airwalkrr
Adventurer
Spoiler Alert!
If you are currently a player in a Shackled City campaign you might want to just skip this entire thread.
You've been warned.
TL;DR version: Is it okay to change a background secret of the campaign which a player has figured out, regardless of how spurious the player's evidence is or how silly the secret as written is?
So I have been wrestling with this, and wanted to ask some fellow players and DMs what they think. For those who are not in the know, one of the chief villains of the first half of this campaign is a beholder who masquerades as a member of the nobility in the city of Cauldron, where the campaign is based. The beholder makes an ominous appearance in the very first chapter of the campaign as a beholder, call it a cameo appearance. But the PCs learn scant little about him at this point. He shows up to whisk a child away for "safe-keeping." Anyway, all of that is beside the point.
The point is the PCs know from the very beginning of the campaign that there is a beholder in Cauldron, but they don't know where he is. Now, I have refrained from using his full name in my campaign, that of "Orbius Vhalantru" because it is just too obvious. I always refer to him simply as "Lord Vhalantru." The PCs are 13th level and have met Lord Vhalantru at several points now. One of the PCs has even gone into business with him. Because of their level they are expecting to run into the beholder literally any moment. And one of the players has figured it out (more on that later).
Now I have never given the PCs any real solid clues as to who the beholder is. That is because all of the important players in Cauldron have secrets to hide, whether they are good guys or bad guys, and they have the means to keep those secrets pretty well. Now the PCs know one thing for certain: Vhalantru is a bad guy. They have recently learned that he gave the order to have them killed. And they are about to deal with it. And when they do, the time of truth will arrive.
You see, this whole time I have kept the Vhalantru/beholder identity under tight wraps because to be frank, I always felt it was a little to obvious myself, not to mention ridiculous. The explanation is that the beholder has an item that casts an illusion to make him seem human. I find it hard to believe that for someone in the public eye as much as Vhalantru, not one person has ever pierced his illusion in one way (successful Will save) or another (true seeing). So I have kept an alternative explanation tucked away and now is the time when I need to decide whether or not to use it. The alternative explanation is that "the beholder" is actually the Lord Mayor, who has been missing for a few months (and guess who stepped in to take his place, Vhalantru). This explanation works perfectly because prior to encountering him, the beholder has been away tending to matters with the evil Cagewrights, a group plotting to open a permanent gate to Carceri (in my campaign, it is Xoriat because I have set it in Eberron). If the Lord Mayor is the beholder, this explains why the Lord Mayor might have gone missing. And if Vhalantru is just another noble, he could have easily been charmed by the beholder and forced to make a lot of bad decisions, like trying to have the party killed and raising taxes to pay for the Cagewrights' plans, especially if Vhalantru is an otherwise self-serving type individual (and most nobles are). Vhalantru might not be a paragon of virtue, but he's not necessarily a bad guy, a beholder has charmed him and brought out the worst in him and used him for his purposes.
So here is where the ethical dilemma comes in. As I mentioned earlier, one of the players has figured it out, so to speak. He doesn't really have any good reason. Every session he reiterates his position (and he has done this since the first session he heard the name "Vhalantru"): "Vhalantru must be the beholder because only a beholder would be named Vhalantru." That's his evidence right there. He rarely, if ever, points to anything else. Even some of the other players doubt him because they think it is silly to make accusations based on such "logic." I know all of the players pretty well. We sometimes hang out outside of gaming. None of the players (the one who guessed it included) has ever subscribed to Dungeon or purchased the Shackled City campaign book. So I am relatively certain they don't have any "insider information." In other words, they would never know the difference if I change the beholder and make it the Lord Mayor who "disappeared." But I would know that I took what might seem like an "I knew it!" moment away from a player.
So what do you think I should do? Go with the campaign as written and keep the silly "Orbius Vhalantru is a beholder!" moment but give the player his moment to feel gratified? Or go with the alternative explanation which I feel makes more sense?
