PDA

View Full Version : Paladins fall, everyone dies



quick_comment
2009-07-16, 02:30 PM
Im thinking of running a 1 shot game where everyone has to play exalted character or paladins, and the entire point of the game would be I try to make them fall. Maybe make this game a prelude to an evil campaign

Not the utterly absurd "you just bought a drink from an evil man, you fall"

but ranging from actual moral dilemmas to semi-absurd things like "you spent so much money at the arms dealer that you have caused massive inflation in this town, leading to collapse of the economic system, chaos, crime and starvation. You should have thought out the consequences of your actions. You fall"

Obviously the feat that lets you know if a given action would cause you to fall would be banned.

Does anyone have ideas for this/does this sound fun?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-16, 02:31 PM
but ranging from actual moral dilemmas to semi-absurd things like "you spent so much money at the arms dealer that you have caused massive inflation in this town, leading to collapse of the economic system, chaos, crime and starvation. You should have thought out the consequences of your actions. You fall"
Those greedy capitalist pig dogs and their decadent free market economics!


Does anyone have ideas for this/does this sound fun?

About as fun as reading the Enquirer.

Mongoose87
2009-07-16, 02:35 PM
I think your players will lynch you. I know I, for one, would smack you with a halibut.

quick_comment
2009-07-16, 02:36 PM
I think your players will lynch you. I know I, for one, would smack you with a halibut.

Just in case its not clear, they would all know ahead of time. It would probably be run online anyway.

Lolzords
2009-07-16, 02:36 PM
Does anyone have ideas for this/does this sound fun?

Honestly? No, it doesn't sound fun in the slightest. I imagine that the DM sits there giggling while everyone else is fed up.

JMobius
2009-07-16, 02:38 PM
The bizarre sport some GMs seem to make out of trying to provoke paladins to fall is something I've never quite been able to wrap my head around. I really appreciate the classic noble hero archetype, and were I to play such a character having it purposefully and intentionally subverted without prior consent would make me not want to bother coming back.

Ravens_cry
2009-07-16, 02:38 PM
Well, with the right group, this could be fun. But then, with the 'right' group an enjoyable game of FATAL can be had. So I would say, unless your players are up to it, no, no way in hells should any DM attempt this.

Fixer
2009-07-16, 02:39 PM
Given that the GM intends on having the characters fall, possesses all the power in the game universe to cause the characters to fall, and is the ultimate judge of whether or not the actions of the characters cause them to fall, I see no fun in it whatsoever. It is a railroad plot with the players as spectators.

AmberVael
2009-07-16, 02:40 PM
Well, the idea of playing a paladin who I knew was going to fall could be fun...
But not if I fell for something absurd. The situation you put up there? No. I wouldn't buy that. I'd want my character to fall for very legitimate reasons.

Mordokai
2009-07-16, 02:40 PM
I think your players will lynch you. I know I, for one, would smack you with a halibut.

Oh hell yeah!

First of all, railroading your players into playing a particular class is bad enough to start with. Especially if it's class as unlikeable as paladin. But if you're doing it only so you can screw the players by making them fall later on... well, lets just say you deserve everything you get from the players side.

FoE
2009-07-16, 02:41 PM
"you spent so much money at the arms dealer that you have caused massive inflation in this town, leading to collapse of the economic system, chaos, crime and starvation. You should have thought out the consequences of your actions. You fall"

DIABOLUS EX MACHINA! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DiabolusExMachina)

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-16, 02:43 PM
Gonna agree with Fixer and Raven's Cry (except that part about FATAL - it's mere presence in a 15 mile radius is unenjoyable!) - you're essentially looking at something that would require a *very* narrow type of personality to play.

The only way I see it working is as a slapstick comedy campaign; where Paladins fall/atone/fall/atone repeatedly.

Trying to play it straight however would likely leave you with a group of dissatisfied players OR a dissatisfied DM (since said players managed to avoid falling). If the players know they're supposed to fall... well why not just write the fall into their backstory and play an evil campaign instead?

--

Also in relation to the 2nd post:

I so want to roll a paladin with a Hammer and Sickle now.

*trades Smite Evil for Smite Capitalist Swine*

quick_comment
2009-07-16, 02:47 PM
The only way I see it working is as a slapstick comedy campaign; where Paladins fall/atone/fall/atone repeatedly.

Thats basically the idea I was going for. Not any sort of high fantasy campaign.

hamishspence
2009-07-16, 02:49 PM
Some variants have an intermediate area between Fall and No Fall.

