You don't have to hate hugging unicorns to be unimpressed with WotC's adventure output. I love hug-a-unicorn stuff and I'm still deeply unimpressed.That's great. I don't consider my preferences the sole taste of D&D. With the way most of the adventure content from Wizards of the Coast has failed to connect with me, I'm finally realizing that my preferences don't line up with the majority of D&D players.
It's a sort of bad spot to be in, honestly. When I'm not interested in the bulk of the official content, it feels like the hobby has moved on from me. Like if most D&D customers are getting excited about an adventure that can be won by hugging unicorns and befriending cuddly baby displacers (the newest Feywild adventure), I have to just enjoy what is there from the past and make my own fun.
So ... I don't know if this is the Mandela effect or what, but I remember a specific passage in the book saying "the sacrifices don't work." Like pretty much in those exact terms.Sigh.
I can assure you there is nothing in the book that says any form of sacrifice is working. It is really badly handled in the book. Not sure what Paul is smoking TBH
That's not the same thing. Burnside's statement is that the adventure text explicitly says the sacrifices aren't working. You're addressing whether the book explicitly says the sacrifices are working. There's a gap between those two statements.Sigh.
I can assure you there is nothing in the book that says any form of sacrifice is working. It is really badly handled in the book. Not sure what Paul is smoking TBH
There is no guidance on this matter.That's not the same thing. Burnside's statement is that the adventure text explicitly says the sacrifices aren't working. You're addressing whether the book explicitly says the sacrifices are working. There's a gap between those two statements.
The continuation of the disaster may imply the sacrifices aren't appeasing Auril enough to get her to stop, but that's not the same as explicitly not working at all. They may be staving off the disaster worsening further, they may be doing nothing at all other than showing a certain degree of faith, subservience, and piety (and, honestly, isn't that what all non-monetary sacrifices from foreskins to meat during Lent are truly about?).
No - it suggests they are not working since Auril is not appeased. The problem is this is badly developed..... as mentioned above, some GMs have posted how they have introduced a cult of Auril who are leading the sacrifices, led by frost druids. At low level, pcs will have to be careful of them (think The Wicker Man)....So ... I don't know if this is the Mandela effect or what, but I remember a specific passage in the book saying "the sacrifices don't work." Like pretty much in those exact terms.
I don't have the book with me at work, but I'm searching the text on Roll20 (which isn't the easiest to navigate, admittedly). The only reference I am see is "The town speakers (see the "Council of Speakers" sidebar below) have unanimously agreed to honor these practices, which they consider necessary evils, but would end them in a heartbeat if Auril were to be appeased or dealt with in some other way."
This infers that the sacrifices are indeed appeasing and "dealing with" Auril.
Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it's been revised where the human sacrifice is actually condoned in the newest edit of the adventure?
Later we get on p22No - it suggests they are not working since Auril is not appeased. The problem is this is badly developed..... as mentioned above, some GMs have posted how they have introduced a cult of Auril who are leading the sacrifices, led by frost druids. At low level, pcs will have to be careful of them (think The Wicker Man)....
And this is a shame, considering that human sacrifices are likely going to be a big deal for players of heroic characters. If the writers can't address it clearly (even if it's unclear if it works or not), that's a glaring oversight.There is no guidance on this matter.
What are the PCs going to do? Balk at helping the Ten Towns that feel they have been driven to institute human sacrifice as a desperation measure? It's not like they're gleefully murdering people to further their evil cult.And this is a shame, considering that human sacrifices are likely going to be a big deal for players of heroic characters. If the writers can't address it clearly (even if it's unclear if it works or not), that's a glaring oversight.
Why even put this in the adventure if you're not going to follow up with it? It's human sacrifice - in lawful towns!
Next thing you'll know they'll add in dogs and cats, living together and mass hysteria.
The pcs rock up as outsiders to the 10 Towns. One of the first things they can experience is a human sacrifice.What are the PCs going to do? Balk at helping the Ten Towns that feel they have been driven to institute human sacrifice as a desperation measure? It's not like they're gleefully murdering people to further their evil cult.
Human sacrifice is a Big Bad kinda thing!!What are the PCs going to do? Balk at helping the Ten Towns that feel they have been driven to institute human sacrifice as a desperation measure? It's not like they're gleefully murdering people to further their evil cult.
Yes. That's exactly what my group did.What are the PCs going to do? Balk at helping the Ten Towns that feel they have been driven to institute human sacrifice as a desperation measure? It's not like they're gleefully murdering people to further their evil cult.
I’m no defender of RotFM — it’s pretty bad — but I’d blame this one on some pretty darned lackluster role-playing in the part of the DM. And lackluster is a euphemism for awful.Yes. That's exactly what my group did.
Because the way it was written in the adventure.
