PDA

View Full Version : Dissapointing Reaction to end of Campaign



Pages : [1] 2

Talakeal
2010-11-30, 11:39 PM
I was hoping someone could shed some light on the actions of some of my players.

On Sunday I just concluded a campaign which I have been running for over six years now.

The campaign takes place in a post apocalyptic world, and over the course of the campaign the party paladin discovered that she was descended from the royal family of the empire that ruled the world before the apocalypse, and took it upon herself to defeat the evil warlords that currently ruled the world and restore the old empire.

The last portion of the campaign was an epic level adventure in which the player's became involved in the affairs of the immortals, killing several gods and each player taking on the powers of the gods they slew. At the climax of the campaign each of the other PCs chose to give up their powers and return them to the gods.

The paladin, however, chose to keep her powers as it was the only way for her to resurrect her lover that had been slain years before. She then continued her crusade, now with godly abilities.

In the epilogue I said that she was able to drive evil from the land and reestablish her empire as a utopia free of disease and poverty. To which the other player's reacted extremely violently.

They claimed that the paladin was now a tyrant and had removed free will from the world. When I asked how they said that power corrupts, and that a monarch is innately evil. People would never obey a monarch willingly, no matter how good, charismatic, and wise they are. Several of the player's said they refused to live in a world without evil, and without evil there can be no good, and therefore no free will.

I tried telling them this was nonsense, but they refused to listen. Two of the players said the world was now so horrible (at the start of the campaign it was literally a wasteland ruled by demon worshippers and genocidal warlords) that they refused to live in it. They said they wanted to attack and kill the party paladin. I told them that not only was it not feasible while the paladin had godly powers and they didn't, but it was extremely out of character as they were long time friends and allies where both of good alignment.

Their response was to kill themselves.

I am blown away by this. I can see disagreeing with the paladin philosophically, but to actually be so opposed to living in a LG utopia that they would rather die? They couldn't give any other explanation other than
"I have no free will" and the above mentioned clichés about power corrupting and there being no good without evil, and as far as a can tell they are just jealous that one of the other characters kept divine power while they didn't and are acting out in a childish manner as a response.

I am hoping this is not the case, as I am extremely offended and hurt by this, as after running the same characters in the same campaign for over six years and almost 200 adventures they have no more attachment to the world or their characters, and to just kill themselves for no good reason.

So anyone got any ideas on why they might feel this way or what I can do to correct the situation? I told everyone (including the paladin) that they could change their mind and I would change the epilogue if it would make them happier, but so far no one will budge.

Thanks for reading and any input you may have. I tried to keep the summary of the game and the player's brief, but I will answer any questions anyone may have.

Crow
2010-11-30, 11:49 PM
WOW.

There has to be some part of this story we're missing, because...wow.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-30, 11:53 PM
: (

I can't express how weird of a read that was... Instead of planar traveling somewhere else or asking for pieces of land to make their own nations in based on what they want, they committed suicide? Weird...

Sir_Chivalry
2010-11-30, 11:53 PM
Well, the paladin is indeed a dictator, for power lies solely with her. Whether the society is a utopia is also subject to her omniscience tempered by her altruism.

Were these character's less than savoury types? Warlocks or rogues or demons who might suffer under the pally's regime?

I think they jumped the gun. They are right that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but to kill themselves immediately is rather hasty. The paladin might fall to decadence and evil, but is not assured to.

DeltaEmil
2010-11-30, 11:57 PM
Forget it. These players already ruined the epilogue, and nothing will ever wash away the bad feeling from that prior evening.

Sometimes, it just happens, and we are absolutely powerless to change this...

rubycona
2010-11-30, 11:58 PM
Agreed.

I'm not thinking that you're holding stuff back from us... I'm thinking you yourself are missing something, hence don't know to include it.

They're upset about something, for sure, but what, exactly, I don't know.

My guess?

They wanted the world to become the "balanced" world of peace... some danger, some good, some evil, people can "choose" to do evil things, and so crime is an issue that must be addressed, though it's being addressed well... and it feels like a "happily ever after" ending to a "real" world. Makes them feel like you've cheapened the world, a world they've invested so much of themselves into, by making it into some cliche fairy tale.

They want it to make sense, to be the "real" world they've been living in, in their own way, for so many years, and to them, a happily ever after fairy tale just doesn't fit. Arbitrarily redesigning a custom-made "happily ever after" would be more upsetting. Since it doesn't fit, they want to Make it fit, by force, by declaring the pally evil, and make the world fit their own paradigm.

That's my guess. Hope it helps.

snoopy13a
2010-11-30, 11:58 PM
If they don't have free will then they can't decide to kill themselves :smalltongue:

Honestly, it sounds like one player got an extreme Disney-esque ending by taking "happily ever after" to the next level while the other players got "meh". Maybe they didn't want to be "gods" because they wanted the campaign to continue and it suddenly ended on an odd note?

Ragitsu
2010-12-01, 12:00 AM
{Scrubbed}

Crow
2010-12-01, 12:01 AM
I think it's a combination of rubycona and snoopy13a's reasons.

Could it be, OP?

Yahzi
2010-12-01, 12:07 AM
Several of the player's said they refused to live in a world without evil,
Simple solution: inform them that their characters have been kidnapped by orcs and are now helpless slaves who are constantly tortured and abused. They are particularly abused, since the orcs can't have any other slaves because everyone else is protected from evil.

It's cool, though, because at least they can keep on living.


It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves;

Zeofar
2010-12-01, 12:23 AM
Really though, the ending seems to be a fairly logical conclusion of the existence of a living, present god who cleared the land from suffering and oppression. To suggest that anyone and everyone in the world would flatly refuse to follow this person is so incredibly cynical that I can't really see any strong arguments for it without modifying it pretty significantly.

