D&D 5E Tomb of Annihilation - Moral Question

5ekyu · Feb 27, 2018

To me, the ideal "plot" and major arc should include and be prepared for the PCs going the "good" (stopping the bad guy's Evil Plan(tm)), the "bad" (aligning with the bad guy or taking over his Evil Plan (tm) for their own purposes) and a little bit of both/neither/other (pulling in bad guys to help stop this bad guy, setting up to profit on the circumstance, etc etc etc.)

i do not expect published modules to have necessarily full support for those but it is good if they at least recognize or reference them. After all, an undead hunter zealot might well decide wiping out liches is worth letting the ritual go quite a ways if not all the way. Its about character, not alignment.

Seramus · Feb 27, 2018

Creating an evil god is unlikely to have any large meaningful impact upon a setting, unless they go full Cyric or Tharzidun. There are so many evil gods it beggars comprehension, and the chance that this one just ends up squabbling over resources like all the other evil gods is quite high.

But I can't imagine the party being able to hold the Soulmonger for long without drawing the attention of some really big names, including Larloch. And if Larloch rolls up to claim the Soulmonger, it would take all the plot armor in the world to save the party from him and his coterie. So, destroying it is pretty much the only viable play for the vast majority of parties.

transtemporal · Feb 27, 2018

JacktheRabbit said:
Im not saying saving them is evil, just saying it is not heroic.

Bronn: "I'm a hero to the rich and powerful. I am therefore, by definition, heroic."

Leatherhead · Feb 27, 2018

Adventurers are the 1%

DRF · Feb 27, 2018

D&D is generally a pretty bad place to look for interesting moral ambiguity. Let D&D be D&D, and read good books (i.e. non-FR) for the meaningful narratives.

Quartz · Feb 27, 2018

Quickleaf said:
Thanks for the idea, but regardless of a true Acererak, a simulacrum Acererak, or whatever, the question of motive still remains. Why create an evil god? Is it some twisted need to pass on a legacy that Acererak has developed, but being a lich is unable to sire children? Is the specific atropal actually the defeated demon lord Orcus and Acererak is trying to gain control overall undead everywhere by subverting Orcus' power as his own? Those might be motives I could actually use.

Why do you expect the adventure to have all the answers? Surely this is a plot hook you can exploit (or not) in your own campaign?

Personally, I was disappointed with the book. I didn't want to buy a Chult sourcebook. I'll happily dump the Yuan Ti, the Red wizards, the politics, and much else besides. I'll just have the ruined city and the dungeon.

Warmaster Horus · Feb 27, 2018

Quickleaf said:
Yep, I get that the adventure's default answer is "no reason." For some groups or for Adventurer's League, that's probably fine. However, I have an inquisitive group of players who enjoy an engaging narrative, so I'm exploring ideas that go behind that non-answer.

And I did read up on atropals – after reading four sources (Tomb of Annihilation, FR wiki, 3e Epic Level Handbook, 4e Monster Manual), I am no closer to understanding what the heck "a god that never got to be a god" means than I was before I read all that source material. Narratively, I have no idea what an atropal actually *is* or how to meaningfully depict it. And just going with the whole "aborted fetus" thing wouldn't fly for my group's sensitivities (there are mommies and daddies).

I see ToA as being a really great toolkit rather than a complete adventure with a cohesive narrative. I'll be running a home game, so I expect to adapt and add elements as needed for my group. Just seeing who else out there has been doing the same to swap notes.

It's up to you to fill in the holes you're looking for. Don't feel like you need to conform to any previous concepts regarding Acererak, the atropal or the rest. You've done the homework, now roll those ideas around in your head along with anything else you want, come up with a theme and roll with it.

FWIW, I'm going with the atropal resembling the demon on the cover of the AD&D DM's Guide except it's skin is elastic and screaming humanoid heads are constantly bubbling up from it's body.

CapnZapp · Feb 27, 2018

Since the adventurers only even hear about the atropal, much less meet it, after perhaps 98% of the adventure is already completed I don't mind the "because evil" explanation.

Besides we're used to D&D being like this. In fact, name one hardback that isn't about a muhefla monster that's basically just butthurt angry because it's ugly and got no friends.

There are other games for when you require nuance.

