Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1880425" data-attributes="member: 18280">Hmmm.  I imagine that a Lawful Evil or a Lawful Neutral character might not have a problem with what occurred, but I doubt that would be the case were the character Lawful Good.  According to Ambrus, the PCs and the Cardinal worked out the details of the contract, and the details of the contract did not include the Geas.  It was hidden.  It was not part of the contract.  Plain and simple.Moreover, I will go so far as to suspect that it was not made part of the contract because Ambrus knew that his players would balk at accepting it.  Why?  Because almost every player out there balks at accepting magical compulsion.  Anyone who says they're surprised that the players are upset over having their characters magicallly compelled either hasn't been playing that long, or isn't being completely honest (though perhaps they are only fooling themselves).  It is my opinion that Ambrus has been playing for a while.Dropping X gp as a reward?  Well, that's nice, but it isn't necessarily a reason to trust people.  I've worked for companies that dropped nice Holiday Bonuses but took you up the backside during the remainder of the year.  In real-world terms, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are more important than any temporary monetary gains.  In my opinion, this holds true in fantasy games as well.What the Abbess did essentially boils down to:  "I don't trust you, because I have met so many people in this world who cannot be trusted.  And, guess what?  I cannot be trusted either."It is perfectly fine to have the Abbess be a bleeping bleeping so-and-so.  It is perfectly fine to have the gnomes be bleeping bleeping so-and-sos.  It is perfectly fine to have the gnomes steal the treasure simply because the PCs made it so damn easy.But having the majority of NPCs turn out to be bleeping bleeping so-and-sos creates a world where the PCs are forced to be the same simply to survive.  If that is what the DM is going for, then I suppose there isn't any real problem.  But it isn't a realistic simulation.  It certainly isn't realistic within my experience.  Games theory has looked at cooperative strategies, and would suggest that this constant betrayal of trust is a very poor social stategy for any world, fantasy or real.And, yet, I agree with this.  Don't admit that you're wrong, Ambrus.  Simply ask yourself:  "Who are my PCs supposed to care about?  Who are my PCs supposed to trust?  Who is worth questing for (without a Geas)?  Who is worth dying for?"  If you can answer those questions (or, better, your players can), then I am getting the wrong idea from what I've read, and your players are just whiny.If you can't, though, it's far, far better to provide those answers in the future than it is to ret-con the past.  Easy enough to say, "You were in CITYSTATE?  Never will you find a more wretched hive of scum and villiany...." RC</blockquote>

Verification