still had one death when I GMed this scenario at 4-5, mostly because the APL was 2.6ish with 5 players, and forced to play up. It was a level 2 who had a series of unfortunate 19s rolls (about 5 in a row) against him, and everyone actually chipped in to get him raised. If it hadn't been for the life oracle in the party (level 3), I'm sure the group would have TPKed playing at this tier, even with the 4 player adjust.
Sebastian Hirsch Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria |
I think this enemy is actually reasonable at the lower tier, but the GMs have to make it really obvious, that he is glued to the floor by a quickly disintegrating tanglefoot residue. If the players use their time properly, this this fight is quite reasonable.
And to be disgustingly pedantic:
During Combat: While entangled, the soldier fires its crossbow,
drawing its sword if someone closes into melee range. One
the third round of combat, when it is no longer entangled,
the soldier dashes into melee, Power Attacking continuously.
It doesn’t worry about drawing attacks of opportunity,
trusting its hardness to keep it intact.
The DAMAGED MACHINE SOLDIER has two-weapon fighting, and uses a light crossbow. Since tactics does not mention, that he drops his crossbow, it is reasonable to assume that he is still using it (this tactic makes some sense to attack fleeing enemies).
Does that make sense ?
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
Sebastian Hirsch Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria |
How is he reloading that crossbow if he's got a sword in the other hand?
I assume, that he would reload the crossbow every time he fires, and other crossbow attacks are only relevant if the players run away. In that case, if he wasn't able to keep up with them, resorting to ranged combat (and dropping/sheathing the sword) seems like the logical choice.
And remember that using two weapon fighting, attacking with the longsword, 5ft. step back, and shooting the crossbow would be a legal option.Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
Sebastian Hirsch Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria |
He might not get the opportunity to reload, after all on the lower tier he is unable to move for 2 rounds, I would be quite surprised to learn that a group that can deal with him takes that much longer to do so. Of course once he starts killing....
I assume the fight works like this:
Round 1:
Robot shoots and reloads, players notice he is glued to the floor, players shoot prepared ranged weapons, draw ranged weapons and/or prepare a defensive position/use a reach weapon.
Round:2
Robot shoots and reloads, players should have some way to take an offensive action even if it it means throwing an alchemists fire.
Round 3: Robot charges nearest character with a longsword attack... and dies shortly after.
Round 4: If the robot is still alive he attacks with his longsword, takes a 5ft. step and fires the last bolt in his crossbow.
Round 5: If the robot can charge, he does so, if the players are running away, he drops his sword, reloads his crossbow and shoots. ....
EDIT: The picture is really bad, if you somehow think that that is supposed to be the creature, it would seem reasonable that the crossbow counts as an integrated weapon (no attack of opportunity in combat).
Muser |
I ran it as an integrated weapon. Made the players smile. A deathbot armed to the teeth!
Anyhow, ran this last saturday for 6 players in high tier. It went swingingly and managed to challenge them somewhat. However, most of the enemies couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and I kept wondering where all the high tech armaments had been misplaced. Blegh, swords and gauntlets, everybody wanted lasers and shock rifles! And I agree. +8 d8+14 is cool until you can't hit anyone and when you do it's a crit that almost definitely drops someone. Spike damage is like that and the scenario could have used those high-accuracy, low-damage guns from Tech Guide instead.
That said, it's a very tight scenario both thematically and mechanically and could easily be run as a horror romp to boot which is doubly cool.
Matthew Pittard |
I ran this.
Wow I really struggled.
Not so much with the plot or monsters of the scenario.
I just could not get the tone right in my head. People were making predator jokes ( 3 dots inside a triangle!) and people kept wanting to get inside locked off areas.
I even had trouble with thinking up new ways to describe a keypad or handprint reader.
Anyone else have similar issues?
Woran Venture-Captain, Netherlands |
FLite Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento |
FLite Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento |
FLite Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento |
DM PeteZero |
I am running it as a PbP, and am just using the longsword one-handed with power attack. For first level PCs - +8 to hit, 1d8+8 damage are ouch, a crit one shots nearly any PC, if you get 31 damage it does. Using the longsword two-handed is not cool. And the picture suggests they cannot two-hand it.