Partial Fall. I.E. for a minor breach of the code (whether evil or not) you lose some, but not all, of the benefits of the class, for a short period.

Quintessenial Paladin 2 has this variant- might be more fun than full Falls.

Steward
2009-07-16, 02:50 PM
That could be fun. Not for me personally, but I can see how you could make it fun and interesting, especially if you're upfront about the point and you're reasonable about it so it doesn't feel as if you're running the whole game and the players are just watching from the sidelines.

Frosty
2009-07-16, 02:50 PM
If I were a player I'd just kill a baby and fall immediately so we can get the next evil campaign started.

Mongoose87
2009-07-16, 02:51 PM
Thats basically the idea I was going for. Not any sort of high fantasy campaign.

You need to make clearer that it's comedy. To me, it just sounded like you wanted to center a campaign around being a jerk.

AstralFire
2009-07-16, 02:51 PM
I think I'd play it. I got a very slapstick feel from the opening post, myself - everyone saying he's a horriblebadmean person should note that this would be the premise of the game, and the players would be in on it. Problem is, it will be very taxing on the DM to come up with more and more complex situations that could potentially cause a player to fall without resorting to fiat.


You need to make clearer that it's comedy. To me, it just sounded like you wanted to center a campaign around being a jerk.


Just in case its not clear, they would all know ahead of time. It would probably be run online anyway.

You mean like that? I know your first post was before his second, but still. :P

Ravens_cry
2009-07-16, 03:24 PM
--

Also in relation to the 2nd post:

I so want to roll a paladin with a Hammer and Sickle now.

*trades Smite Evil for Smite Capitalist Swine*
Oh gods,that sounds awesome.
Hail the Revolution, Comrade!

13_CBS
2009-07-16, 03:38 PM
I'd actually be quite interested in playing such a game--to make a character, then, with the DM's help, watch him break into pieces over a period of time.

Quietus
2009-07-16, 03:43 PM
I think I'd play it. I got a very slapstick feel from the opening post, myself - everyone saying he's a horriblebadmean person should note that this would be the premise of the game, and the players would be in on it. Problem is, it will be very taxing on the DM to come up with more and more complex situations that could potentially cause a player to fall without resorting to fiat.

This. Since the players are in on it, and it's been stated that it will be a "one shot" game... that makes it pretty clear to me that it's just a way to goof off and have some slapsticky fun. And I'd be willing to give it a shot, as a one-shot.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-16, 03:44 PM
I am firmly behind this idea - because that is the only way to stab it in the back.

Eldariel
2009-07-16, 03:45 PM
It sorta sounds like Paranoia. So make sure the players have the right mindset. It'd be ****ing awesome! Paranoia is ****ing awesome too as long as the players keep a lighthearted atmosphere.

So yeah, as long as players realize that they will fall sooner or later and they might fall for the most ridiculous reasons, it becomes a sorta "who falls last"-contest; they might even play each other to fall OOC. Yeah, I'd play that! It'll also be ridiculously fun just to hear the reasons you fell for, just like the it's awesome to be told which treason you just commited in Paranoia.

hamishspence
2009-07-16, 03:57 PM
I'd actually be quite interested in playing such a game--to make a character, then, with the DM's help, watch him break into pieces over a period of time.

Abaddon, the Villain in the story sidebars of Quintessenial Paladin 2 (who sort of redeems himself at the end) has some interesting words to say on difficult choices:


"Do you know why I fell, Sir Knight? Why I am... what was the catechism: 'marked with the seals of shame, vengeance, and anathema'?"

"The knowledge is irrelevant. I can sense your taint, Abaddon."

"I followed the code blindly. I lived and breathed the code. Its words were engraved onto my heart, onto my soul. My every act was in perfect concordance with the teachings of angels, with every example and great deed of the heroes of legend. I moved in a living saga; I was the perfect knight."

"Impossible."

"To live by the code alone is to be a blind man. Such a man may do quite well on familiar ground, where he knows how many steps are between the door and the wall, between the jug of water and the poisoned chalice. But put the blind man in a strange land and he is lost."

Abaddon blinked, his eyes watering. "They knew the code too- the enemies of my family. I followed the code letter for letter, like a puppet dancing to their commands. They laid traps for me, forced me into untenable positions."

He looked at Aelfric with a sudden expression of anguish.

"I did everything right, just like you're doing, and it all lead to sorrow. It broke me- they broke me and I listened to the voices in the night. That is the road that lead me to this place. I never broke the code until I had nothing left but the code!"

