3.5e Module Train Wreck / Opinion Thread

[frankthedm]

The problem here was first the GM allowed BoED when they and the players were not on the same alignment page and secondly allowing in another set of sub rules, Incarnum, while still rusty.

if the players want DM cautioning on aligmment affections, They can pay 1000 GP and have their head slot takes up by a Phylactery of faithfulness.

The Only answer the Augury should have gives was "woe", not "Lots of woe" or "Campaign shattering woe".

The problem campaign might have been solved with the inevitable using it's full abilities. It should have kept demanding the Scroll punctuating each request with a Enervation. If they wouldn't give in to "Return the scroll or be extinguished", then TPK.

On the use of the word gay as a negative term; If you have a problem with someone at the table using a pejorative you don't like, say so at the table. Airing the dirty laundry here feels like you are using the words said in the confidence of close associates to detract from their point of view.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The big question you needed to ask yourself Az005 is this...

"When the PCs bring the refugees to the gate of the city and the guards don't let them in, what should the PCs do?"

Because unless I've missed your explanation in some of your reply posts (which is quite possible) I have not seen what you had in mind for the answer to this dilemma. Did you have one? Did you have in mind at least one "right action" the PCs should have taken? Because if you didn't... then you can't blame the PCs for not thinking of one either, nor question their actions for all the ideas they came up with.

Bringing the refugees into the city was not an option in your mind, turning around and going back the way they came was not an option, abandoning the refugees outside the city walls was not an option, and disregarding the guard's commands by sneaking them into the city was not an option.

Now I understand completely why these were not valid options in your mind (NPC guards were controlled; army was advancing; goes against alignment of good; goes against alignment of lawful-- respectively) but at some point if these were not being allowed on the table without grave consequences for doing so, then you as a fellow improviser need to offer up some other 'Yes' options to them to possibly take that doesn't result in these grave consequences.

Now some DMs would be quite happy with presenting this "no-win" Kobayashi Maru scenario and then letting the scene play out. The PCs hang themselves with whatever option they take and the DM accepts and smiles happily while the PCs chew him out for screwing with them (some DMs actually get off on that, believe it or not)... but it sounds like this was not something you really wanted to get into. As you say, you were going to be yelled at regardless. So the question becomes what are you going to give them that gives you what you both want-- the PCs depositing the refugees safely and completing their task; you throwing up a dramatic conflict that the PCs solve. And for that... something in your mind and your plot has to give. It's hard as hell to allow yourself to do that when nothing the PCs do seem to make "sense"... but if your optimal result is the PCs solving the problem without you getting yelled at... either you give them the breadcrumb clue to solve the problem your way (if you have one), or you allow this one time of breaking what "makes sense".

******

And BTW - as one final caveat and recommendation... never use game mechanics as a decision point when it comes to roleplaying. Just because the game mechanics say that the Trip action is much more deadly (tactically speaking) than hitting someone with a sword... this is in no way true from a roleplaying perspective. The reaction a town guardsman would have to seeing someone stick their foot out and trip somebody would be much, much less than seeing that same person draw a weapon and take a swing at them. So don't let the game mechanics color the reactions of the NPCs.

 

[korjik]

The big question you needed to ask yourself Az005 is this...

"When the PCs bring the refugees to the gate of the city and the guards don't let them in, what should the PCs do?"

Because unless I've missed your explanation in some of your reply posts (which is quite possible) I have not seen what you had in mind for the answer to this dilemma. Did you have one? Did you have in mind at least one "right action" the PCs should have taken? Because if you didn't... then you can't blame the PCs for not thinking of one either, nor question their actions for all the ideas they came up with.

Bringing the refugees into the city was not an option in your mind, turning around and going back the way they came was not an option, abandoning the refugees outside the city walls was not an option, and disregarding the guard's commands by sneaking them into the city was not an option.

Now I understand completely why these were not valid options in your mind (NPC guards were controlled; army was advancing; goes against alignment of good; goes against alignment of lawful-- respectively) but at some point if these were not being allowed on the table without grave consequences for doing so, then you as a fellow improviser need to offer up some other 'Yes' options to them to possibly take that doesn't result in these grave consequences.

