A moral dilemma amidst ice and snow--what would you have done?

[FreeTheSlaves]

WINTER WOLF
Large Magical Beast (Cold)
Hit Dice: 6d10+18 (51 hp)
Initiative: +5
Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares)
Armor Class: 15 (–1 size, +1 Dex, +5 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple: +6/+14
Attack: Bite +9 melee (1d8+6 plus 1d6 cold)
Full Attack: Bite +9 melee (1d8+6 plus 1d6 cold)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Breath weapon, freezing bite, trip
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., immunity to cold, low-light vision, scent, vulnerability to fire
Saves: Fort +8, Ref +6, Will +3
Abilities: Str 18, Dex 13, Con 16, Int 9, Wis 13, Cha 10
Skills: Hide –1*, Listen +6, Move Silently +7, Spot +6, Survival +1*
Feats: Alertness, Improved Initiative, Track
Environment: Cold forests
Organization: Solitary, pair, or pack (3–5)
Challenge Rating: 5
Treasure: 1/10 coins; 50% goods; 50% items
Alignment: Usually neutral evil
Advancement: 7–9 HD (Large); 10–18 HD (Huge)
Level Adjustment: +3 (cohort)
A winter wolf grows about 8 feet long and stands about 4-1/2 feet at the shoulder. It weighs about 450 pounds.
Winter wolves can speak Giant and Common.
COMBAT
Winter wolves typically hunt in packs. Their size, cunning, and formidable breath weapon allow them to hunt and kill creatures much larger than themselves. A pack usually circles an opponent, each wolf attacking in turn to exhaust it. If they’re in a hurry, white wolves try to pin their foes.
Breath Weapon (Su): 15-foot cone, once every 1d4 rounds, damage 4d6 cold, Reflex DC 16 half. The save DC is Constitution-based.
Freezing Bite (Su): A winter wolf deals an extra 1d6 points of cold damage every time it bites an opponent, as if its bite were a frost weapon.
Trip (Ex): A winter wolf that hits with a bite attack can attempt to trip the opponent (+8 check modifier) as a free action without making a touch attack or provoking an attack of opportunity. If the attempt fails, the opponent cannot react to trip the winter wolf.
Skills: Winter wolves have a +1 racial bonus on Listen, Move Silently, and Spot checks. Winter wolves have a +2 racial bonus on Hide checks. *Their natural coloration grants them a +7 racial bonus on Hide checks in areas of snow and ice. A winter wolf has a +4 racial bonus on Survival checks when tracking by scent.

****

The party has no survival specialist & only a Bard for stealth/perception. They are not going to be able to take these WW piecemeal, in fact it is the WW that are going to be doing the hunting with their tracking, survival & intelligence. Unless the party has rope trick they are not going to get decent sleep when the WW start harrying them, which a clan will do once magic use is revealed. There is no solid frontline to the party that can stop a number of the WW penetrating to the rear ranks. The WW will be controlling the night-time and invisibility will be thwarted by scent. The Clan leader is going to pack serious combat prowess & there may be tougher leader-types under him/her.

In short, the presented party does not stand much chance against (6*level6 ECL pcs = level 8 party; CR5 WW*16 = EL13; EL13 - lvl8 party = 5 difference [overwhelming encounter]) 16+ WWs without any leaders.

Mrs. Snarwookins is the party trump card, tactics for victory must centre around her blasting clumps of packed WWs - but the WWs control the environment.

 

[shilsen]

That's why I hate it when DM's force players into situations that require these kinds of alignment debates. Ultimately, the players have to make a decision that requires them to either do what their alignment dictates and die (if the challenge really is impossible) or expect to be bailed out by some as of yet unknown force that must exist for this to be a reasonable challenge. Either that or act in opposition to their alignment simply out self-preservation. Sure this is "realistic", but the game is also supposed to be about having fun. I for one, don't enjoy being put into impossible situations.

And here I was thinking that what players would be doing is reacting to the situation in character and responding within the continuum of possible responses their character might have (and it's rarely only one possible reaction, unless the PC is incredibly two-dimensional). And the DM would assign/modify the characters' alignments based on these and other actions. Choices make alignment, not the other way around. So where's the problem?

 

[Corsair]

Bingo. They floored me by sidestepping the entire issue, and letting the boy wander off into the woods to die. That doesn't completely extricate them from the situation--the wolves are now hunting them for the slaying--but they quickly, and without much discussion or any expressed reservations, dumped the kid and continued on their way without so much as a backward glance. Surprised the hell out of me.