"What do you want, fallen one?" asked Aelfric. "Absolution?"

"Yes." said Abaddon.

Outside, in the courtyard, the necromancers hissed all at once. The ogres looked up in confusion, feeling as though a cloud had passed in the clear sky. One cleric fell back, her eyes buring with green flame as her dark commune carried the mounting anger of the lords of hell. A fiendish crow took to the sky in sudden panic.

"I cannot forgive one such as you, Sir Abaddon. If that is why you let me live, it shall avail you not."

"No," said the blackguard in a rush of sudden revelation, "I let you live so you could fulfill an oath."

aivanther
2009-07-16, 04:06 PM
If you bill this as "playing out your background", a sort of prequel to the actual campaign, this could actually be really fun, with your players and you sculpting something interesting. If you are just running exalted and secretly trying to make them fall, this has disaster written all over it.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-07-16, 04:17 PM
The thing about throwing moral dilemmas out there to challenge your paladins against failing is, you can't be absurd.
If there is a consequence they can't logically have foreseen then it wouldn't have been their fault and you can't fault them.
If you want to put them in a moral dilemma, think of something actually tough:
Having just slain a lich you learn of his source of power, a curse upon the land that would trigger upon his death. Having just slain him you unleash a poison upon the land, the water is tainted, the crops won't grow, and the live stick is dying. There are two ways to subvert it: Kill the king's new born (the king is young and can have another), or slay 6 children.
Here's the major crux of the issue, slaying the king's son could potentially bring a war upon the land. But slaying the other six children will definitely put an atonement burden on you, and you will be cast from the town and killed on sight.
Which path do you take?
Both option have major draw backs and the paladins have to commit an act that is blatantly evil to save a greater number of people.
Killing the king's son could bring war upon the land, but that may just be a risk the king is (with a heavy heart) willing to take. After all, he can then enlist the paladins in the war.
Killing the six children will of course be the bigger body count, but the king doesn't lose an heir, you risk no war, and you are able to properly atone for the act that had to be taken.

The danger of them losing their paladin status? Role playing. Role playing is the major key here. They'll need to consider the options, discuss with the king and the people all the options, and the great part is, is they will have to become hated for the greater good. The best part about a paladin, is to be a paladin, you have to carry a heavy burden. Absurd things only confuse the players and can make them hate the DM. If they know the hook of the game is to keep their paladin status as long as possible, you don't want them to sit inside a monastery killing low level goblins, they're going to have to spend a lot of money, they're going to have to do a lot of things. And you'll want them to, but you don't want to punish them for simply doing what is necessary to survive in the game.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-16, 04:29 PM
Which path do you take?
.

Neither. Resettling people would be a fairly easy task for a mid-to-high level party of the type fighting powerful liches. Move them off the land, and then go on a quest to find good-aligned mid/high level casters. Enlist their help to remove the curse. If it's especially powerful, plane-shift over to a higher plane and get celestial help. It might take an adventure or two, and proving your intentions but it's a reasonable course of action.

If the DM makes it impossible to move the people and goes "HAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH YOU GOTTA KILL Sum KiDz! CuZ iI say Loli! U Fall N MATTER WAT CUZ ITZ DA SUPER CURS DAT CENAT BE REMOVed By NO One LOLOlolol! U FallllLL!1"

Then you stop playing. Because that DM wants to be on a power trip, not create a game that's fun to play.

13_CBS
2009-07-16, 04:30 PM
Abaddon, the Villain in the story sidebars of Quintessenial Paladin 2 (who sort of redeems himself at the end) has some interesting words to say on difficult choices:


"Do you know why I fell, Sir Knight? Why I am... what was the catechism: 'marked with the seals of shame, vengeance, and anathema'?"

"The knowledge is irrelevant. I can sense your taint, Abaddon."

"I followed the code blindly. I lived and breathed the code. Its words were engraved onto my heart, onto my soul. My every act was in perfect concordance with the teachings of angels, with every example and great deed of the heroes of legend. I moved in a living saga; I was the perfect knight."

"Impossible."

"To live by the code alone is to be a blind man. Such a man may do quite well on familiar ground, where he knows how many steps are between the door and the wall, between the jug of water and the poisoned chalice. But put the blind man in a strange land and he is lost."

Abaddon blinked, his eyes watering. "They knew the code too- the enemies of my family. I followed the code letter for letter, like a puppet dancing to their commands. They laid traps for me, forced me into untenable positions."