How about this: tell them that you're changing the epilogue and there's nothing they can do about it now. The Utopia IS indeed established, and most every citizen is a loyal follower. The once great friends of the ruler-god, however, begin sowing seeds of revolution and decide to destroy the unjust rule established by the paladin. Like in their other battles against gods, they succeed, and the nation falls into chaos, power being constantly shifted between several different fractious states that rise and fall with the wind. Fast forward a century, and give the players the exact same description you gave to them when you introduced them to the campaign, but include one more bad deed, one more element of barbarity, savagery, and cruelty, just so they all know that their actions made the world just that teensy bit worse. Fin.

Oooor, if they don't like either, tell them that they can discuss this like grown-ups and figure out what the ideal ending is, considering that such close allies will likely make some impact on the inevitable rule established by the paladin. Maybe he creates a round-table type situation, where worthy men of all alignments (including the other players) advise him and play a role in the rule. Life is not always perfect, but no single view may eclipse all others.

Cespenar
2010-12-01, 01:32 AM
Heh. It may be that the group have watched one too many movies and may have automatically associated the word "utopia" with the side dish of tyranny that it doesn't actually need to be associated with.

Also, did you tell them that a LG utopia wouldn't really remove free will? A LE one would probably have, but it's Lawful Good, people. Good means you value other people as not to completely erase their free will, etc.

Gabe the Bard
2010-12-01, 02:33 AM
In this case, I don't know if there is much you can do to get your players to change their minds, since the campaign has ended and they won't be returning to this world again (unless you make it the setting for a future campaign).

I also don't think it's a bad thing to have opposing views about the story and the campaign world, as long as you can come to a compromise. In this case, if the two players who killed their characters are hard set on their decisions, maybe you can incorporate their actions into the story when you create the epilogue.

Perhaps the divine essence that they returned to the gods became corrupted by their actions, reviving the spirits of poverty and disease that were wiped from the world. Maybe that is the kind of world some of your players are looking for.

To have their actions make a lasting impact on the world would be more fair than ignoring their actions completely, and make for a more realistic ending since they were epic-level characters who had touched divinity.

DeltaEmil
2010-12-01, 03:22 AM
They were however being obnoxius and disruptive, and did almost literally take a dump on a happy ending story that others liked.

So no, it's really better to not talk about it anymore. Anything else will only aggravate the problem, and the feeling of the epilogue is already ruined forever.

Gnaritas
2010-12-01, 04:23 AM
Sounds to me like things didn't go as they planned or hoped. They dropped their godly powers, but the palladin did not and now he got the ending he wanted and he got to keep his powers.
Their reaction was pretty childish.

Our last campaign in short:
An evil necromancer riding a dragon has threatened the world to an extend that he has practically won. The great mages of the world gather in a last effort, they send back a party in time to stop the necromancer before he gets as powerfull.
So, we aren't really sure but we think we are getting close to the end of the campaign, two of the party recently died and they both (seperately) decided to play a Necromancer/PaleMaster and a Necromancer-Cleric. When we get to the place we needed to go, it turns out to be a temple of some deity of Death, anyway, it is the deity of the Cleric and the Palemaster can kind of relate to their ideas too, which at that point weren't truely truely evil. Due to a series of events thereafter they kind of betrayed the party. The decease that was killing the arm of the palemaster (he would be able to get the bone-arm-thingy next level and was preparing for it in-game) was removed (together with his arm) by the cleric. The temple started to investigate the arm. At this point the DM ended the campaign, he tells us how the arm was the source of the evil that would over the years have it's influence on this temple. The cleric will become the necromancer that in 400 years will start to take over the world.
Sure, it wasn't what we expected, but still, we liked the ending ;)

Aotrs Commander
2010-12-01, 05:17 AM
One has to ask the age and maturity of the dissenting players. Because that is despicably childish, frankly, and if my players did that, they'd be out of the group so fast, their dust wouldn't even have time to finish falling.

Ormur
2010-12-01, 05:27 AM
Sure the fairy tale ending you provided is unrealistic but you didn't describe it in a way that suggests it's out of bounds for an idealistic fantasy world.

The reaction of the players as you portray them suggests they themselves have some rather unrealistic preconceptions about the world. You can argue that monarchy is innately evil but only because humans are fallible creature and historically many people have considered even monarchies headed by mere humans as the best form of government. They also seem to have some preconceptions about how this utopia is run, maybe a more thorough descriptions would show that it's not terrorized by mindraping paladins.

Perhaps they wanted an imperfect and democratic world, or maybe they didn't want to block the possibility of further adventuring.

BobVosh
2010-12-01, 05:52 AM
Sure the fairy tale ending you provided is unrealistic but you didn't describe it in a way that suggest it's out of bounds for an idealistic fantasy world.

Actually I question it being unrealistic for a epic level paladin-god after cleansing the pantheon of the evil deities. Should stay pretty good for quite a while. Especially since it is only one kingdom.

That said seems like the reactions are...lets go with a little, out of place.

molten_dragon
2010-12-01, 06:24 AM
A couple observances here.

It sounds like it might be simple jealousy that's spurring this. The epilogue of the campaign essentially revolves around the paladin and the paladin only. He got to go on and found a perfect utopian kingdom while the other players simply fade away into the background. It may also be the fact that they all fought so hard to make things better (and it sounds like it was to little effect) then the paladin did it all by himself in the epilogue.

