Kifaru, what corrupted the chief? And what level is he?
Interesting situation.
I must agree with RD. This is a metagaming issue. Player's first rule is to geek the spellcasters, do not make the rest of the game reliant upon spellcasters.
A couple session ago they did kill the girlfriends of the bad guys even though they were just 0 level commoners cowering in the background.
They murdered a bunch of civilians just for associating with the wrong people? And apparently without hesitation?
Yeah, your PCs should probably be pinging on the evil side of the scale.
A monster that sometimes performs heroic deeds out of self-interest is still a monster.
(Murdering an NPC based on metagaming is a weirder and separate offense.)
A few months ago the party killed a bunch of lawful good pilgrims that were defending holy artifacts the party wanted. The fallout from that was bad enough that they have been a bit better about who they kill. A couple session ago they did kill the girlfriends of the bad guys even though they were just 0 level commoners cowering in the background.
The problem here is that you should have nailed them then. (Basically, it sounds like your *players* actually are CE; i.e., typical teenage boys showing their true lack of empathy in an environment where they can get away with it.)
I would do nothing as the result of this particular incident with the raiders. But the next time they murderhobo/pillage like common brigands, ask to see all character sheets, and drop everybody down one spot on the good/neutral/evil axis, and if that causes class feature problems, too bad.
And then they see their smiling faces on the wanted posters nailed to every tree in fifty leagues, and have to flee the kingdom.
Kifaru, what corrupted the chief? And what level is he?
The chief is 15th level.
He was corrupted by a combination of his own ego and a couple "mysterious advisors" telling him what an awesome guy he is. The advisors are magic users, but they didn't use a spell on him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, people keep bringing up her being an old lady as if that meant she was less of a threat, she's a cleric, those extra years directly increased her power as a caster. She was at minimum 9th level, she was by no standards just a feeble grandmother type.
It doesn't matter how powerful she was. It doesn't matter what her alignment was, or what you think her alignment should be. What you think she should have done doesn't matter either. Here's what matters to the PC alignment question:
1. The PCs see a person walking around.
2. The PCs witness no wrongdoing at all.
3. The PCs ASSUME she is evil.
4. The PCs plan and execute her murder.
It doesn't matter what she was. It doesn't matter if the PCs know she is good or not. The PCs are executing people without evidence or cause. These conclusions follow:
A. The PCs are murderers.
B. The PCs are chaotic something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, then Atonement wouldn't work, but Mark of Justice could.
Sure, I guess it could.
If she could find a few warriors that would go along with her without any of them ratting her out.
If those warriors could hold down a 15th level barbarian chief for 10 minutes.
And managed to do it quietly enough that no loyal tribe members noticed anything for the full 10 minutes.
Yes, they could have tried it. But, unfortunately, that particular constellation of circumstances did not come to pass.
I know it's a grossly incomparable situation, but I was kinda thinking about Oskar Schindler when I was working out her motivations.
But, if you think she is evil, I will ponder that as I try to sort out what to do next.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except we've been told she was doing more than that, both in useful deeds and in showing that she "had issues" with her son's new ways.
For those wondering about the old woman's actions, the back story is that she was being quietly subversive. Trying to talk her son into less violent actions. Talking to the individual raiders and trying to convince them to do as little harm as possible. Showing by example that you don't have to do every thing the chief says. If she had openly and loudly defied the chief he would have killed her or cast her out. She wasn't afraid to die but she didn't want to leave her tribe completely under the control of her son.
As far as I'm concerned her obligations to Erastil and Good are satisfied. She's not obliged to be a martyr, especially since that would, as Kifaru said, leave the tribe 100% under the son's control.
Also, you have yet to suggest an actual better course of action she could have taken that would have worked and not just gotten her pointlessly killed. Being a 9th-level cleric doesn't give her access to a "make it all better" spell, especially with a 15th-level opponent.
I guess we will just have to disagree on this one. Anything short of a martyred death against overwhelming odds make her fall from goodness to you.
In my eyes, swallowing your pride and biting back suicidal words to try to protect the women and children is the greater good. When the retribution came for her sons foolish actions she believed she needed to be there.