Unless I was playing a paladin or something equally silly, I likely would have done the same thing. Listen, I'm all for helping people as much as the next guy, but you want me to get involved in the relations between two sides (villagers and WW), NEITHER of whom likes me, both of whom would probably attack me on sight. I've already pissed off the WW, and if I screw up the sacrifice I piss off the vitlings too. Add onto the fact that these cold one undead are out there, and frankly I have a deadline to meet, I see no reason to stop and muck about in something that isn't any of my business.

Regardless of alignment, you have to have some amount of pragmatism. There are 4+ good reasons to just avoid it and move on.

 

[ForceUser]

To FreeTheSlaves:

If everything were as you say, then you'd be right. But you're making a lot of assumptions.

~You're assuming that the hearsay they have heard regarding the territory and its denizens is 100% accurate.

~You're assuming that the entire pack of winter wolves would be able/willing/ordered into combat against the party at the same time.

~You're assuming that the party wouldn't be able to use the terrain to their advantage.

~You're assuming that illusion spells are worthless.


And perhaps the biggest assumption...

~You're assuming I'd present them with a no-win situation.

I can neither confirm nor deny your assumptions, since this is an adventure in progress, but I can point them out.

 

[ForceUser]

There are 4+ good reasons to just avoid it and move on.

Absolutely. And yet...

...imagine what would have happened if Han Solo had just decided to take the money and run, instead of fly back into danger when he was scot free, and blast Vader's TIE fighter so Luke could blow up the Death Star and save the Rebellion.

Perhaps my scenario is not as epic, but in both situations, there's the heroic choice and the pragmatic choice. What a short trilogy it would have been if Han had chosen to be pragmatic.

 

[Corsair]

~You're assuming that the hearsay they have heard regarding the territory and its denizens is 100% accurate.

~You're assuming that the entire pack of winter wolves would be able/willing/ordered into combat against the party at the same time.

~You're assuming that the party wouldn't be able to use the terrain to their advantage.

~You're assuming that illusion spells are worthless.

~You're assuming I'd present them with a no-win situation.

~You're assuming the characters are willing to risk their lives when all information they have heard regarding the territory and its denizens is that its a frozen death trap.

~The party has no reason to believe they CAN use the terrain to their advantage. The only way to find out is by doing, and at that point they have already committed themselves.

~Scent has a way of mucking up illusions something fierce. Again, the characters don't even get to this point unless they have already committed themselves to a course of action, which according to the information they have, is foolhardy at best, suicidal at worst, and guaranteed to slow them down.

~You're expecting the players to act like its a game and say "The DM wouldn't put us in a no-win situation". Thats the exact OPPOSITE of what most people would say you should be doing.

 

[helium3]

To me, D&D is a storytelling adventure about heroes. I love presenting players with tough moral situations and watching what they choose to do. Sometimes I'm disappointed with their decisions, but sometimes they really impress me when they choose to be daring and selfless. For me, that is where the game comes alive--in those moments that player characters act like heroes. Many of my adventure hooks are structured to encourage heroic behavior, like the one presented above. Choosing to be a hero isn't easy, because choosing to put oneself in mortal danger--to place the welfare of a stranger over your own--isn't easy. If it were, then everyone would be a hero, not just those few selfless people like the NYFD and NYPD on 9/11.

I love running games for people that want to play heroes. Unfortunately, most D&D players don't seem terribly interested in that. They want to survive, get more loot and kill monsters. It sounds like your party isn't all that interested in being all that heroic either.

 

[Corsair]

I love running games for people that want to play heroes. Unfortunately, most D&D players don't seem terribly interested in that. They want to survive, get more loot and kill monsters. It sounds like your party isn't all that interested in being all that heroic either.

Heroism is one thing. Getting yourself involved with something that has nothing to do with you, against a vastly superior foe, when you have something else you SHOULD be doing, and by the way, you have a deadline, is something completely different.

 

[ForceUser]

I love running games for people that want to play heroes. Unfortunately, most D&D players don't seem terribly interested in that. They want to survive, get more loot and kill monsters. It sounds like your party isn't all that interested in being all that heroic either.

Indeed. On the balance, they are a pragmatic bunch not given to acts of daring heroics. All I can do is keep throwing hooks out there hoping for a bite.

 

[helium3]

And here I was thinking that what players would be doing is reacting to the situation in character and responding within the continuum of possible responses their character might have (and it's rarely only one possible reaction, unless the PC is incredibly two-dimensional). And the DM would assign/modify the characters' alignments based on these and other actions. Choices make alignment, not the other way around. So where's the problem?

Well, in this case it works out because Force User points out that he's trying to run a campaign with a more "Ebberon-Like" understanding of alignments. In other campaigns that treat alignment more like the traditional straight-jacket it's putting PC's in a no-win situation. They get to choose whether or not their characters die or are forced to go on some quest to atone for acting against their alignment. I just think it's bad form if the point of the game is to have fun.