If you are currently a player in a Shackled City campaign you might want to just skip this entire thread.
You've been warned.
TL;DR version: Is it okay to change a background secret of the campaign which a player has figured out, regardless of how spurious the player's evidence is or how silly the secret as written is?
So I have been wrestling with this, and wanted to ask some fellow players and DMs what they think. For those who are not in the know, one of the chief villains of the first half of this campaign is a beholder who masquerades as a member of the nobility in the city of Cauldron, where the campaign is based. The beholder makes an ominous appearance in the very first chapter of the campaign as a beholder, call it a cameo appearance. But the PCs learn scant little about him at this point. He shows up to whisk a child away for "safe-keeping." Anyway, all of that is beside the point.
The point is the PCs know from the very beginning of the campaign that there is a beholder in Cauldron, but they don't know where he is. Now, I have refrained from using his full name in my campaign, that of "Orbius Vhalantru" because it is just too obvious. I always refer to him simply as "Lord Vhalantru." The PCs are 13th level and have met Lord Vhalantru at several points now. One of the PCs has even gone into business with him. Because of their level they are expecting to run into the beholder literally any moment. And one of the players has figured it out (more on that later).
Now I have never given the PCs any real solid clues as to who the beholder is. That is because all of the important players in Cauldron have secrets to hide, whether they are good guys or bad guys, and they have the means to keep those secrets pretty well. Now the PCs know one thing for certain: Vhalantru is a bad guy. They have recently learned that he gave the order to have them killed. And they are about to deal with it. And when they do, the time of truth will arrive.
You see, this whole time I have kept the Vhalantru/beholder identity under tight wraps because to be frank, I always felt it was a little to obvious myself, not to mention ridiculous. The explanation is that the beholder has an item that casts an illusion to make him seem human. I find it hard to believe that for someone in the public eye as much as Vhalantru, not one person has ever pierced his illusion in one way (successful Will save) or another (true seeing). So I have kept an alternative explanation tucked away and now is the time when I need to decide whether or not to use it. The alternative explanation is that "the beholder" is actually the Lord Mayor, who has been missing for a few months (and guess who stepped in to take his place, Vhalantru). This explanation works perfectly because prior to encountering him, the beholder has been away tending to matters with the evil Cagewrights, a group plotting to open a permanent gate to Carceri (in my campaign, it is Xoriat because I have set it in Eberron). If the Lord Mayor is the beholder, this explains why the Lord Mayor might have gone missing. And if Vhalantru is just another noble, he could have easily been charmed by the beholder and forced to make a lot of bad decisions, like trying to have the party killed and raising taxes to pay for the Cagewrights' plans, especially if Vhalantru is an otherwise self-serving type individual (and most nobles are). Vhalantru might not be a paragon of virtue, but he's not necessarily a bad guy, a beholder has charmed him and brought out the worst in him and used him for his purposes.
So here is where the ethical dilemma comes in. As I mentioned earlier, one of the players has figured it out, so to speak. He doesn't really have any good reason. Every session he reiterates his position (and he has done this since the first session he heard the name "Vhalantru"): "Vhalantru must be the beholder because only a beholder would be named Vhalantru." That's his evidence right there. He rarely, if ever, points to anything else. Even some of the other players doubt him because they think it is silly to make accusations based on such "logic." I know all of the players pretty well. We sometimes hang out outside of gaming. None of the players (the one who guessed it included) has ever subscribed to Dungeon or purchased the Shackled City campaign book. So I am relatively certain they don't have any "insider information." In other words, they would never know the difference if I change the beholder and make it the Lord Mayor who "disappeared." But I would know that I took what might seem like an "I knew it!" moment away from a player.
So what do you think I should do? Go with the campaign as written and keep the silly "Orbius Vhalantru is a beholder!" moment but give the player his moment to feel gratified? Or go with the alternative explanation which I feel makes more sense?