As a wise old woman I thought she would take the long view of "this too shall pass". Old and powerful priestesses don't get old by throwing away their lives in idealistic and futile gestures. Maybe 40 years ago when she was young and idealistic. Maybe 20 years ago at the height of her power. But now, bent and frail with age, and the better part of a century of experiences behind her, she would have the faith to trust in her lord that a time would come, a moment would present itself. In that moment she would act and then her tribe could know peace again.
How, exactly, were they supposed to discover it?
They were supposed to observe her aiding them in the fight against the marauding barbarian, like he said. Unfortunately, the players ruined that by murdering a complete stranger for no reason.
There are actually a variety of ways the PCs can use skills to do investigation. Knowledge Local or Religion would have been smart.
You seem to really want to throw this GM under the bus for writing a very interesting story and then having it ruined because his PCs keep murdering all the interesting NPCs. Sometimes role-playing games require role-playing.
I guess maybe your difficulty with her actions stems from a different view of Erastil. Most descriptions of Erastil are pretty benign. He is depicted as strong and fatherly.
The Kingmaker adventure path, that I borrowed (blatantly stole ideas) from when building this adventure arc, has a much deeper and in many ways troubling description of Erastil. It was an extensive write up depicting Erastil as an ancient god that believes in ancient, and by our standards very sexist, ways.
A few choice bits from the write up on Erastil:
the world; he simply wants people to be able to live their lives in peace"
&
"Old Deadeye is set in his ways and doesn’t take well to those who challenge his opinions or upset how things work."
And this choice bit
"Independent-minded women, he believes, can be disruptive to communities, and it is best to marry them off quickly so their duties as wife and mother command their attention"
There is a bit more like this scattered around, but those lines should give you the gist.
Now admittedly, I threw out most of the sexist BS in my game, but it did somewhat influence the actions I had her take. She may be a powerful cleric, but she is as much constrained by the social conventions of her tribe as by threats of physical harm and exile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you ignore the alignment issues and whether her actions should have caused her to fall there were several things that could have been done to give the players a clue that she was more than she seemed. Even if the players bypassed the ways that were supposed to give them clues there should have still been ways to give them a chance to figure thing out.
If she was a cleric of Eristil was she wearing a holy symbol or the garments of a priestess? Eristil is very into tradition so a priestess of his would have at least been wearing a holy symbol. Considering he is a common deity the DC to identify his clergy or holy symbol is only 10. If the party is facing a 15th level opponent I have to assume they are near that level themselves. If that is the case someone in the group should be able to make a dc 10 knowledge religion roll without difficulty.
A good GM should be able to adapt his adventure to the actions of the players. Relying on set encounters to convey important information is not a good practice. Railroading should be used sparingly but if you are going to use it then make sure the players don’t miss the train. When they snuck past the guard they could have overheard a discussion between the guards. Maybe the guards were arguing over the actions of the chief and one of the guards mentioned the mother’s disapproval. It may not have been enough to clue the players what was going on but it would have at least given them a reason to look at the situation more closely.
A few months ago the party killed a bunch of lawful good pilgrims that were defending holy artifacts the party wanted. The fallout from that was bad enough that they have been a bit better about who they kill. A couple session ago they did kill the girlfriends of the bad guys even though they were just 0 level commoners cowering in the background.
Killing people to take their stuff makes you a murderer and a thief. Killing lawful good pilgrims to steal holy artifacts makes you an evil murderer and thief.
Killing 0-level commoner non-combatants makes you bloodthirsty and ruthless. Amoral at best.
And these events prompt no dialogue about alignment, but the pc's kill a high-level cleric servant of a rogue tribe of barbarians while she is in counsel with the tribe's leader and only then does the "OMG, is that an evil act?" alarm go off? And one of the pc's is thinking about taking a level of paladin in the near future? I don't think that word means what you think it means...
Two diagnosis:
1. Kifaru's table appears to have a very different view of alignment then most of the responders.
2. Kifaru's players do not seem at all interested in the type of campaign Kifaru is trying to run. Nuke it from orbit appears to be their go to solution. So nuanced encounters with inwardly conflicted clerics of Erastil are a waste of time.