He looked at Aelfric with a sudden expression of anguish.

"I did everything right, just like you're doing, and it all lead to sorrow. It broke me- they broke me and I listened to the voices in the night. That is the road that lead me to this place. I never broke the code until I had nothing left but the code!"

"What do you want, fallen one?" asked Aelfric. "Absolution?"

"Yes." said Abaddon.

Outside, in the courtyard, the necromancers hissed all at once. The ogres looked up in confusion, feeling as though a cloud had passed in the clear sky. One cleric fell back, her eyes buring with green flame as her dark commune carried the mounting anger of the lords of hell. A fiendish crow took to the sky in sudden panic.

"I cannot forgive one such as you, Sir Abaddon. If that is why you let me live, it shall avail you not."

"No," said the blackguard in a rush of sudden revelation, "I let you live so you could fulfill an oath."


And that's precisely a character I'd like to play :smallbiggrin:

I really don't mind my characters having horrible endings: at the moment I'm playing in one where I pretty much know (from a metagaming perspective) that my character will go horribly, horribly insane. The DM told me flat out that this would happen.

When he said that to me, I merely grinned and welcomed the news with open arms. :smallamused:

Perhaps it's because I view my D&D characters more as characters in a story, but I don't particularly mind what happens to them as long as it's interesting. I'll get ticked, of course, if they get shafted for stupid reasons ("rocks fall you die lol") but as long as what happens is interesting, they could go mad and be tortured for all of eternity in hell for all I care. :smallbiggrin:

AstralFire
2009-07-16, 04:30 PM
The thing about throwing moral dilemmas out there to challenge your paladins against failing is, you can't be absurd.

Comedy game where falling is the intent of the game.

Vaynor
2009-07-16, 04:33 PM
I could see this being fun if the paladins had all fallen before the game started and the point of the game was to redeem yourself. Might make an interesting plot.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-07-16, 04:34 PM
Neither. Resettling people would be a fairly easy task for a mid-to-high level party of the type fighting powerful liches. Move them off the land, and then go on a quest to find good-aligned mid/high level casters. Enlist their help to remove the curse. If it's especially powerful, plane-shift over to a higher plane and get celestial help.

If the DM makes it impossible to move the people and goes "HAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH YOU GOTTA KILL Sum! CuZ iI say Loli! U Fall N MATTER WAT CUZ ITZ DA SUPER CURS DAT CENAT BE REMOVed By NO One LOLOlolol! U FallllLL!1"

Then you stop playing. Because that DM wants to be on a power trip, not create a game that's fun to play.
The point is that those are the only options. The idea is that they either don't have the time/resources to seek another option, that the curse is fueled by plot power (seriously, in a game trying to test paladins plot power is everywhere), or that the curse isn't just affecting some small area.
I ran this scenario 4 times, and only once did the paladins actually fall. And they fell because they outright hired an assassin to kill the king's son.
Smart players whom are looking for an interesting role playing experience will enjoy it, people whom are just looking to role dice will most often do everything in their power to circumnavigate the solutions, everyone else will just get a headache.
It's not a scenario you run unless you're actually trying to test your group, and Catch-22 situations aren't always bad times for the players as most people seem to think. It just takes a good DM.

Riffington
2009-07-16, 04:36 PM
If they manage to die before falling, does that count as a win?

/also, horror games where everyone will die (or go mad) by the end of the game can certainly be fun. I don't see why this couldn't as well.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-07-16, 04:37 PM
Comedy game where falling is the intent of the game.

Then just run Call of Cthulu, it will be more fun for everyone :smallbiggrin:.


If they manage to die before falling, does that count as a win?

/also, horror games where everyone will die (or go mad) by the end of the game can certainly be fun. I don't see why this couldn't as well.

Die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. :smallbiggrin:

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-16, 04:49 PM
This is not such a bad idea since all the players will be on it.

One way to make it interesting is to make it tongue-in-cheeck as some have suggested.

A couple of other ways to make it interesting is to stand the premise on its head.

That is, your premise is that in the characters fall in this one-shot provides the background for an evil campaign. Instead of that make it a game of Evil.

1st option -- Iron Chef Evil The characters don't fall into evil. They have to race each other into it.

