3.5e Module Train Wreck / Opinion Thread

[Kraydak]

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...

Those who go around with magical disguises impersonating people are well advised to arrange alignment/thought shielding/anti-scrying effects. First you capture (if they don't aggressively resist and you care enough to not kill them), then you strip them, then you chain dispel them, then and only then do you try your scrying/interrogating/negotiating (beyond basic surrender). I will say that a paragon of goodness and law who let magical impersonation go uninvestigated without significant mitigating circumstances would get a serious black mark in my books. Those sorts tend to be nasty!

Why was the Inevitable impersonating a specific NPC in the first place, and then a PC? Kicks and giggles?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Touche.


Agreed, very suspicious.


However, being suspicious does not call for a paladin to trip and rob you.

 

[chaochou]

I also wanted to outline how lady Kaal was a political rival to this Lord, Jarmaath, and set her up as a social-enemy. To represent her as a bad influence, I had her cause a stalemate in the city council which prevented allowing the refugees in the city.

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.

So if this is where the problem started, this is the place to look, and maybe at how your NPCs acted.

So there's 3,500 refugees turning up at this town... that's a lot of people - a long old wagon train stretching off into the distance.

How big's this town? What are they supposed to do with 3,500 people? If it's walled (so it can refuse them entry) where's it supposed to put them?

Did the town guards point this out? Did they point out the lack of infrastructure, water, provisions, lodgings? Did they wonder where 3,500 people had suddenly come from? Ask about the dangers of the journey? About news of the enemy? Did they suggest the refugees make camp nearby until a solution could be found? Did they say the PCs information might be valuable to the town council and to talk to them about the refugee situation? What, exactly, happened in that dialogue?

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.

But he hadn't abandoned them. Quite the opposite. In his eyes, he's led them to a safe city where the wider struggles of 3,500 refugees are now a political matter. Is this player supposed to take individual care of every last one of them until his dying day? At what point is he relieved of his responsibility towards these people? If I got 3,500 people to a safe city I'd say I'd done a pretty heroic job.

 

[Az005]

Those who go around with magical disguises impersonating people are well advised to arrange alignment/thought shielding/anti-scrying effects. First you capture (if they don't aggressively resist and you care enough to not kill them), then you strip them, then you chain dispel them, then and only then do you try your scrying/interrogating/negotiating (beyond basic surrender). I will say that a paragon of goodness and law who let magical impersonation go uninvestigated without significant mitigating circumstances would get a serious black mark in my books. Those sorts tend to be nasty!

Why was the Inevitable impersonating a specific NPC in the first place, and then a PC? Kicks and giggles?

Hi Kray,

The inevitable was attempting to locate information on an NPC who in turn knew another NPC. These people, however, had been shielded from divination due to gifts/items given to them by the BBEG.

It was impersonating people to gain intel, further its tracking of those individuals. It was impersonating people to find those people it was impersonating. Looking for reactions from people that recognized them. Getting access to information thought to be private to them.

 

[Az005]

So if this is where the problem started, this is the place to look, and maybe at how your NPCs acted.

So there's 3,500 refugees turning up at this town... that's a lot of people - a long old wagon train stretching off into the distance.

How big's this town? What are they supposed to do with 3,500 people? If it's walled (so it can refuse them entry) where's it supposed to put them?

Did the town guards point this out? Did they point out the lack of infrastructure, water, provisions, lodgings? Did they wonder where 3,500 people had suddenly come from? Ask about the dangers of the journey? About news of the enemy? Did they suggest the refugees make camp nearby until a solution could be found? Did they say the PCs information might be valuable to the town council and to talk to them about the refugee situation? What, exactly, happened in that dialogue?



But he hadn't abandoned them. Quite the opposite. In his eyes, he's led them to a safe city where the wider struggles of 3,500 refugees are now a political matter. Is this player supposed to take individual care of every last one of them until his dying day? At what point is he relieved of his responsibility towards these people? If I got 3,500 people to a safe city I'd say I'd done a pretty heroic job.

The reason these 3500 people were heading towards the city was out of desperation. Its not like they had an appointment.

And, yes, the logic of the council was related to the party by the Captain of the town guard, in calm terms. He even offered to go mediate on their behalf. Sounds like plot exposition, does it?