If you didn't challenge their alignment and behavior after the pilgrims and the girlfriends, you have zero standing or credibility to challenge them on the barbarian cleric. Who, regardless of an assessment of her activity/inactivity level, has far more culpability for her situation than the previous victims of these homicidal maniacs.
It's groups like this that give murderhobos a bad name.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few months ago the party killed a bunch of lawful good pilgrims that were defending holy artifacts the party wanted. The fallout from that was bad enough that they have been a bit better about who they kill. A couple session ago they did kill the girlfriends of the bad guys even though they were just 0 level commoners cowering in the background.Killing people to take their stuff makes you a murderer and a thief. Killing lawful good pilgrims to steal holy artifacts makes you an evil murderer and thief.
Killing 0-level commoner non-combatants makes you bloodthirsty and ruthless. Amoral at best.
And these events prompt no dialogue about alignment, but the pc's kill a high-level cleric servant of a rogue tribe of barbarians while she is in counsel with the tribe's leader and only then does the "OMG, is that an evil act?" alarm go off? And one of the pc's is thinking about taking a level of paladin in the near future? I don't think that word means what you think it means...
Two diagnosis:
1. Kifaru's table appears to have a very different view of alignment then most of the responders.
2. Kifaru's players do not seem at all interested in the type of campaign Kifaru is trying to run. Nuke it from orbit appears to be their go to solution. So nuanced encounters with inwardly conflicted clerics of Erastil are a waste of time.If you didn't challenge their alignment and behavior after the pilgrims and the girlfriends, you have zero standing or credibility to challenge them on the barbarian cleric. Who, regardless of an assessment of her activity/inactivity level, has far more culpability for her situation than the previous victims of these homicidal maniacs.
It's groups like this that give murderhobos a bad name.
Really? What do you think the line about the fallout from the incident with the pilgrims being bad enough that they’ve been better about who they kill means? Without some sort of challenge, there is no fallout so obviously that event did prompt a dialogue with the players...
People are reading way too much into this. And starting to get really nasty about Kifaru’s GM’ing along with his players’ playing, making pronouncements regarding their ability and their intentions that are not only unsupported by Kifaru’s statements but seem to outright ignore them. There’s way more to this game and these situations than Kifaru can communicate to us over the course of a few posts, even if a lot of his statements were not dismissed to accommodate others’ snap conclusions.
If you’re here to quarrel with Kifaru’s version of the events, or to tell Kifaru how terrible his players are or how awful of a DM he is, you’re not here to be helpful and should just move along because these things don’t add to the discussion in any way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few months ago the party killed a bunch of lawful good pilgrims that were defending holy artifacts the party wanted. The fallout from that was bad enough that they have been a bit better about who they kill. A couple session ago they did kill the girlfriends of the bad guys even though they were just 0 level commoners cowering in the background.Killing people to take their stuff makes you a murderer and a thief. Killing lawful good pilgrims to steal holy artifacts makes you an evil murderer and thief.
Killing 0-level commoner non-combatants makes you bloodthirsty and ruthless. Amoral at best.
And these events prompt no dialogue about alignment, but the pc's kill a high-level cleric servant of a rogue tribe of barbarians while she is in counsel with the tribe's leader and only then does the "OMG, is that an evil act?" alarm go off? And one of the pc's is thinking about taking a level of paladin in the near future? I don't think that word means what you think it means...
Two diagnosis:
1. Kifaru's table appears to have a very different view of alignment then most of the responders.
2. Kifaru's players do not seem at all interested in the type of campaign Kifaru is trying to run. Nuke it from orbit appears to be their go to solution. So nuanced encounters with inwardly conflicted clerics of Erastil are a waste of time.If you didn't challenge their alignment and behavior after the pilgrims and the girlfriends, you have zero standing or credibility to challenge them on the barbarian cleric. Who, regardless of an assessment of her activity/inactivity level, has far more culpability for her situation than the previous victims of these homicidal maniacs.
It's groups like this that give murderhobos a bad name.
Really? What do you think the line about the fallout from the incident with the pilgrims being bad enough that they’ve been better about who they kill means? Without some sort of challenge, there is no fallout so obviously that event did prompt a dialogue with the players...