Hardness 5 on top makes it also more difficult, esp. for 1st level PCs.
Looks I killed a PC, but getting 4 crits in one combat and confirming all of them does not help. I did not explicitly state how deadly it is, but after the first crit they knew what was coming their way. They just did not expect the die roller to roll another 19.....
Dysfunction |
I just ran this the other day, and the PCs gathered up and kept all the construct bodies, stating that they were going cast repair magics like make whole, and then sell the them for the initial creation cost.
EX. each Fearmonger prototype's body is worth 500gp.
has anyone come across a group trying to do this?
FLite Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento |
Aztren |
I was reading through the first encounter of the scenario and I had a question regarding the high tier version of the fight:
Dragios |
Has this happened to anybody?
The party encounters the last of the bandits in B2. But it's only when party enters B3 does the level get cut off. Why wouldn't the party pick up the survivors and lead them out before entering? Nothing's stopping them. I'm running this tonight and I'm going to give them perception checks to show them something shiny in B3 (the plasma skeletons), but I'm just wondering if this has come up at all.
Woran Venture-Captain, Netherlands |
deusvult |
Has this happened to anybody?
The party encounters the last of the bandits in B2. But it's only when party enters B3 does the level get cut off. Why wouldn't the party pick up the survivors and lead them out before entering? Nothing's stopping them. I'm running this tonight and I'm going to give them perception checks to show them something shiny in B3 (the plasma skeletons), but I'm just wondering if this has come up at all.
What's stopping the players, in a meta sense, is the knowledge that their chronicles will be docked for not "completing the adventure". That the VC actually chastises them for not doing what they were meta-wise supposed to do is kind of unfortunate in the "lessons learned" department for the players.
A few options if the players begin to discuss "why don't we just get out of here...":
You can use the discussion as a roleplaying opportunity. Have the bandits (especially the android) come up with reasons to explore what's beyond the door.
You can use Omnipotent GMVoice (tm) to "remind" players that leaving now is clearly a violation of the primary tenet of the pathfinder creed. EXPLORE, Report, Cooperate.
If the roleplay doesn't get them to stay, you can use the Voice to at least avoid the trap of falling into a shorted chronicle. If they insist on skipping the rest of the adventure, definitely amend the VC lecture at the end to chastise them for failing to explore the undiscovered sublevel. And give them their shorted chronicle.
MasterGeese |
I ended up running this scenario yesterday as my first time GMing in Pathfinder Society.
When the scenario ended, Meleren was given a choice by the party between 1. Joining the Pathfinder Society, 2. Being turned over to the authorities, or 3. Being killed by the bloodrager alongside Shechera. At this point I felt that I had to use common sense to figure out how this would play out.
Meleren said to the party that he would join the Pathfinders, but once the party parted ways with him, he reconsidered and turned himself in out of fear of the party. Meleren describes the choice he was given by the party, and this information finds its way to the Lodge, and the party is given a strongly worded letter that amounted to "You can't coerce people into joining the Society." Their defense was that he wasn't coerced, he had the choice to turn himself in to the authorities.
Meanwhile, I informed one of the party members who was part of the Silver Crusade that he had failed his faction mission spectacularly, since one of the two NPCs was dead, and that Meleren would develop an irreconcilable hatred for the Pathfinders as a result. They asked what the mission was, and I told them about the epiphany points system, they asked how many points they would be penalized for killing an NPC. I responded that the scenario doesn't specifically say that there is a penalty for killing one NPC, but that I couldn't imagine that Meleren would want anything to do with the group that killed Shechera in cold blood. His defense was that if the scenario doesn't specifically say that an action would penalize you, then it doesn't. In other words, killing one NPC would have no effect on the other NPC's epiphany point total. It ended up being a moot point anyway, their actions in the scenario would easily put their epiphany points in the negative (multiple intimidation attempts, using him as bait for traps)
To anyone else who had GMed this scenario, or other more experienced GMs in general, what would you have done in this situation? I tried not to deviate from the scenario, but this seems like too large of an oversight to sit back and do nothing about.
Monkhound |
I'd start by warning that desacrating a corpse could be considered an evil act.
Secondly, I'd remind Silver Crusade players about what their faction is all about, and what its goal is during season 6 before the scenario starts.