However, perhaps you can salvage something out of this. If they're so sure that the paladin will become a corrupt dictator, have it happen. Maybe in a century or two, the paladin actually has grown corrupt with his power and the country has become a brutal dictatorship. You then have the start of a new campaign, where the new PCs are members (or the founders) of a resistance against the now-fallen paladin.

Psyx
2010-12-01, 06:27 AM
{Scrubbed}

Gnaritas
2010-12-01, 06:31 AM
I can imagine their rage after reading/seeing LotR.

Those halflings risked their lives only to see Sauron replaced by evil Arachorn.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 06:34 AM
I tried telling them this was nonsense, but they refused to listen. Two of the players said the world was now so horrible (at the start of the campaign it was literally a wasteland ruled by demon worshippers and genocidal warlords) that they refused to live in it. They said they wanted to attack and kill the party paladin. I told them that not only was it not feasible while the paladin had godly powers and they didn't, but it was extremely out of character as they were long time friends and allies where both of good alignment.

Their response was to kill themselves.

I am blown away by this. I can see disagreeing with the paladin philosophically, but to actually be so opposed to living in a LG utopia that they would rather die? They couldn't give any other explanation other than
"I have no free will" and the above mentioned clichés about power corrupting and there being no good without evil, and as far as a can tell they are just jealous that one of the other characters kept divine power while they didn't and are acting out in a childish manner as a response.

You, and probably the paladin are focusing on the good/evil spectrum. Your players are focusing on law/chaos.

Is a lawful good society "better" than one in which exists freedom, but horrible evils? Dunno. Different people will give you different answers. It's a values question, not one with an objective answer. Therefore, none of your players are wrong, they merely seek different things.

For what it's worth, a completely lawful good society sounds incredibly boring and painful to actually live in. Sure, you'd be safe, and there'd be a lack of evil, but coming from the perspective of adventurers....almost certainly not that interesting of a place. Calling it bad is not much of a stretch.

Yahzi
2010-12-01, 06:42 AM
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
It's not that stupid.

Morality requires accountability; if you are not accountable to anyone, then you are not capable of being moral. So a supreme ruler/godlike being will inevitably fall into evil, simply because they don't have any feedback (i.e. accountability) to guide them.

On the other hand a Paladin by definition is accountable to someone else, so... ya. Kinda stupid.

Just not too stupid for words. :smallbiggrin:

Comet
2010-12-01, 06:46 AM
The idea itself is not bad, even if the players went about it in an immature way, apparently.

They wanted to save the world, but they were themselves adventurers, who have lived a life of wandering around the wasteland, killing and destroying evil in the name of a better world.

Now that the better world has finally come about, it turns out that the adventurers themselves have no place in it. They are marked by their past exploits, unable to escape the fact that they, themselves, represent everything that the people of this new world hate with a passion. They are killers, even if that killing was for a good purpose.

And as such they are seen as different, an uncomfortable reminder of darker times. The people of this utopia cannot accept them, nor would they want to be accepted. Their blood still yearns for excitement and danger, even if they cannot admit it.

After living like this for years and year, seeing the world turn to a paradise that they can never belong to, the adventurers just can't take it anymore. They gather together one evening, far out in the little untamed wildnerness there is left, and plunge their god-killing swords through their own stomachs. They already saved the world, so no regrets, but they have no reason to continue living in the world they have saved. They fulfilled their purpose.

It's a pretty classic bittersweet, heroic ending.
If the players are just immature jerks, though, the reason for their actions is probably because one player got to be a god while the others didn't. Some people are just like that, go figure.

Aotrs Commander
2010-12-01, 06:53 AM
For what it's worth, a completely lawful good society sounds incredibly boring and painful to actually live in. Sure, you'd be safe, and there'd be a lack of evil, but coming from the perspective of adventurers....almost certainly not that interesting of a place. Calling it bad is not much of a stretch.

Really? A society that has minimal to no crime and is full of nice people would eb such a terrible thing, would it? I mean, come on, dude, you'd really even consider choosing something akin to THIS reality over a hopeful and peaceful future? I find that hard to believe. (Hck, even I'd prefer too live in a society like that and I'm Evil! 'Cos it'd be much less hassle to do my stuff, and I prefer to contrast with the rest of everything anyway...)

Yes, it's a terrible place to have an adventure (well, unless you consider it to be something like, I dunno Star Trek), but kind of the point, I gathered, was that that party's adventures were OVER. They were retired, done, finished, their story had concluded, it's done and dusted, the credits roll. They wouldn't be using the characters again anyway, so that's kind of a moot arguement.

Even if they were so cynical they can't imagine a happy ever after (and couldn't y'know, leave the Empire the paladin was ruling - the OP didn't say it was the whole world), to ruin it for everyone in a temper tantrum - especially after SIX YEARS was really, really, REALLY childish. If I was the OP, I'd be absolutely furious with them on a personal level, and they'd be damn lucky (assuming I, for some inexplicable reason, hadn't Maximised Disintegrated them out of hand) if I ever let them play with me again. Seriously. There's no call for that sort of behavior, in any sort of environment. EVER.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 07:03 AM
Really? A society that has minimal to no crime and is full of nice people would eb such a terrible thing, would it? I mean, come on, dude, you'd really even consider choosing something akin to THIS reality over a hopeful and peaceful future? I find that hard to believe. (Hck, even I'd prefer too live in a society like that and I'm Evil! 'Cos it'd be much less hassle to do my stuff, and I prefer to contrast with the rest of everything anyway...)

Yup. Personally, I'd leave such a place, then work to end it. The law/chaos alignment has always been one I consider to be primary. Safety without freedom is...pointless. Safety is great, but I view that as merely something you want so you can better enjoy your freedoms, not as an end goal in itself. And an extremely lawful good society directly controlled by a lawful good paladin monarch isn't really going to offer much in the way of freedom. I would consider that a horrible dystopia.

