Question: how would you run the following scenario in your game?
The party is faced with the dilemma of helping a city that worships Shelyn that is under attack by a goblin hoard. But the ranking cleric and the ranking champion are butting heads and can't agree on what should take priority in the city.
The two fighting is causing the people to begin to doubt and lose heart.
The cleric wants to save all the works of art, music, and prioritize those that make them. While the champion wants to put the common folk first and prioritize their safety and well-being.
Both are following the tenants of their goddess, how would you work this to the players as a moral quandary?
|
You could pose it as a kind of "quality vs quantity" dilemma?
Save 75 of the cities wisest leaders, most beloved benefactors, most skilled artists
Or
100 unremarkable level -1 commoners.
Or maybe 100 prisoners-of-war or 100 convicted criminals.
Ya know, something like that.
I don't know that many players would be convinced to save art or music at the expense of lives, tbh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These are NPC cleric and champion, yes?
So, what is the purpose of the party in this debate? The answer to that will inform your next steps in the scenario planning.
Do the PCs need to pick one side or the other? And then influence the opposing NPC...
Do the PCs need to influence both NPCs to find a middle ground?
Do the PCs need to rally the townsfolk themselves and ignore the quarreling NPCs?
Can the PCs eradicate the goblin horde before it reaches the city and render the quarrel moot?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shelyn is really clear: you only save the art when there aren't lives on the line. I'd expect a cleric, someone close enough to Shelyn to receive divine power, to be on board with that. As such, I wouldn't run this as presented: only the champion would actually be following Shelyn's tenants. As for "artists vs. non-artists", that just feels... too impractical to implement in a high-stakes situation like this. Trying to evacuate as many people as possible saves more artists.
Things I might do instead:
- An argument over whether to put more effort into evacuation vs. defense of the city.
- The champion is trying to convince the cleric not to stay behind to try to protect the art.
- An argument over whether the city's jails should be opened up, and if the prisoners should be pressed into helping the defenses or join the evacuation.
Ah, I think I've got it. The argument could be over which quarter of the city to stage the evacuation from. Say the goblins are coming from the south-east, then the argument could be over whether to stage the evacuation from the North Gate or the West Gate, reflecting the artisan's district and the poor district respectively. Nobody's saying not to save the other, but the practical matter is whichever place it's staged from will have more people saved. It also brings in practical matters, like whether the cramped streets around the West Gate means that it should be used because of a better retreating defense, or the North Gate's wider streets can help avoid panicked congestion. The cleric can genuinely be worried about crowd press killing people, and the champion can be genuinely worried about the goblins simply sweeping in along straight roads in pursuit.
There's some personal bias here- I generally want NPC clerics to follow their deity's doctrine faithfully when push comes to shove, or they wouldn't be clerics. They can have imperfect and biased interpretations in day-to-day life, but when it comes to the big stuff like "does Shelyn value art or life more", I don't think anybody is getting power from Shelyn if they answer "art".
As for "artists vs. non-artists", that just feels... too impractical to implement in a high-stakes situation like this.
QuidEst is absolutely correct.
It doesn't just feel impractical, the fact of the matter is that it IS impractical.
If you stop to take the time to sort out who is an artist and who isn't, more of both will be killed, failing the core objectives of the NPCs and the core principles of their faith.
You could portray the priest as being corrupt, using his stance as an excuse to garner (or maintain) favor with the wealthy elites. He's lying to himself and others though, as he would be in clear violation of his faith' tenants. Might make for a nice villain for the PCs to oppose on the social stage.
QuidEst's other suggestions also work well if you're not looking for a villain.
|
This thread has got me thinking of the Trolley Problem.
You could portray the priest as being corrupt, using his stance as an excuse to garner (or maintain) favor with the wealthy elites. He's lying to himself and others though, as he would be in clear violation of his faith' tenants. Might make for a nice villain for the PCs to oppose on the social stage.
QuidEst's other suggestions also work well if you're not looking for a villain.
Wouldn't the cleric be at risk of losing their spellcasting privileges then?
|
|
This thread has got me thinking of the Trolley Problem.
Wouldn't the cleric be at risk of losing their spellcasting privileges then?You could portray the priest as being corrupt, using his stance as an excuse to garner (or maintain) favor with the wealthy elites. He's lying to himself and others though, as he would be in clear violation of his faith' tenants. Might make for a nice villain for the PCs to oppose on the social stage.
QuidEst's other suggestions also work well if you're not looking for a villain.
I wonder how the different inner sea faiths would respond to the trolly problem of 5 lay worshipers on the tracks, but you can pull a lever to divert the trolly to a track with the church's high priest on it. What should a worshiper of said faith do?
I wonder how the different inner sea faiths would respond to the trolly problem of 5 lay worshipers on the tracks, but you can pull a lever to divert the trolly to a track with the church's high priest on it. What should a worshiper of said faith do?This thread has got me thinking of the Trolley Problem.
Wouldn't the cleric be at risk of losing their spellcasting privileges then?You could portray the priest as being corrupt, using his stance as an excuse to garner (or maintain) favor with the wealthy elites. He's lying to himself and others though, as he would be in clear violation of his faith' tenants. Might make for a nice villain for the PCs to oppose on the social stage.
QuidEst's other suggestions also work well if you're not looking for a villain.
The high priest can resurrect the lay worshipers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also is it just me, or does anyone else read this thread title as being a question about some magical crossbow ammunition?
I think I spend too much time on the rules forum.
Shelyn's anathema make this quite easy:
Anathema destroy art or allow it to be destroyed, unless saving a life or pursuing greater art; refuse to accept surrender
This clearly means human(oid) life is valued more highly than art. People first, art second.
Plus, I mean, people can make more art. Can't make art if everyone's dead. In the grand scheme of things, saving people will produce more art than you'd save by prioritising existing art.
Plus, I mean, Shelyn's good-aligned (back when alignment mattered). Only absolute sociopaths would value objects more than human lives, and would definitely not be classified as "good."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, would Shelyn actually think of people in terms of "artists or commoners"? I have to imagine she acknowledge art in all it's forms including humble crafters. IS the man who makes a chair carved with his children's names around the edge for his wife, less an artist that the composer or the painter?
I am with the others on this one. If the Priest in a actual faithful of Shelyn, the Champion is well in his rights to slap him and send him on a repentance quest later on.
Now if the priest is maybe a cultist in disguise and would get his powers from somewhere else and sets this all up as a sacrifice for whichever dark entity he serves, it would ... not inherently change a lot. The priest would still need to be awefully convincing and have a lot of (secret) followers and the champion would be even more so in the right to put him in his place.
Not to mention that all the potential lower priests there should back up the champion and most people would side with him too, rather saving their lives.
The only way the scenario could work out is if the priest actually has a notable part of the city already under his thrall in some sort of enchantment or mental corruption.
Thank you all for your responses and I will answer Finoan's questions about this scenario.
Note: I have not run a situation like this since I made the transition from 5e to 2e and wanted the opinions/takes from people who are more experienced with the 2e system/lore.
1. The cleric and champion are NPCS.
2. The PC's can choose to ignore both the cleric and the champion but I had it so it will make their job harder if they don't solve the problem of the two fighting. (Should I change this?)
3. They can have the two NPCS find a middle ground. (This is the "best" outcome.)
4. The PCs can rally the townsfolk and ignore the quarreling NPCs but it will be harder because of the sway the cleric and champion hold in the hearts of the commonfolk.
5. I had the scenario as a 'small scale siege' story in my head so I have not factored in if the PCs go out on their own to try and stop the goblin horde.