Quickleaf · Feb 27, 2018

Mouseferatu said:
Heh. Thank you.

I can't speak to Tomb of Annihilation in any way; I own it, but I haven't read it yet. What I can speak to is my view of Acererak, based on prior publications and on what we tried to do with him in the 4E Tomb.

Yes, Acererak is mad, so there's some validity to the description of him earlier as a dick or a troll. Some. But not all.

His madness has to do with his methods, not his goals. He has to prove himself stronger, smarter, and better than any who would oppose him, and he has to keep himself entertained in the process. (Immortality gets dull.) So he goes for all sorts of death traps, convoluted schemes, the works. But they are still a means to an end, not an end of themselves.

He is not the Joker. He might do things equally crazy, but never for their own sake.

In Return to the Tomb of Horrors, he tried to become one with the Negative Energy Plane, and thus all undead. In the 4E Tomb, he tried to build himself a body out of god parts (more or less).

He has goals. They may not always involve gaining power, but they're always there.

So if he's trying to create an evil god? He has a reason for it beyond "Heh, heh, heh, cool!" Maybe, as suggested above, he's testing something. Maybe he has reason to think he can control it. Maybe he's trying to draw the gods' attentions here so he can go do something somewhere else. Maybe he's just trying to prove a point to someone.

But no matter how byzantine his schemes, no matter how utterly insane his actions, somewhere there's a motive behind them.

Yes, exactly! Thanks for putting into words more clearly what I was struggling to articulate.

I guess I can just use his motive from Return to the Tomb of Horrors...he's siphoning energy off of this would-be-but-failed-death-god in order to become one with Negative Energy Plane and thus all undead.

Quartz said:
Why do you expect the adventure to have all the answers? Surely this is a plot hook you can exploit (or not) in your own campaign?

Personally, I was disappointed with the book. I didn't want to buy a Chult sourcebook. I'll happily dump the Yuan Ti, the Red wizards, the politics, and much else besides. I'll just have the ruined city and the dungeon.

Actually, I don't expect an adventure to have *all* the answers.

I do expect an adventure to explain a villain's goals and motives for those goals. That's pretty basic; no advanced storytelling there.

Warmaster Horus said:
It's up to you to fill in the holes you're looking for. Don't feel like you need to conform to any previous concepts regarding Acererak, the atropal or the rest. You've done the homework, now roll those ideas around in your head along with anything else you want, come up with a theme and roll with it.

FWIW, I'm going with the atropal resembling the demon on the cover of the AD&D DM's Guide except it's skin is elastic and screaming humanoid heads are constantly bubbling up from it's body.

Mhmm, that's exactly what I'm doing. If something came readily to me already, I wouldn't have posted (unless offering an idea to a fellow flummoxed DM).

We're starting a new game, players will be old and new (because of busy schedules and kids), a couple have expressed interest in ToA (likely a mix of nostalgia & live streams). So I don't have an ongoing campaign I'd be inserting ToA into – and thus plenty of plot hooks & my own material to kitbash it as I need (e.g. this is an interesting take on replacing Acererak).

Warmaster Horus · Feb 27, 2018

Quickleaf said:
...

Mhmm, that's exactly what I'm doing. If something came readily to me already, I wouldn't have posted (unless offering an idea to a fellow flummoxed DM).

We're starting a new game, players will be old and new (because of busy schedules and kids), a couple have expressed interest in ToA (likely a mix of nostalgia & live streams). So I don't have an ongoing campaign I'd be inserting ToA into – and thus plenty of plot hooks & my own material to kitbash it as I need (e.g. this is an interesting take on replacing Acererak).

I figured you'd be hip to that.

Mainly posting it for general consumption because I've seen lots of DMs who get hung up on 'staying true' to fluff in some way. I just want to reiterate that you don't need to. When you sit behind the DM screen it becomes your story, and for many that's the appeal of DMing in the first place.

D&D 5E Tomb of Annihilation - Moral Question

5ekyu

Hero

Seramus

Hero

transtemporal

Explorer

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.

DRF

First Post

Quartz

Hero

Warmaster Horus

Explorer

CapnZapp

Legend

Quickleaf

Legend

Warmaster Horus

Explorer

Similar Threads