Not everyone would, sure. For a lot of people, it'd be great. But neither viewpoint is inherently wrong, because you arrive at them depending on what you value more.


Even if they were so cynical they can't imagine a happy ever after (and couldn't y'know, leave the Empire the paladin was ruling - the OP didn't say it was the whole world), to ruin it for everyone in a temper tantrum - especially after SIX YEARS was really, really, REALLY childish. If I was the OP, I'd be absolutely furious with them on a personal level, and they'd be damn lucky (assuming I, for some inexplicable reason, hadn't Maximised Disintegrated them out of hand) if I ever let them play with me again. Seriously. There's no call for that sort of behavior, in any sort of environment. EVER.

Seriously? If they honestly view it as a horrible outcome, why would they not be disappointed that after six years of play, everything suddenly changed to something that they really don't want, and have no way to alter? If death was the only way left to them to escape what they saw as a horrible fate, then it's a realistic path.

Personally, I think a chaotic good or neutral afterlife would probably be frigging awesome.

BridgeCity
2010-12-01, 07:09 AM
It's not that stupid.

Morality requires accountability; if you are not accountable to anyone, then you are not capable of being moral. So a supreme ruler/godlike being will inevitably fall into evil, simply because they don't have any feedback (i.e. accountability) to guide them.

On the other hand a Paladin by definition is accountable to someone else, so... ya. Kinda stupid.

Just not too stupid for words. :smallbiggrin:

I have to disagree here. Many people hold themselves accountable to themselves, with or without a higher power. I know I do. You are using way too much of an absolute by saying that anyone in top position will always turn evil. The world is way too grey to lump everyone into that catagory.

As for the OP, I'd seriously sit down with them and explain that you put a hell of a lot of effort into this campaign, you gave up your free time to provide them with entertainment, and you are extremely disappointed with their behaviour. It is disrespectful to you and all of your hard work. Tell them that if they had a problem they could have talked to you about it like adults, not bratty children.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 07:29 AM
I would suggest that calling them bratty children is not likely a good way to discuss why you found their behavior immature.

Aotrs Commander
2010-12-01, 07:35 AM
Yup. Personally, I'd leave such a place, then work to end it. The law/chaos alignment has always been one I consider to be primary. Safety without freedom is...pointless. Safety is great, but I view that as merely something you want so you can better enjoy your freedoms, not as an end goal in itself. And an extremely lawful good society directly controlled by a lawful good paladin monarch isn't really going to offer much in the way of freedom. I would consider that a horrible dystopia.

You'd really, that is you, not your character, you, Tyndmyr, personally, prefer to live in a place where someone is much more likely to murder you, or your family/allies, where little old ladies get knocked down and mugged (which happened on my Nanny's road not two days ago), people get stabbed and shot in the street, than to live in one where this doesn't happen? Where it's safe to walk down the road at night, where children can go play in the street in safetly (well, barring traffic) and where no-one gets ill or goes hungry or poor (the latter of which is specifcally what the OP said about the paladin's utopia)? Honestly? And not only that, you'd actively work to bring about the destruction of such a society? Really really?

If so, why? What freedom is it do you think that you'd be denied that is worth not ending disease and poverty? I ask because I'm genuinely baffled. (And I remind you I'm Evil... I mean, if you're CE, I can sort of see your point and I thus apologise, but I hadn't really pegged you for the CE type...)



Anyway, with uncharacterstic total seriousness, the thing that got me most annoyed about what the OP said was that they were "I am extremely offended and hurt by this" which to me means that WHATEVER the player's line of thought and whatever thier socio-political views are or aren't, that is a TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE THING TO DO TO YOUR FRIENDS over a frackin' GAME. There is NO excuse for that kind of behavior, NONE AT ALL.

Cerlis
2010-12-01, 07:35 AM
So a kingdom like our own except that those who commit wrongs are treated justly, intelligently, and likely with no corruption (Corruption being why so many people oppose government and police and law) since the god is probably omniecient? One where you live a happy life? Sounds horrible to me.

-The people saying their reaction was because of jealousy, and feeling like another player and the DM stole their Campaign and story and ending

-that wont stop me from saying they acted horribly immature and out of character

-Further, they are very blind to be stuck in their own views like that. Utopia literally means paradise, and the fact that they think its fake is because every single story in exsistence that has a paradise is fake (its powered by baby tears..or they wont let you leave...or something)

You didnt take away their free will. you took away the right for the citizens of the campaign to murder, steal and hurt one another without becoming badguys.

They watch to many movies.

The_Admiral
2010-12-01, 07:37 AM
Roll with it have your next campaign set in dysotopian dictatorship

Cerwal
2010-12-01, 07:42 AM
My personal guess is that the behaviour was based on jealousy(which has already been suggested).

As said the paladin's ending with the information at hand overshadows others, if not totally then at least with good proportions. I would like to know what sort of epilogue was there for other characters for comparison if possible.

Other characters decided to remain mortal and gave their godly powers away, possibly for greater good? While the paladin decided to keep that power for an understandable yet selfish reason and was basicly rewarded for it. For the moment this part just seems at least a little unfair to me.

Looking the situation right now I can somewhat understand why the players acted as they did, this however does not mean I approve it. However it's not always easy to act like an adult is expected to.