Now some DMs would be quite happy with presenting this "no-win" Kobayashi Maru scenario and then letting the scene play out. The PCs hang themselves with whatever option they take and the DM accepts and smiles happily while the PCs chew him out for screwing with them (some DMs actually get off on that, believe it or not)... but it sounds like this was not something you really wanted to get into. As you say, you were going to be yelled at regardless. So the question becomes what are you going to give them that gives you what you both want-- the PCs depositing the refugees safely and completing their task; you throwing up a dramatic conflict that the PCs solve. And for that... something in your mind and your plot has to give. It's hard as hell to allow yourself to do that when nothing the PCs do seem to make "sense"... but if your optimal result is the PCs solving the problem without you getting yelled at... either you give them the breadcrumb clue to solve the problem your way (if you have one), or you allow this one time of breaking what "makes sense".

******

And BTW - as one final caveat and recommendation... never use game mechanics as a decision point when it comes to roleplaying. Just because the game mechanics say that the Trip action is much more deadly (tactically speaking) than hitting someone with a sword... this is in no way true from a roleplaying perspective. The reaction a town guardsman would have to seeing someone stick their foot out and trip somebody would be much, much less than seeing that same person draw a weapon and take a swing at them. So don't let the game mechanics color the reactions of the NPCs.

How about not throwing a hissy fit and insulting all the guards you are trying to get past, or just taking the refugees to where the city they are trying to get into sent its noncombatants? Seeing as Az005 both had an NPC officer try to mediate the arguement between the guards and the party, and also mentioned where the cities noncoms went, both seem pretty obvious.

Alot of people here seem to be completely missing the fact that the whole problem here was brought on by the players actions, and that the DM only tried to put on the brakes when the players started acting nuts.

This 'paladin/monk': insulted and threatened guards who said they were acting on orders, snuck into the city, mugged someone on the street, started a brawl with the guy they mugged in a cathedral, then ended up murdering said guy, in that cathedral.

The only problem I can really see here is that Az005 didnt point out the really really obvious solutions when it became obvious that the players missed them, and he didnt find out why the players were going so far off the deep end before it wrecked the game.

Before someone accuses me of railroading, my point here is that sometimes you have to be extremely explicit that it is just a cow. DMs know what is going on, players dont. Sometimes they get stuck in a way of thinking and miss things that the characters wouldnt. Getting agressive with town guards for no reason, especially when they are just doing their job, is out of character for a paladin. Az005 should have asked why the player was getting so upset. If it turned out that the whole party really didnt care for the noncombatant side, then he should have glossed that over, instead of letting bored players wreck the game.

 

[Kraydak]

How about not throwing a hissy fit and insulting all the guards you are trying to get past, or just taking the refugees to where the city they are trying to get into sent its noncombatants? Seeing as Az005 both had an NPC officer try to mediate the arguement between the guards and the party, and also mentioned where the cities noncoms went, both seem pretty obvious.

Reread the OP. The PCs talked to the NPCs and tried to negotiate. They failed. The players felt that enough was enough and decided to dump the refugees on the NPCs and wander back to the action. The GM stated that that was an alignment violation. When told that negotiation failed, and leaving wasn't an option, they finally turned to violence. They had tried the other options.

mugged someone on the street, started a brawl with the guy they mugged in a cathedral, then ended up murdering said guy, in that cathedral.

No. They didn't mug someone on the street. They mugged a shapeshifting or mind-controlling impostor. When said impostor then decided to take the shape of one of their own, and didn't try to explain himself, they ended up killing him. Wow. How... largely unobjectionable, actually. Imagine if the Inevitable had been madame spider-lady. Wouldn't we all be congratulating the monk/paladin on his insightfullness?

 

[korjik]

Reread the OP. The PCs talked to the NPCs and tried to negotiate. They failed. The players felt that enough was enough and decided to dump the refugees on the NPCs and wander back to the action. The GM stated that that was an alignment violation. When told that negotiation failed, and leaving wasn't an option, they finally turned to violence. They had tried the other options.

Really?

One of the players, the monk-paladin, took objection to the town guards refusing the refugee caravan entry. Guards indicated they were following orders. A ranking NPC attempted to mediate, and the entire town guard was accused of being non-intelligent, negligent, etc. The monk-paladin suggested that the party's role was completed, that they had delivered the refugees to the city, and if the city was as beligerent enough to refuse them entry then so be it.

I asked the monk-paladin whether following orders from the city council was lawful. He replied that it did not matter. I asked whether abandoning the refugees was considered heroic or good. He decided he would storm the city and allow the refugees entry by force. I asked whether that was wise.