Instead of starting with innocent characters who get tempted/corrupted, start with good/neutral characters that are already leaning towards alignment change. But to become truly Evil and not just run of the mill fallen heroes, they have to get the attention of the powers that be. So the succubus is not tempting the paladin but testing him. How far will he go in the name of Evil. Problem number #1 is what to do that is evil enough for this test. Sure the paladin could murder 20 level 1 commoners. That's not Evil. Evil is looking for the blackguard that can kill the good, and heavily defended, priest of Heroineus. Problem #2 is that character #2 is also competing with the paladin for Evil. And there its a real competition, because the winner gets some real nifty Evil bonus from the masters of Evil (a feat, magic item, etc.). And just to insure no "cheating" goes on, the rules of Iron Chef Evil state that the PCs can't kill each other during the game.

Option Numero Dos -- Survivor Evil You can be evil, if you survive.

You start your not so innocent heroes in a tavern to meet their Evil contact. The characters all sign a deal with the devil (a literal D&D devil). The contract stipulates that by agreeing to serve this master, Dis (or whatever other evil power you choose), they get certain benefits. YOu can actually write out the contract. At the some point write, "Full benefits cannot be gained until the new employee has completed his probation period. The probation period shall last no longer than 1 month or until such a time as the new employee gains of a new power designation [read character level] in his primary field of expertise [read character class]. Then BOOM. The heroes are evil and set of good heroes burst in to try to capture them. The devil teleports out but not before saying, "Congratulations and good luck. You're going to need it." The PCs are beset by good creatures until they gain a level. [If you have to explain how the devil all these good creatures are after the now Evil anti-heroes, you can just explain that the devil in disguise is turning you in to any and all would be foes of evil until you pass the "probationary" period.]

Mr.Moron
2009-07-16, 04:59 PM
The point is that those are the only options.
The idea is that they either don't have the time/resources to seek another option, that the curse is fueled by plot power (seriously, in a game trying to test paladins plot power is everywhere), or that the curse isn't just affecting some small area.


I'm sorry but I read this and I keep hearing

"They can't because I say they can't. Even if they come up with a solution that would otherwise be 100% viable, it won't work because nothing but those two things can work. Just because"

I'm really trying hard to find a different way to interpret that, but it's all I can get out of it. Parties at the level where they'd be dealing with liches who operate on that scale have amazing amounts of resources. There needs to be a much better explanation than just "No You can't, because you can't". This scenario reads more like the script for a movie with an alternate ending on the DVD than it does a real game with choices.



Smart players whom are looking for an interesting role playing experience will enjoy it, people whom are just looking to role dice will most often do everything in their power to circumnavigate the solutions, everyone else will just get a headache.


How in the world is trying to find a solution a that DOESN'T involve the slaughter of the innocent not good roleplaying? Any paladin worth their salt would try to circumnavigate those circumstances, they're horrible.

The wording of this paragraph

"Smart players whom are looking for an interesting roleplaying experience will enjoy it..."

implies anyone who tries to take a 3rd option is an idiot who only wants to play a numbers game and make everyone else miserable. Since it explicitly says that if they were smart or role players they'd be perfectly content to stay in these two little boxes no matter what.

I really don't want to have to drop the "R" word here...

Oslecamo
2009-07-16, 05:05 PM
I suport the idea that this campaign would be much more enjoyable if the players actually gained something from becoming evil.

1-Characters start as veteran good heros that just saved the world and everythin "seems" fine.

2-But the land they've just saved starts to show it's own bad side. The people start abusing the good will of the adventurers.

3-Corrupt politics raise to power and before the heros eyes the inocent land they helped to save is becoming an evil nation now bent on conquering the nearby lands.

4-The people scream for the heros to become their new avatars and strike terror on the hearth of their enemies.

5-The characters now either have to stop the deluded masses by force, or give it on the temptation and start conquering other cities. There's no "good" solution.

6-?

7-Profit.

9mm
2009-07-16, 05:18 PM
if the players know and like the idea, then fine; if they don't and you have them walk into a room where a successful spot check will forcibly change alignment, you deserve every ounce of the beating your players will dish out.

ZeroNumerous
2009-07-16, 05:30 PM
I don't understand why everyone is taking the OP at face value. Frankly, it's kind of embarrassing. His opening post contains socio-economics in a game where you can break any economy with a single spell(multiple spells if you're too low level). It obviously wasn't serious, and frankly would take a stretch of the imagination or a knee-jerk reaction to assume that it was indeed serious.


About as fun as reading the Enquirer.

The Enquirer is hilarious. This idea and that magazine gets my vote.

Indon
2009-07-16, 05:43 PM
"you spent so much money at the arms dealer that you have caused massive inflation in this town, leading to collapse of the economic system, chaos, crime and starvation. You should have thought out the consequences of your actions. You fall"

This would be a horrible way to make people fall.