I think one could ask the players later for their real reasoning and then possibly remedy the situation at least a bit since it's a terrible waste to let a campaign end this way.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 07:54 AM
You'd really, that is you, not your character, you, Tyndmyr, personally, prefer to live in a place where someone is much more likely to murder you, or your family/allies, where little old ladies get knocked down and mugged (which happened on my Nanny's road not two days ago), people get stabbed and shot in the street, than to live in one where this doesn't happen? Where it's safe to walk down the road at night, where children can go play in the street in safetly (well, barring traffic) and where no-one gets ill or goes hungry or poor (the latter of which is specifcally what the OP said about the paladin's utopia)? Honestly? And not only that, you'd actively work to bring about the destruction of such a society? Really really?

Yup. That's really me. And I have made many such decisions in the past. I would prefer a lack of safety, if it comes with more freedom. For instance, I once chose to get a cheap apartment in an extremely bad part of town rather than live in a military dorm. The day I moved in, a CSI team was investigating a multiple murder in the next room. Danger doesn't particularly worry me.

Everyone has a different tolerance for danger in exchange for other things they want. In the sort of characters that are into adventuring, this is frequently very high. It is quite plausible that they consider many things more important than danger to themselves or others.


If so, why? What freedom is it do you think that you'd be denied that is worth not ending disease and poverty? I ask because I'm genuinely baffled. (And I remind you I'm Evil... I mean, if you're CE, I can sort of see your point and I thus apologise, but I hadn't really pegged you for the CE type...)

I most definitely fall on the chaotic end of the spectrum. Good/evil, Im entirely unconcerned with.

The freedom to make any sort of meaningful choices. For humans to make society as they would like it. This society strikes me as the kind where pretty much everyone would need to at least fake being lawful good.


Anyway, with uncharacterstic total seriousness, the thing that got me most annoyed about what the OP said was that they were "I am extremely offended and hurt by this" which to me means that WHATEVER the player's line of thought and whatever thier socio-political views are or aren't, that is a TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE THING TO DO TO YOUR FRIENDS over a frackin' GAME. There is NO excuse for that kind of behavior, NONE AT ALL.

I don't think he should be offended or hurt by it, because I think it stems from a basic difference in how they perceive an ideal society.

What is the better world, after all...one where people are mostly good, through their own efforts and choices, or one where some overarching authority makes them be good? And are you really good if you're only doing it because some unstoppable authority forces you to be?

He hadn't considered that on some philosophical questions, some of his players might differ strongly from his viewpoint. Happens a lot with alignment issues. The biggest cure for alignment arguments is to understand that everyone values things differently...and therefore, can't possibly come to the same final conclusions.

Edit: Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with the characters ending the campaign in constant combat against what they see as evil. In fact, it's an awesome setup for the future. Notice that they only killed themselves when you stated they couldn't do even this. Retconning this answer, and hence, the deaths, is probably the most satisfactory way to fix it. It gives you a future that involves a prolonged combat, leaves nobody completely out, and gives you great possibilities for future use.

Psyx
2010-12-01, 08:00 AM
Is a lawful good society "better" than one in which exists freedom, but horrible evils? Dunno. Different people will give you different answers. It's a values question, not one with an objective answer. Therefore, none of your players are wrong, they merely seek different things.


Considering that the players live in what is essentially a lawful (with good tendencies, I hope...) society, I'm struggling to think why the concept is so alien and evil to them.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 08:24 AM
Considering that the players live in what is essentially a lawful (with good tendencies, I hope...) society, I'm struggling to think why the concept is so alien and evil to them.

Everyone has different ideas as to what a lawful society is. Or a good society.

Anytime you start assigning alignments to things, everyone has different impressions of what those alignments mean. Sometimes they don't differ by enough to matter, but quite often they do.

I am certain that if asked to assign alignments to real world countries, people on here would argue ceaselessly over them for pages upon pages, just like every other alignment thread.

Aotrs Commander
2010-12-01, 08:43 AM
I most definitely fall on the chaotic end of the spectrum. Good/evil, Im entirely unconcerned with.

Aaaah. So you are Chaotic Evil, then. Wink wink, say no more, guv.

(Because everyone who has ever uttered a statement to the effect "I am beyond such petty concerns as good and evil" is always Evil. We know this for a fact; we in the Aotrs have Done Studies on it.)


Yup. That's really me. And I have made many such decisions in the past. I would prefer a lack of safety, if it comes with more freedom. For instance, I once chose to get a cheap apartment in an extremely bad part of town rather than live in a military dorm. The day I moved in, a CSI team was investigating a multiple murder in the next room. Danger doesn't particularly worry me.

Fair enough.

Though, of course, I should inform you though, that when I rule the world and then the parts of the universe Lord Death Despoil doesn't want, I afraid I will have to eliminate you in the first purge on principle. Nothing personal, you understand, just can't have people messing up my nice, tidy tyrannical dictatorship. I almost regret the necessity, seeing as you are a fellow roleplayer. Not enough to actually not do it, of course, but almost.

(It's worth noting, by the way, that if you think a LG utopia is restrictive, you'll be begging for the sweet release of death in my LE one... And I do mean that literally, because it's jolly amusing than taking a rebellious, free-spirited soul and spirit-binding them into an animated skeleton they cannot ever control and making them clean the toilets for the rest of eternity. Which, is by the way, how the Aotrs tends to get its janitorial staff. Though I will probably only kill you Tyndmyr, you do deserve some special consideration, after all! Let it not be said I won't temper my adamantine hand with mercy! (Because it won't be...))



Still, even being CE doesn't allow you to be a jerk to your friends. I might be a meglomanical, omnicidal, psychotic Undead killing machine with grandeur1, whose merest thought is unequivicable fact despite, and especially if, the entire rest of the universe is in flat contradiction, and I am as Evil as they come, but at least I'm not a jerk about it.



1I don't have delusions.