People are reading way too much into this. And starting to get really nasty about Kifaru’s GM’ing along with his players’ playing, making pronouncements regarding their ability and their intentions that are not only unsupported by Kifaru’s statements but seem to outright ignore them. There’s way more to this game and these situations than Kifaru can communicate to us over the course of a few posts, even if a lot of his statements were not dismissed to accommodate others’ snap conclusions.
If you’re here to quarrel with Kifaru’s version of the events, or to tell Kifaru how terrible his players are or how awful of a DM he is, you’re not here to be helpful and should just move along because these things don’t add to the discussion in any way.
^This, a lot.
So, game day is tomorrow. Currently my plan is to shift all lawful characters to neutral and give the neutral characters a will save to avoid shifting to chaotic.
On the good-evil axis, all good characters will shift to neutral.
They have done enough good deeds in the past that I will not force a shift to evil, but will inform them that their auroras have been corrupted by their actions and have some percentile chance of detecting as evil. If anyone attempts to smite evil on them, the attempt will have a 50% chance of succeeding. They associate with a group of paladins on a regular basis and have helped them out a few times in the past. This could make future interactions risky at best.
Does this seem appropriate?
So, game day is tomorrow. Currently my plan is to shift all lawful characters to neutral and give the neutral characters a will save to avoid shifting to chaotic.
On the good-evil axis, all good characters will shift to neutral.
They have done enough good deeds in the past that I will not force a shift to evil, but will inform them that their auroras have been corrupted by their actions and have some percentile chance of detecting as evil. If anyone attempts to smite evil on them, the attempt will have a 50% chance of succeeding. They associate with a group of paladins on a regular basis and have helped them out a few times in the past. This could make future interactions risky at best.
Does this seem appropriate?
The general shifting seems sound, a couple of the mechanics strike me as dubious. I wouldn't make an alignment change due to one's own actions dependent on a Will save. That more implies it's an external force.
And the bits with chances of detecting / being smitten as evil are kinda odd. I think I'd pull back from that and just tell them that if they don't mend their ways they should expect another shift (all the way to evil) in the future.
I assume you'll be going over with them just which things they did that were unduly naughty.
I'm curious whether anybody's current classes will be screwed by these changes.
Shifting their alignment will give you a good opportunity to see which players don't care about alignment and which ones don't.
Shifting everyone toward chaotic is more than fair. Up to you where they land on the good/evil axis. It's possible they are doing all this murder for a noble purpose but as the GM you know much more about their motivations.
Good luck!
A few choice bits from the write up on Erastil:
Now admittedly, I threw out most of the sexist BS in my game...
But that takes the fun out of the gods bickering all the time like Asgardians
Erastil: "Shut up and go bake cookies, *wench*! Make yourself useful."
Calistria (purple-haired): "You'll pay for that remark, you cisnormal *swine*!"
Erastil: "Oh no! Beat me, whip me, whip me *some more*! Let's get it on!"
Cayden: "Ahh.... Lover's quarrels." <hoist><belch>
Anytime a GM forces an alignment change he should give the players warning before they take the act that causes the alignment to shift. There are too many ways to justify any action using for any alignment. If you had a problem with the action you should have brought it up before they did what they did and given them a chance to change their mind. Failing that you should give them warning that further action will cause an alignment shift. Doing so is the best way to avoid a lot of problems
What you are planning to do is not going to end well. This could very well cause players to leave your game. At the least it is going to cause a big argument and create hard feeling between you and your players. Unless you are willing to sacrifice your game for a principle just let this lie and address further problems as they come up.
Really? What do you think the line about the fallout from the incident with the pilgrims being bad enough that they’ve been better about who they kill means? Without some sort of challenge, there is no fallout so...A few months ago the party killed a bunch of lawful good pilgrims that were defending holy artifacts the party wanted. The fallout from that was bad enough that they have been a bit better about who they kill. A couple session ago they did kill the girlfriends of the bad guys even though they were just 0 level commoners cowering in the background.Killing people to take their stuff makes you a murderer and a thief. Killing lawful good pilgrims to steal holy artifacts makes you an evil murderer and thief.