You should offer them legitimate moral challenges - and let them know what would make them fall. The idea would be to cause circumstances that make the characters' keeping to their vows absolutely absurd even if they know the consequences.

Example: a Vow of Peace character who would want to help defend a village from something immune to nonlethal damage. If the VoPeace character does anything to facilitate killing the enemy, he falls, and tell him so. He can watch the villagers (who refuse to flee, and insist on standing and fighting for their homes) get slaughtered or he can fall, and he should know precisely that he is in an absurd moral circumstance.

Make him curse you for placing him in that circumstance - and make his character curse the gods for being cruel and fickle beings that put challenges before him that force him to choose between the purity of his vows and the unspoken laws of the adventurer.

It doesn't need to be comedy. It could be a serious and thought-provoking analysis of morality, both within D&D and beyond it.

...Just don't let them play Batman casters. That "third option" thing trivializes the moral aspect of the game in favor of an amusing but not nearly as interesting lateral thinking subgame.

herrhauptmann
2009-07-16, 06:18 PM
I'm with Indon on this.
Socio-economic falling might work if they worshipped a god of money/trade.

But this is as ridiculous as using this years oil prices to debate the cost of a pint of lamp oil.

Perhaps they've been tasked with clearing out a mine of monsters. Midway through getting their butts kicked, the monsters reveal hostages and request a parley.
The paladins can proceed to kill the monsters, but the hostages will die.
Or the paladins can parley, suffer ostracism for failing to kill the monsters, maybe even excommunication. (Note: Excommunication doesn't mean they've 'fallen' regarding class abilities)

Alternatively, they can parley, get the hostages back safe, then break their word and kill the monsters. Causing them to fall.
This gets worse if the leader of the monsters is something irrevocably evil, say orcs, orogs, led by an Eye of Grummsh. Then they might fall just for allowing something evil to continue to exist.

The above situation, if you keep throw it at the PCs, will get old very fast.

AstralFire
2009-07-16, 06:40 PM
Is anyone berating him for being mean and unfair to his PCs actually reading the thread?

I'm not sure, either, why this has to be some deep (and very often retread on this very board, and others like it) 'philosophical' delve into the D&D alignment system, either. What's wrong with comedy?

Tiki Snakes
2009-07-16, 06:53 PM
I've always been interested in single-class-party games. And the idea of a 'can you survive the Evil DM's tricks' style campaign is one that I am at least vaguely interested in also, (as long as there is either the promise of potentially 'winning' the scenario and not falling, or the fact that everyone WILL fall has been agreed beforehand and is all up-front.)

Some people are just a bit Captain Kirk in situations like the above. Sometimes, you just have to accept that there really are only two choices, and that both of them DO suck. You can't always rely on finding higher level npc's to fix things for you, or getting large numbers of people to do as you want (even if it is for their own safety).

Sometimes you just have to make the choice, and deal with the consequences.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-16, 06:56 PM
Is anyone berating him for being mean and unfair to his PCs actually reading the thread?

I'm not sure, either, why this has to be some deep (and very often retread on this very board, and others like it) 'philosophical' delve into the D&D alignment system, either. What's wrong with comedy?

I'm not 100% sure who this is directed at.

My comments at least aren't direct at this OP. His scenario is fine, and sounds like it could be fun if everyone is on board. "falling in silly ways" is a fine game theme.

I was simply taking issue with something another poster had brought up.

AstralFire
2009-07-16, 06:57 PM
Wasn't directed at you. More of a general statement. :)

Elfin
2009-07-16, 07:04 PM
Sounds pretty fun to me, making a character and watching them break. If you're doing it, I'm in.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-07-16, 07:31 PM
I'm sorry but I read this and I keep hearing

"They can't because I say they can't. Even if they come up with a solution that would otherwise be 100% viable, it won't work because nothing but those two things can work. Just because"

I'm really trying hard to find a different way to interpret that, but it's all I can get out of it. Parties at the level where they'd be dealing with liches who operate on that scale have amazing amounts of resources. There needs to be a much better explanation than just "No You can't, because you can't". This scenario reads more like the script for a movie with an alternate ending on the DVD than it does a real game with choices.



How in the world is trying to find a solution a that DOESN'T involve the slaughter of the innocent not good roleplaying? Any paladin worth their salt would try to circumnavigate those circumstances, they're horrible.