But in the middle of this, if the party begins berating the NPCs lets just say their diplomacy checks aren't too convincing. So instead of gaining entry, the Captain relates that a crass band of mercenaries has escorted the people here and demand entry to the sovereign city.

I wonder if anyone would object to letting them in. Hmmm.

Part of player freedom and not having a railroad is permitting PCs to construct their own roadblocks. What I find annoying is how the DM, me, gets blamed for everything, including their own decisions.

 

[chaochou]

And, yes, the logic of the council was related to the party by the Captain of the town guard, in calm terms. He even offered to go mediate on their behalf. Sounds like plot exposition, does it?

But in the middle of this, if the party begins berating the NPCs lets just say their diplomacy checks aren't too convincing.

So instead of gaining entry, the Captain relates that a crass band of mercenaries has escorted the people here and demand entry.

Sure, I can see that. But the town council might well still want to talk to these 'crass mercenaries' about how many refugees they can expect on their doorstep and what happened at the last battle and what they know of the approaching army.

I mean you posted the OP about the game for comment, so I guess my comment is to try not to turn these situations into a flat pass/fail, even in the face of stroppy provocation from players.

So maybe the PCs still get to speak to the town council but now they've made enemies of the town guard, which is going to create complications. Or a town council dude could be at the gates to see for themselves what's going on and intervenes but demands they hand in their weapons and armour before coming in. Or the guard says they will have to appear before the council, but they're not due to meet for another week and in the meantime some scouts of the advancing army close in and start wreaking havoc among the refugee stragglers.

No-one on this forum knows exactly what happened cos no-one was there, so it isn't about 'blame'. In general, in this kind of situation as a GM I'd suggest looking for 'success with consequences' as a compromise which keeps things moving but creates new complications or tensions for the PCs as a result of their misjudgement.

 

[pemerton]

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?"

This post is also full of win, but I can't posrep you at this time!

 

[pemerton]

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.

However, being suspicious does not call for a paladin to trip and rob you.

Last I knew, being a paladin didn't preculde having a bad temper ("angry" is not a synonym for "evil" or even "chaotic").

Last I knew, being a paladin didn't preclude tripping suspicious people. Police trip suspicious people all the time - it's part of their modus operandi. They also confiscate suspicious items from suspicious people. I would have though a paladin - who in AD&D was at one level (can't remember which one) described as a "justiciar" - would be well within his/her rights to act in a similar fashion.

I'm finding it hard to believe that a game in which it's taken completely for granted that paladins will invade humanoid homesteads and kill most of them and then take their asserts, is also one in which a paladin is risking his paladinhood by tripping a shapechanger that is impersonating an acquaintance and then taking a document that it was carrying.

It's OK to engage in extrajudicial execution of orcs, but not extrajudicial tripping and asset confiscation of shapechangers? I'm not feeling the force of this contention!

 

[Az005]

Last I knew, being a paladin didn't preculde having a bad temper ("angry" is not a synonym for "evil" or even "chaotic").

Last I knew, being a paladin didn't preclude tripping suspicious people. Police trip suspicious people all the time - it's part of their modus operandi. They also confiscate suspicious items from suspicious people. I would have though a paladin - who in AD&D was at one level (can't remember which one) described as a "justiciar" - would be well within his/her rights to act in a similar fashion.

I'm finding it hard to believe that a game in which it's taken completely for granted that paladins will invade humanoid homesteads and kill most of them and then take their asserts, is also one in which a paladin is risking his paladinhood by tripping a shapechanger that is impersonating an acquaintance and then taking a document that it was carrying.

It's OK to engage in extrajudicial execution of orcs, but not extrajudicial tripping and asset confiscation of shapechangers? I'm not feeling the force of this contention!

A paladin tripping an inevitable.

An embodiment of law and order.

Thats like a cop tripping an FBI agent.

 

[pemerton]

A paladin tripping an inevitable.

An embodiment of law and order.

Thats like a cop tripping an FBI agent.

As presented, it didn't seem to me that the paladin knew it was an inevitable. And a cop tripping an FBI agent whose deep undercover? I don't think that would be a sackable offence.

At the meta-game level, I personally would be careful, in a game with a monk-paladin in which I'm also using traditional alignment rules, not to introduce major plot points that the player of that particular PC can only engage with in a single way that is dictated by the PC's alignment. I would see this as a recipe for player frustration.