"Why ... why are you doing this?" they ask.
"Uh ... we don't know. We guess it's helping," the Town Councilor responds.
"You guess?! You are f'ing murdering people!"
"Yeah, but it might work. We don't really have any proof."
Party huddles together. "Yeah, this guy is clearly insane or evil. Either way he needs to be disposed from power immediately!"
Kind of a rush to judgment there by your players - insane or evil. Not desperate? Because that's pretty much how it comes across as I read it in the adventure - they're absolutely desperate. They'd stop it if they had a better way... but they don't (until the PCs come ambling into town).Yes. That's exactly what my group did.
Because the way it was written in the adventure.
"Why ... why are you doing this?" they ask.
"Uh ... we don't know. We guess it's helping," the Town Councilor responds.
"You guess?! You are f'ing murdering people!"
"Yeah, but it might work. We don't really have any proof."
Party huddles together. "Yeah, this guy is clearly insane or evil. Either way he needs to be disposed from power immediately!"
KILL THE MAYOR!!!!
I would be amazed if 75% of every group playing this adventure didn't have the same reaction. Because that is what is logical to do in the framework of a heroic fantasy adventure game like D&D.
If you are a writer and you have the bald-faced nerve to try to put in "non-evil human sacrifice" and expect it to be only a minor issue in the adventure, you deserve to have your writer's card taken away. It's like casually adding that a lawful good town kidnaps children or practices slavery. Once you do that, and I don't care what alignment the writer puts in the stat block, you're evil - and you're the enemy of a good aligned party.
Putting in a casual "oh, yeah, and they practice human sacrifice" is basically the same issue as "oh, yeah, and there hasn't been a growing season or sunlight in two years." The writers don't think how this would matter in the reality of the characters as actual people. It's as if they didn't even try to present the setting as a real, vibrant place.
It is a bad module. I'm really coming around to that now. I used to just say "it's flawed," but no - I think I can emphatically say "it's bad."
Having a bona fide evil cult running it would weaken the sense of desperation the Ten Towners are feeling.The pcs rock up as outsiders to the 10 Towns. One of the first things they can experience is a human sacrifice.
I wish I had handled it better - retrospectively I wish I had the Cult of Auril running it. The event nearly put the pcs off helping the 10 Towns.... fortunately I got them back on track.
Since I was the DM in that example, how would you have done it differently? You know, since I'm an awful DM, you can give me pointers.I’m no defender of RotFM — it’s pretty bad — but I’d blame this one on some pretty darned lackluster role-playing in the part of the DM. And lackluster is a euphemism for awful.
Uh. When you start killing people for no reason, no proof that it's doing any good, there's no good-aligned reason for you to be able to continue being in power. If you are so desperate that you just start killing people (and there's what - three towns of the ten that just decided they'd start killing their own townsfolk) I don't think you deserve to stay in power anymore.Kind of a rush to judgment there by your players - insane or evil. Not desperate? Because that's pretty much how it comes across as I read it in the adventure - they're absolutely desperate. They'd stop it if they had a better way... but they don't (until the PCs come ambling into town).
Maybe part of the problem here is people putting WAY too much emphasis on alignment expectations. Being Lawful Good doesn't mean bad things don't happen on your watch - particularly if you don't feel you have a choice. And that shouldn't really exclude you from receiving help to end the situation that forces you to make those sacrifices.
And this is where being in the closed playtest programme can get a bit frustrating. I know I pointed out in my feedback that the "two years without sunlight" thing was nonsensical, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one, yet they chose to leave it in for some reason. (I also recall that we gave them some extensive feedback on how to improve the races included in Volo's and yet they were published almost entirely unchanged.)Putting in a casual "oh, yeah, and they practice human sacrifice" is basically the same issue as "oh, yeah, and there hasn't been a growing season or sunlight in two years." The writers don't think how this would matter in the reality of the characters as actual people. It's as if they didn't even try to present the setting as a real, vibrant place.
It is a bad module. I'm really coming around to that now. I used to just say "it's flawed," but no - I think I can emphatically say "it's bad."
Oops, sorry. You’re not an awful DM! But that interaction with the NPC was awful.Since I was the DM in that example, how would you have done it differently? You know, since I'm an awful DM, you can give me pointers.
[Granted the situation I quoted was very much simplified for the sake of brevity in this thread.]
If I recall properly, most everyone is participating, aren’t they? Via the lotteries? They’re convinced. They won’t stop just because the mayor is voted out of office (or slain by adventurers).Uh. When you start killing people for no reason, no proof that it's doing any good, there's no good-aligned reason for you to be able to continue being in power. If you are so desperate that you just start killing people (and there's what - three towns of the ten that just decided they'd start killing their own townsfolk) I don't think you deserve to stay in power anymore.