Ormur
2010-12-01, 08:55 AM
-Further, they are very blind to be stuck in their own views like that. Utopia literally means paradise, and the fact that they think its fake is because every single story in exsistence that has a paradise is fake (its powered by baby tears..or they wont let you leave...or something)

Yeah, this might be it, you describe something as a Lawful Good utopia and people used to reading about dystopias probably assume it's a totalitarian nightmare where people are smote for not saying "please".

I take a bit of offence to that because my favourite sci-fi novels are set in an actual utopia, The Culture, although it's probably more neutral or even chaotic good than lawful. Lawful might just mean there are lenient but consistently applied laws enforced without any sort of corruption.

Shademan
2010-12-01, 08:59 AM
So a kingdom like our own except that those who commit wrongs are treated justly, intelligently, and likely with no corruption (Corruption being why so many people oppose government and police and law) since the god is probably omniecient? One where you live a happy life? Sounds horrible to me.

-The people saying their reaction was because of jealousy, and feeling like another player and the DM stole their Campaign and story and ending

-that wont stop me from saying they acted horribly immature and out of character

-Further, they are very blind to be stuck in their own views like that. Utopia literally means paradise, and the fact that they think its fake is because every single story in exsistence that has a paradise is fake (its powered by baby tears..or they wont let you leave...or something)

You didnt take away their free will. you took away the right for the citizens of the campaign to murder, steal and hurt one another without becoming badguys.

They watch to many movies.

no, it means "non-city" a place that cannot exist. you know, etymologically speaking.
er...etymo...etymom... darn

Moglorosh
2010-12-01, 09:09 AM
The freedom to make any sort of meaningful choices. For humans to make society as they would like it. This society strikes me as the kind where pretty much everyone would need to at least fake being lawful good.

That response is a bit vague isn't it? Seems to me they were in a world where you were free to do whatever as long as your decision didn't negatively affect someone else. They were free to kill themselves after all, and I'd go out on a limb to say that's a pretty meaningful choice.

What, specifically, would you want to be able to do that you don't think you could?

potatocubed
2010-12-01, 09:12 AM
(Because everyone who has ever uttered a statement to the effect "I am beyond such petty concerns as good and evil" is always Evil. We know this for a fact; we in the Aotrs have Done Studies on it.)

"When a man says he does not believe in black and white morality, what he means is that he is not strong enough to be wholly good, but does not consider himself wholly evil."

I can't remember who I'm quoting here, but it seemed relevant. Heinlein, maybe? It sounds like Heinlein.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-01, 09:18 AM
If they honestly feel that their character's genuine reaction to the founding of a holy utopia is to commit suicide? then that's what happened.

Of course, this would not pass without notice, and troublesome rumours and so on would persist, conspiracy theories surrounding the reason why their God's former adventuring party would, on the eve of their own final triumph over the blasted world, kill themselves.

Think about the possibilities. You return to the setting in the semi-distant future; The Utopia has survived, faced the inevitable problems of states and empires and continues to be a shining beacon in the world. Perhaps it has political rivals, backed by opposing religions, but it's all peaceful (at least, officially).

Player characters step in to the action as lowish level troubleshooters, trying to keep the utopia together, trying to keep it honest, and fighting the insidious (and false) rumours of corruption and so on at the heart of things.
Essentially, they are agents protecting the Utopia in a cold-war situation. No evil is needed for conflict, sedition and political ambition.
Neutral and Other Good are the new Evil.

I'm imagining it taking place with the world having advanced, perhaps to a more eberron level of technology, perhaps into an almost futuristic setting with jetbikes, lazer-swords and lots of vibrantly coloured hair. The shining new buildings erected in the epilogue, as the utopia was founded are both old, crumbling relics and dwarfed by the new megastructures. Blade Runner meets Phantasy-star?

Yeah, anyway. I don't think you need to ret-con their actions at the end of the epilogue, they can work quite well as sparks for all manner of goings on, should you ever return to the setting. And even the fact that they acheived the 'Good Ending' and a utopia, even though they removed 'Evil' from the setting, doesn't mean that Conflict is gone, or that there aren't a million cool stories yet to explore.

Though, yeah, it's quite clear that the players in question are just being douches.

Irbis
2010-12-01, 09:19 AM
This is so stupid, I'm actually lost for words.

How is a LG society devoid of free will?

I can only assume that your players live inside an eggbox, or something.

It is very simple if you stop to think about it for a second. Just how your LG kingdom maintains its goodness? There are only two ways - either they remove free will, by barring people from doing evil, or they change people themselves removing capability of doing evil, again, limiting free will. You cannot have it in any other way.

Even if you purged the world of all evil beings and made an utopia, some people will always try to profit from other's work, which is in many ways evil. People are inherently lazy. How do you stop them? Force them to work? Forcibly re-educate them? Kill them? Send them to work camp? Well, I'm listening.

One of the best SF series ever, Stainless Steel Rat, features state like this utopia, in which the non-evil protagonist, Jim diGriz, commits crimes (that doesn't impact people's lives) because he is too bored and too intelligent. He is eventually caught and forced to work by the government, using modern incentives - but LG state like this would have to execute him, or keep him in prison forever, despite Jim being not evil, because they would not have anything interesting they could give him to stop, and the only means they would have would limit his free will.

***

As for the campaign - wow, people here chiding others for reacting that way - what? What? I know if I invested six years of life into campaign, only to learn I didn't do anything, really, and my PC was a footnote in the history of DM-sue that hijacked the campaign, I'd... well, not kill myself, but I'd pretty pissed, too. As would be the rest of my group. For the OP, it sounds like the party decided to abandon their powers for some reason, be it responsibility or something else, with one player reneging on that - and getting major rewards, too.