Killing 0-level commoner non-combatants makes you bloodthirsty and ruthless. Amoral at best.
And these events prompt no dialogue about alignment, but the pc's kill a high-level cleric servant of a rogue tribe of barbarians while she is in counsel with the tribe's leader and only then does the "OMG, is that an evil act?" alarm go off? And one of the pc's is thinking about taking a level of paladin in the near future? I don't think that word means what you think it means...
Two diagnosis:
1. Kifaru's table appears to have a very different view of alignment then most of the responders.
2. Kifaru's players do not seem at all interested in the type of campaign Kifaru is trying to run. Nuke it from orbit appears to be their go to solution. So nuanced encounters with inwardly conflicted clerics of Erastil are a waste of time.If you didn't challenge their alignment and behavior after the pilgrims and the girlfriends, you have zero standing or credibility to challenge them on the barbarian cleric. Who, regardless of an assessment of her activity/inactivity level, has far more culpability for her situation than the previous victims of these homicidal maniacs.
It's groups like this that give murderhobos a bad name.
Yes, really. I also read these lines:
We've talked about it. Pretty much just shrugs and "oops".
Though I must say, they don't seem to have much insight into their actions.
The players don't seem to care about this dimension of play which is totally okay if everyone at the table is having fun. And I have to assume they are since the campaign appears to have been going on for some time.
The pc's previous actions should have prompted an alignment discussion if such was going to an operative outcome in the game. Not clear why a group of paladins would having anything with this group after the pilgrim incident. That would have been the window in which to indicate pc actions would have had consequences. Introducing it now is inconsistent and may appear punitive for players who did not follow the GM's expected script. As the back and forth in the thread suggests, the case for killing the cleric being an evil act is not open and shut. If you're in a tent meeting with the chief of a rampaging tribe of barbarians, you're taking your chances. Might be a case of Ready, Fire, Aim but can't argue too much with players who think taking out the tribe's leadership is a fast and even merciful (fewer casualties to the rest of tribe) way to solve the problem.
I agree with Mysterious Stranger - forced change in alignment that hasn't been previously foreshadowed may cause the players to rebel. Or shrug. "Oops."
Why would you think there is no foreshadowing? This is a topic that has come up. As I clearly stated, there have been discussions with players. As I have mentioned, their characters have suffered repercussions due to their actions in the past. This entire campaign has been about experiencing what your actions have brought about.
They were heroes and saviors when they rescued the tiny little town from the murderous cult that had taken it over. They were well rewarded when they slayed the monsters in the mysterious dungeon. They were considered patriots when they won back the keep that had been captured by traitors and brigands.
They won the respect and patronage of the royal family when the party uncovered plots, thwarted assassinations, and stopped a royal kidnapping before tragedy could strike.
The party stood side by side with paladins and priests of Iomedae, and their efforts helped turn the tide on a demon invasion.
They basked in a lot of glory for that.
They started to become "bad guys" when the choice "dead or alive" always meant "dead"
They became villains when they attacked the pilgrims. The priest was temporarily stripped of all power.
They became pariahs when they attacked their host after performing the rights of hospitality. They ended up naked, in stocks, two miles from town, in two feet of snow for that one. They went into exile for that one too. Only the favor of the queen got them off that easy.
When it turned out the host they attacked was really the BBEG and was planning an uprising against the throne, the party was literally on the front lines when the war broke out. When they brought down the usurper and his inner circle they were legends. If a few people saw them cut down the girlfriends and mistresses of the usurpers "just to be sure", nobody tells those stories too loud, but the rumors get around. It was in the heat of the battle. Everyone said so.......
Then they planned and executed an assassination of a neutral good priestess. A kindly old woman they had never seen perform an aggressive act against anyone. With no evidence other than she had been seen a few times in the vicinity of a bad person.
All actions have consequences.
They saw an old lady that they never once saw speaking to the chief. They saw a downcast woman that walked 10 feet behind the chief. While they were watching the chief never even acknowledged her presence. She was not on a raid. She was in her village, nearly 10 miles from the closest settlement that had been raided. The old woman had never met the party. She had no idea who they were. When the party face was allowed into the village he lied about who he was and told the chief he was a representative of an evil dragon.