Your description does not match the quote from the OP

No. They didn't mug someone on the street. They mugged a shapeshifting or mind-controlling impostor. When said impostor then decided to take the shape of one of their own, and didn't try to explain himself, they ended up killing him. Wow. How... largely unobjectionable, actually. Imagine if the Inevitable had been madame spider-lady. Wouldn't we all be congratulating the monk/paladin on his insightfullness?

No, not really. All they did was mug someone they thought might be an imposter. Not only that but they did mug him. Stole something and left him on the side of the road. Wether it is an attack or not, it certainly wasnt lawful.

Admittedly, it may be just that Az005 hasnt told us, but I havent seen any evidence that they party ever even tried to find out what the inevitable was. If it had been the spider-lady, that would have only been luck, and pretty dumb luck at that.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

<snip>
No. They didn't mug someone on the street. They mugged a shapeshifting or mind-controlling impostor. When said impostor then decided to take the shape of one of their own, and didn't try to explain himself, they ended up killing him. Wow. How... largely unobjectionable, actually. Imagine if the Inevitable had been madame spider-lady. Wouldn't we all be congratulating the monk/paladin on his insightfullness?

*Wonders if the Monk/Paladin used the level 1 paladin power of Detect Evil to solve this problem.*

Paladins do have "detect evil" for a reason...

Here would have been a good place for that Phylacter of Faithfulness...or checking alignment before killing.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

if the players want DM cautioning on aligmment affections, They can pay 1000 GP and have their head slot takes up by a Phylactery of faithfulness.

No.

This item is there to prevent actions that seem right but are not. For instance, killing the inevitable...the phylactery would have been buzzing like a hive of angry bees.



Apart from that, there is room in every campaign for a DM to ask "are you sure?"


Sometimes (as someone stated above) what is obvious to the DM is not obvious to the players, or in the heat of the moment, is something the players did not consider. With things like ethos violations and moral conundrums, not all people view morality in the same way. Morality in faux-medieval, frontier justice is far removed from our own understandings, complicating matters even further.

Just as there is room for a DM to ask "are you sure" to a player who is about to leap over maga, there is room for a DM to ask a player "are you sure" when (for example) the paladin wants to slit the throat of a hostage.

The DM in this scenario didn't say "you CAN'T do that"...he asked a variant of "are you sure".

The player then got all pissy that the restrictions of law and good that he chose when making a paragon of law and goodness...restricted his actions.

 

[Nagol]

*Wonders if the Monk/Paladin used the level 1 paladin power of Detect Evil to solve this problem.*

Paladins do have "detect evil" for a reason...

Here would have been a good place for that Phylacter of Faithfulness...or checking alignment before killing.

It's unlikely since Inevitables are Lawful Neutral and wouldn't generate a 'ping' on their own and the DM mentioned its purpose was for the good deity(ies).

Also a paladin should use the tool, but be at least somewhat cautious as to the result since magical counters do exist. Automatically whomping on something that returns a 'ping' can get you in trouble in a town pretty fast.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I was unclear there, sorry.


What I meant was, detect evil would have indicated that their target wasn't evil (and hence, as a paragon of goodness and law) that they should at least try reasoning.

As for the phylactery, my thoughts were that killing an agent of the good gods was more than enough to be an ethos violation, and when they were fighting the inevitable, such a thing should have been going off. (Heck, killing a demon that the good gods trapped somewhere because if it were killed it would arise more powerful should set off a phylactery).


So what I meant to say overall was that the players who are playing classes based on pure wholesomeness...they are literally playing saints(not the saint template from the BoED)...people that, in our world, are so good and active for the cause of good, that we would give them sainthood.

That is what a paladin is, and that is what the Exalted feats mean.


So, I guess I'm saying, that if they want to ostensibly play the super duper duper extra goodies...they need to make decisions around that...and be cautious who they pick fights with and kill.


If this were a party of neutral mercenaries...I think the players would have been justified in all of their actions...but that's NOT what this is a party of.

 

[shadzar]

It doesnt sound like the guards were being directly controlled, just under orders by an imposter.

I guess you could say then all guards everywhere are being controlled to an extent, but is why I included also the city council.

What I meant was that when the refuges had been saying they were supposed to be this place, then the guards indicate otherwise...as a player, I would have thought something wasn't right.

Do I trust these helpless people, or are they lying?
Do I trust these militants, or are they lying?

Someone isn't telling the truth, and having taken the tiem to escort the refugees, I would have wanted to know why theya ren't being allowed in where they, and the game, had indicated they were supposed to be.

Problem has shown itself and as the PCs main job of problem solver...must be a plot hook. I am interested in it, so I take the hook.