It's like everyone agreed to give to charity, with one person opting-out just as others finished to pay.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, and they surrendered powers knowing the paladin will keep them... but I guess they haven't anticipated what happened afterwards. Maybe they though the paladin will ascend and they would keep playing (even as major NPCs) in this new world? The OP seriously lacks details there.

Sorry, if you played for six years, I'd expect you knew your players well enough to know what they wanted. Maybe you should ask them (in private, one on one) what they didn't liked about the ending, what they expected to happen, and adjust accordingly? That's an opportunity to learn and adapt. Throwing them out or criticizing them/doing nothing, well, now, that would have been childish behaviour.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 09:20 AM
Aaaah. So you are Chaotic Evil, then. Wink wink, say no more, guv.

(Because everyone who has ever uttered a statement to the effect "I am beyond such petty concerns as good and evil" is always Evil. We know this for a fact; we in the Aotrs have Done Studies on it.)

Hum. That does seem to be a remarkably common thing. I mean, sure, I'd posit that having freedom IS a good thing, and surely a good enough thing to sacrifice any number of people for, but I guess I could possibly see that some misguided souls might see an endlessly large pile of bodies as "bad".


Though, of course, I should inform you though, that when I rule the world and then the parts of the universe Lord Death Despoil doesn't want, I afraid I will have to eliminate you in the first purge on principle. Nothing personal, you understand, just can't have people messing up my nice, tidy tyrannical dictatorship. I almost regret the necessity, seeing as you are a fellow roleplayer. Not enough to actually not do it, of course, but almost.

Naturally. No hard feelings of course, I know others with the same goal. It's just a matter of ensuring that we get the proper near-anarchic conditions to prevent that first. Bit of a race.


(It's worth noting, by the way, that if you think a LG utopia is restrictive, you'll be begging for the sweet release of death in my LE one... And I do mean that literally, because it's jolly amusing than taking a rebellious, free-spirited soul and spirit-binding them into an animated skeleton they cannot ever control and making them clean the toilets for the rest of eternity. Which, is by the way, how the Aotrs tends to get its janitorial staff. Though I will probably only kill you Tyndmyr, you do deserve some special consideration, after all! Let it not be said I won't temper my adamantine hand with mercy! (Because it won't be...))

Is there so much difference between lawful good and evil? After all, even "good" people are willing to commit what would otherwise be horrible crimes against those that do not follow their laws. Death, for instance. Aeons of "corrective education", which, lets face it, doesn't differ much from the skeleton thing. Either way, they'll try to make you follow their rules, or they'll kill you. The quibbling over exactly what those rules might be is mostly unimportant.

AstralFire
2010-12-01, 09:24 AM
It is very simple if you stop to think about it for a second. Just how your LG kingdom maintains its goodness? There are only two ways - either they remove free will, by barring people from doing evil, or they change people themselves removing capability of doing evil, again, limiting free will. You cannot have it in any other way.

This is the nature of all society. You are allowed to do whatever you want up until you grossly impinge on someone else's rights. By your idea, the only way to ever have true free will is to be godlike and unstoppable in any route you choose.

Show
2010-12-01, 09:30 AM
A true neutral kingdom leaning towards good, when properly run, would be the ideal.
Neutral is preferable on the axis of law and chaos. In an entirely lawful society, the laws are a straightjacket. In a chaotic one, the laws are ignored. This would be a society where the laws, when found incorrect, are changed for the better, not just ignored or suffered through.
A good-neutral society is better than just a good one, at least from my point of view. The way I view it is:
Good: Altruism
Neutral: Selfishness(think Ayn Rand)
Evil: Pure Egotism, no respect for anyone else.
In this society, people would ultimately live for themselves and their own satisfaction, but they would also be willing to help their neighbors, lend a hand in times of danger and whatnot.

Aotrs Commander:
Would you please stop going on about how lawful evil you are?

And if anyone is able to cast disintegrate or disrupt undead in this LE kingdom of yours, your reign will likely be a fairly short one.

AstralFire
2010-12-01, 09:31 AM
I've never seen a juncture against good people performing a neutral act - furthering themselves - only against furthering themselves at the expense of other people. In essence, I agree with your 'neutral leaning good' bit, but I would say it's possible for that to be 'good' aligned and your definition of good probably is closed to exalted.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-01, 09:33 AM
It is very simple if you stop to think about it for a second. Just how your LG kingdom maintains its goodness? There are only two ways - either they remove free will, by barring people from doing evil, or they change people themselves removing capability of doing evil, again, limiting free will. You cannot have it in any other way.

Even if you purged the world of all evil beings and made an utopia, some people will always try to profit from other's work, which is in many ways evil. People are inherently lazy. How do you stop them? Force them to work? Forcibly re-educate them? Kill them? Send them to work camp? Well, I'm listening.

You're making a leap here. Often, a LG society will be portrayed as you describe above, because a Dystopia provides conflict and drama for a story. NOT because it is inevitable.

I would have thought a LG Utopia would do anything other than execute or imprison the character from Stainless Steel Rat. Punishment for the sake of punishment is not a benevalent reaction. No, it'd be something a lot more rehabilitative. the root cause would be found out, and dealt with, in this case? likely by finding him a more stimulating line of work that would both benefit society as a whole and him as a person. Possibly by offering thoroughly modern incentives? :smallwink:
I'd imagine they'd also treat the other likely causes - The feeling that he is not entirely part of society, that he is an outsider, through therapy and maybe some community service.