The Silver Crusade is a force of good and should not reward playing like a murder hobo.
FLite Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento |
First of all, if the scenario or rules do not cover an action, it is up to you as the GM to determine the result. If the scenario had said "killing Shechera in cold blood does not affect Meleren's points" then your players would be correct. But in this case, no, it would definitely have an effect. Even if they were correct, "Hitting someone with a raging bloodrager" would definitely constitute intentionally jeopardizing them, which is listed with a pretty steep penalty.
Second, Attacking strangers who have not actually done anything to you and killing one of them and then threatening to kill the other if he does not join your group I would say is well over the line into evil territory. The blood rager definitely, and possibly some of the others, should have been looking at alignment shifts.
As for what I would do: You are not allowed to contradict the adventure, but your job as GM is to fill in the inevitable holes left by the writer's inability to predict everything. Further, I would definitely have warned the blood rager that he was starting to bend toward evil and would have given him a warning that threatening to kill the guy if he did not join the pathfinders was crossing the line and shifted his alignment if he followed through on it. (I might have made him shift alignment on that initial attack, but I am not sure how unprovoked it was.)
TheScarletSpider |
QUESTION ABOUT ALIGNMENT CHANGE:
So I had a really interesting final encounter. Since the party was level 2, I skipped the Air Elementals at first. Then, after the Fearmonger Prototype, the party had used all their Potions of Cure Light Wounds and all their spells, when a shrieking occurs down the hallway; it's the crazed Air Elementals. The NPC I created for the adventure that was to oversee them closes the door and offers to fend them off while the party escapes, and the party actually had to deal with this dilemma via fun conversations (they didn't get a good glimpse, so couldn't tell if they were Smalll or Medium Air Elementals). Plus, they had never seen the NPC fight before, and didn't know if she could take them on her own. It wound up being really interesting because they started to leave, then ended up staying at the back near the door on the opposite end of the room to see if they were Small or Medium creatures, then 3/5 of them just watched because they didn't have any HP left.
THE QUESTION: While everyone watched, Shechere just left. My Wizard was not happy about her not joining in any of the 3 battles nor her hostile attitude, and followed her into the hallway, then killed her and made it look like a trap killed her while the party (and Meleren) were distracted by the fight above.
Wouldn't that be an evil act? He is Neutral, but I would think killing someone who just wants to live and isn't doing anything to hurt the party (other than non-interference) would be an evil act.
TheScarletSpider |
It's not done during the process of a fight, but only outside of, out of frustration from the player. The lie and also the faulty reasoning.
Knowing the scenario, Sheschere clearly acted within reason. The player should defend his case good enough, or alignment shift.
Thanks. I was thinking it would require 1 or 2 more evil acts like that to change his alignment.
I wasn't planning on something like this, but I already know based on his actions that I have to make it affect the world because:
1) The NPC that saved them idolizes heroes, so it's going to break her heart when she finds out later, because...
2) The party doesn't know this yet, but the entire city is watching their actions, so his actions need to affect the actual world due to this. When they get to the city for the first time, he's going to find lots of attitude because even though she was a criminal, she was still one of their citizens. I felt the consequence of his actions should cause a -5 to all his Charisma checks and Charisma based skill checks again any city citizen.
Philippe Lam |
Normally a first-time offense would only entail a warning as there's no point to get immediately too harsh. But free murder is on another level of infraction and warrants a higher level of sanction. If the alignment shift results in an evil alignment :
- The character pays an atonement, but there is grounds to insist on the 8PP version for major fault instead of just 2 for minor. Even then I would warn there won't be another chance and a similar later act will result in asking for permadeath.
- A report should be made up to the chain of command, so the Venture-Lieutenant or the Venture-Captain of your area. A meeting of several of them will be convened to decide of the case of yes or no. The player will be invited to defend the case. If unhappy with the result, an appeal might be lodged to the RVC (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and ultimately the Campaign Coordinator (there Tonya Woldridge), but then the decision is final.
Now I would monitor closely in a couple of games to see if the player might be inclined to repeat a similar thing. If not it's possible to take this as a frustrated one-off, but if repeated later, following the process as I said before.