The wording of this paragraph

"Smart players whom are looking for an interesting roleplaying experience will enjoy it..."

implies anyone who tries to take a 3rd option is an idiot who only wants to play a numbers game and make everyone else miserable. Since it explicitly says that if they were smart or role players they'd be perfectly content to stay in these two little boxes no matter what.

I really don't want to have to drop the "R" word here...
Wow, someone has overzealous convictions.
The major point is that it's about how you run it.
You may hate the whole "plot power" cop-out, but with the morons I generally play with, they can't comprehend what good Diplomacy is.
They're not good at de-railing either, and from your stance, you seem like it's your sole intention to just go around whatever a DM tells you. Whether it is or not, I don't give a rats patoot, if your DM says these are your options, why the heck would you want to go outside the box? Sure in my games I award creativity, and yes in my games you fight odd monster at low levels (I had a level 3 group face a T-Rex and live), but not everybody runs games where moving everyone off the continent and finding a level XX wizard is always an option that can be accomplished before half the people would normally starve to death. Calm down and back off, not everyone runs games exactly like you do.
Sure people may have 80 years to find that wizard, but I like to add a bit of verisimilitude in my games, that being that not everything will be easy, and you can get stuck in a no win situation.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-16, 07:37 PM
Wow, someone has overzealous convictions.
...
and you can get stuck in a no win situation.

I doubt we'll find any common ground. This issue is better off dropped before it becomes disruptive.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-07-16, 07:40 PM
I doubt we'll find any common ground. This issue is better off dropped before it becomes disruptive.

You're the one acting like there has to always be a win in D&D.....

Jayngfet
2009-07-16, 08:00 PM
No offense but this is a terrible, terrible idea. From the example the character would have no idea WHY they fell unless they had a grasp of economics, which would be near impossible and is in now way supported by the GP spent per town rules in the DMG. You're essentially making this a game with no worthwhile outcome if you're going for a followup evil campane since they really have done nothing that warrants an alignment shift.

Blue Ghost
2009-07-16, 08:21 PM
I would say that this seems like an interesting idea. Not if you use absurd reasons like the one listed, but obvious temptations. The goal should be to tempt the characters into falling, not to trick them. If done correctly, it may lead to some enjoyable roleplaying experiences. If done wrong, it will probably end disastrously.
And I lol'd when I saw Mordokai post in this thread.

RandomNPC
2009-07-16, 08:35 PM
The OP sounds like fun if the characters know it going in, and as a one shot, it's acceptable to me, if they don't like it ts different next time anyway. Of course i find it acceptable because of my group and what i know about them, but thats one of those varriable things.

woodenbandman
2009-07-17, 09:10 AM
This will be fun, provided that it is not run with DnD, but with Paranoia. Instead of the benevolent friend computer, it's the benevolent friend Heroinus. Paranoia spoilers:

And all of the paladins have already fallen, and they try to expose each other for what they really are, while preserving their own paladinhood as long as they can.

Also they have 5 clones, and every time one of them falls, they are "reprogrammed" and sent back into the field. Feel free to make them fall for kicks, as long as they have a few clones left.

aivanther
2009-07-17, 09:43 AM
@Mr. Moron:

I sort of agree, sort of disagree with what your saying. Using the evil blight upon the land example: Part of the fun of the game is trying to keep your people unfallen for as long as possible. If the players can subvert the fall presented, such as managing to resettle the population without causing a war to conquer another uninvolved land, then kudos to them. Onto plan 2. DM goes with another scenario.

That's what I was thinking anyway, it all depends on whether the DM is willing to go up with the challenge and the players are willing to understand that they will fall eventually. This could actually be a long but fun pre-campaign in pseudo-Cthulu style of "Let's see how long I can put the doom off" way. If the DM won't take any alternatives to his Option A or B, yes, that is stupid, but will also probably backfire to.

I guess what I"m saying is it all depends on how the DM and players take it. If they can all agree that they're simply trying to play out the background for a later campaign of Blackguards, Deathknights, and Vile characters, this could be fun. If the DM is willing to keep it up if the players find an unforesee option 3, it could be fun. If the players get fussy with the concept, or DM goes rail road it will fail. But that's true of any game. It is a game of cooperation after all.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-17, 11:19 AM
The OP made a very rough and vague proposal for an adventure. Many of the responses posted assume that this very vague idea is one thing or another.

One response is that the players should not be made to fall in one game session because this involves some railroading even if the players are in agreement that the characters should fall. Similarly, some others have suggested playing a different game than D&D altogether.