The party did some spying from loooooooooong range. They buffed up, turned invisible, some using greater invisibility, and teleported in while the chief was walking through the village with two bodyguards by his side and his mother walking unobtrusively behind.
To you, that person deserves to die?
I'm trying to run a world that is not black and white.
Well, this is exactly what you are encouraging. I'm not being flip or mean here. But in a gray world, like our own, hanging out with dangerous/evil people is likely to get you killed, hard stop. If they are your close family or lover you helped. Maybe you didn't swing the ax, but you cooked them dinner and tended their wounds. If you want the characters to live up to a strict moral standard, cool. But you will never, ever get that in a setting that is morally ambiguous.
It sounds like a lot of this depends on perception. You see the woman as kind and doing the best she can - did your players pick up on this? You've mentioned how she followed downcast behind her son, which has a certain meaning for you, but it's easy for players to misunderstand cues. In someone's imagination, she may simply be following respectfully and showing commitment. One interpretation makes her seem much more wicked.
I've generally found it helpful to be explicit about my intended meaning, both when role-playing with NPCs and describing events as a GM. I've had many misunderstandings that were cleared up by simply explaining what I had been trying to imply. I like to give the players a bit of fluff description, followed by any specific impressions their characters would have, especially if they're engaging and using sense motive (your players may not have). A simple change from "She walks behind, looking at the ground" to "She trods along as if resigned to her fate."
Anyway, I don't know what your interactions are like, so this may or may not be helpful. In any case, that's my advice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sheesh. Player actions aside, taking the OP at face value, I'm a little appalled at the ratio of "guilty by association therefore kill" posts in this thread. Are most Pathfinder players really that quick to resort to immediate execution? Reminds me of the "pings detect evil therefore kill" threads that I've had to start ignoring wholesale.
TL;DR: Glad my players aren't psychopaths.
I mean, in D&D the rule generally is kill until given a reason not to. I haven't read through everything, but if the GM didn't make it clear choices must be cautiously weighed, you can't really hold it against the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the rules for a good character are:
1. Never back down no matter what the opposition is. It is better to die in a futile gesture than to bide your time and strike when you have a chance to make a difference. If you have ever met an evil creature and did not immediately try to kill it, you deserve to die.
2. Murder everyone that might be a threat. Don't ask questions. Just kill. If someone is seen near an evil person, they are now evil and deserve to be killed.
So the rules for a good character are:
1. Never back down no matter what the opposition is. It is better to die in a futile gesture than to bide your time and strike when you have a chance to make a difference. If you have ever met an evil creature and did not immediately try to kill it, you deserve to die.
2. Murder everyone that might be a threat. Don't ask questions. Just kill. If someone is seen near an evil person, they are now evil and deserve to be killed.
Yeah <sigh> Hurray for martyr murderhobos!
I look forward to hearing how your players actually feel about the planned consequences.
Went fine. Some halfhearted grumbling and protest, but for the most part rolled with it. There were a number of comments that went something like "But wait.... all we did was.... ah....yea....that's right.....crap......ok"
I just bumped them down from good to neutral. Made a couple warnings about going evil and striving to regain a good alignment if they wanted.
Some indicated a desire to do good and make amends, others were comfortable with the new alignment.
I decided not to mess with the lawful-chaotic axis at this time.
Then the dice gods turned on me. The party faced down the evil chief. In the 9 attacks I got off, I rolled 1,4,4,14,1,3,5,10,18.
The first two party members crit on all but one attack and did a combined damage of over 600 HP.
Thanks for the advice everyone. It really helped me think through the situation. The many points of view are appreciated. It gave me a lot of possible approaches I could take.
Happy gaming everybody!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to say, that without explicit warning I don't really feel it's okay to penalize players for actions.
Your thought process as a GM is going to be very different from the thought process of players. Unless you warn them before acting in some capacity outside of the game, "You want to stab the innocent person, are you sure?", I can't really agree with punishing.
This applies to every situation regarding potential changes in alignment due to the differences in opinion on actions and alignments.
I mean, in D&D the rule generally is kill until given a reason not to.
We play very different games.