These are both valid point but the answers depend two things, (1) on what the DM and the players intend, and (2) which game system/style best handles the character intention

If the DM and characters intend to play out the character development and emotions, if they go emo, then, no, D&D is probably not the best game system for this. D&D is combat heavy and tends to make you think combat heavy. This best done with a more "storytelling" game like Vampire Masquerade. That is, emo style storytelling can be done in a D&D game but to very heavily role-play a fall in one session and then follow it with a standard D&D campaign seems forced.

D&D can be used for the role-playing of a "fall" but making the fall happen in 1 session also seems forced. That is, most would assume that it would takes more than 1 game session for a player to becomes "attached" enough to his character that he "cares" about his characters fall and makes "meaningful" decisions about when to allow the fall to happen.

However it seems to me that what the DM is proposing is more like a "backstory" session. Some games start out wih the adventures meeting in a tavern. But in some games the DM runs a little "solo" for each character to play out the events that led the character to meet up with the party. In other games, the players start out at "level 0" and have a short adventure that "explains" how the characters came to be a wizard, fighter, etc.

If this is the case, then this is a game session to play out the "backstory" for an evil campaign. As stated by the OP, and in keeping with other "backstory" games, the story of the fall is desired as an introduction and is intended to be at most 1 session long.

Given this, I recommend that the DM not force the characters into a "meaningful" decision because the players will have no context in which to make this "meaningful" decision for their characters.

Rather, I recommend the DM use this adventure to get the players into character as it were, that is to better understand their backstory by roleplaying it. In such a backstory game, the players motivation is already set. That is, the players are already intending to be fallen heroes so don't overplay the "emotional" content of the fall. Instead, play out the consequences of the fall.

For example, say one player is a Hannibal Lecter type of character that leads a double life. Without playing the fall, the double life is established. With the backstory game, you don't play the psychological drama of why the character established a double life. Instead, grant this as the characters motivation (to lead a double life) and start him in his "good" life and use the backstory game session to play out how he established his "parallel" life. This is similar to starting a character who plans to be a wizard and "level 0" and having a short backstory game of what happened before he became a wizard 1.

That is why I suggested the "reality game show" format originally. But what I am basically suggesting is not to concentrate on the fall but rather on the consequences after the fall and how they led up to the "start" of the evil campaign.

AstralFire
2009-07-17, 11:29 AM
The only way I see it working is as a slapstick comedy campaign; where Paladins fall/atone/fall/atone repeatedly.

Thats basically the idea I was going for. Not any sort of high fantasy campaign.


For example, say one player is a Hannibal Lecter type of character that leads a double life.

...? Come again?

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-17, 11:32 AM
...? Come again?
Before being caught and jailed, Hannibal Lecter was a respected doctor publicly although secretly he was a serial killer. See the book Red Dragon and the movie by the same name.

AstralFire
2009-07-17, 11:35 AM
Before being caught and jailed, Hannibal Lecter was a respected doctor publicly although secretly he was a serial killer. See the book Red Dragon and the movie by the same name.

Nonono. Read the part I quoted from the original poster.

Hannibal Lecter in a slapstick oneshot as a -possible- prelude to another campaign? What?

Surrealistik
2009-07-17, 11:42 AM
I approve of the premise in the OP. Friggin' hilarious. Let us know the results.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-17, 12:19 PM
Nonono. Read the part I quoted from the original poster.

Hannibal Lecter in a slapstick oneshot as a -possible- prelude to another campaign? What?

Well it depends on what the character wants, no? If it's a "slapstick" game then any fallen character poses the same problem, that is as you said


it will be very taxing on the DM to come up with more and more complex situations that could potentially cause a player to fall without resorting to fiat.


The playing out of the "fall" does sound fun and could be done for comic effect.

But if the premise is for the players to "resist" the fall, then this could lead, as you say, to an escalation as the DM tries to make the player fall and the player "resists".

The Book of Job comes to mind...except with more laughs.

And this escalation can happen with any type character even a Lecter type character...

DM: OK so the "long pig" is served to you with a reduced sauce and a nice Chianti, and a gun is held to your head, and the demon will also kill the catgirl if you don't eat it. Do you eat it now?

Player: No!

So my suggestion is to not focus on the fall, whether it is done with slapstick or without, but to focus on the events after the fall.

And you can do that with slapstick, for ex,

DM: OK so the "long pig" is cooking in the oven and another "guest" is hanging in the closer. Your mother is headed with her bags up to the guest room while at the same time the police inspector is knocking at your door. What do you do?

Player: D'oh!