Now, if you value the free will to take away other's free will, to do Evil by killing, raping, destroying et cetera, then such a regime would indeed by one that limited your 'Free Will', but for the average person, I'm sure they can live with that small loss of free-will, given that it is one that is lost in all meangful societies. I can't think, off of the top of my head, of any real-world examples where the right to murder was enshrined in law. :smallsmile:

and no, you won't get Aotrs Commander to drop character. {Scrubbed}

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 09:36 AM
This is the nature of all society. You are allowed to do whatever you want up until you grossly impinge on someone else's rights. By your idea, the only way to ever have true free will is to be godlike and unstoppable in any route you choose.

In any lawful society, perhaps. In a chaotic society...for instance, the classic example of Anarchy, such restrictions do not exist. Freedom is pretty broad. The more lawful the society, the more restrictions they have in the form of law, and the more importance they place in enforcing those laws.

It is not unreasonable to assume that many laws in even a good society go beyond things that impinge on the rights of others. What about things that harm you? Would a lawful good society attempt to limit such things? How far could this possibly go, and would some see this as evil?

Show
2010-12-01, 09:39 AM
The tune of the LG society would be "blindly follow the laws and sacrifice yourself to the greater good." The government would sacrifice people for the laws and the best of the most people {Scrubbed}
Of course, there will be varience, but overall a TN society would be better by nature. The values would be more along the lines of "follow the laws as long as they are just and further yourself as long as it is not at the expense of others." More like here in America and most of the western world. If a law is ineffective, we get rid of it. We also have rights and the ability to act as we wish(usually).
Essentially, because the TN society is a better base system, more people would behave ideally(at least in my opinion).

It is easier to perform a neutral act in a neutral society.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-01, 09:45 AM
The tune of the LG society would be "blindly follow the laws and sacrifice yourself to the greater good." The government would sacrifice people for the laws and the best of the most people {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Of course, there will be varience, but overall a TN society would be better by nature. The values would be more along the lines of "follow the laws as long as they are just and further yourself as long as it is not at the expense of others." More like here in America and most of the western world. If a law is ineffective, we get rid of it. We also have rights and the ability to act as we wish(usually).
Essentially, because the TN society is a better base system, more people would behave ideally(at least in my opinion).

It is easier to perform a neutral act in a neutral society.

I disagree, you are more likely in the TN to see corruption, for one thing. Ie; People following the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of it.
"It doesn't say I can't!"
If the society in general echoes the TN, you'll also get a lot less charitable efforts, a lot less support for those who need it, and so on. You'll end up with something a lot more like the worst parts of modern-day america, with healthcare there if you can afford it, vast differences between the rich and poor, and so on.
Without the altruistic thread running through the heart of the society, you would soon end up in a dystopia. With the Good angle firmly enshrined, that becomes a lot less likely, because helping each other is so much more an assumption than an exception.

AstralFire
2010-12-01, 09:45 AM
In any lawful society, perhaps. In a chaotic society...for instance, the classic example of Anarchy, such restrictions do not exist.

So what happens when you murder someone in an anarchic society?
1) You are punished/revenged against. This is a deterrent to anyone else seeking to murder.
2) Nothing happens. However, you pretty clearly stomped all over someone else's will to live.

Starbuck_II
2010-12-01, 09:46 AM
One of the best SF series ever, Stainless Steel Rat, features state like this utopia, in which the non-evil protagonist, Jim diGriz, commits crimes (that doesn't impact people's lives) because he is too bored and too intelligent. He is eventually caught and forced to work by the government, using modern incentives - but LG state like this would have to execute him, or keep him in prison forever, despite Jim being not evil, because they would not have anything interesting they could give him to stop, and the only means they would have would limit his free will.

Committing crimes because you are bored? Doesn't sound non-evil (unless he makes up for it with much good deeds).
Being intelligent isn't an excuse.

Because stealing while not always evil: can have evil factors (you could hurt someone in a robbery for instance)

Aotrs Commander
2010-12-01, 09:47 AM
The tune of the LG society would be "blindly follow the laws and sacrifice yourself to the greater good." The government would sacrifice people for the laws and the best of the most people {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Of course, there will be varience, but overall a TN society would be better by nature. The values would be more along the lines of "follow the laws as long as they are just and further yourself as long as it is not at the expense of others." Just like here in America and most of the western world. If a law is ineffective, we get rid of it. We also have rights and the ability to act as we wish(usually).
Essentially, because the TN society is a better base system, more people would behave ideally(at least in my opinion).

It is easier to perform a neutral act in a neutral society.

Remind how any human current society is in any way a utopia...?

A LG society is very different animal to a LG utopia, as a LG Wizard is different from an Exalted LG Cleric.



(And Show, seeing as you asked so nicely - and you had to know this was coming - I'mLawfulEvil I'mLawfulEvil I'mLawfulEvil I'mLawfulEvil! I didn't say I wasn't petty sometimes...)

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 09:53 AM
So what happens when you murder someone in an anarchic society?
1) You are punished/revenged against. This is a deterrent to anyone else seeking to murder.
2) Nothing happens. However, you pretty clearly stomped all over someone else's will to live.

Pretty much. Either of those things could happen. Sure, it may not be a good idea to do many things, but you CAN, if you want to. It's an extreme example, since literally anything goes, and most societies don't actually go to the very extremes, but it's useful as an example.

There's going to be a certain amount of variance within any category, too. I can imagine different levels of lawful good society...even just the variables of lawfulness and goodness will vary, let alone factors such as culture and such. Some will certainly be more objectionable than others...

But what do the dwarves do when you ban alcohol because you can demonstrate that it's terribly bad for them, and results in all sorts of bad side effects due to drunken actions?

Society isn't really simple enough to be accurately described by alignment, and any society that exemplifies any particular alignment is likely to have some significant problems.

Salbazier
2010-12-01, 09:53 AM
The tune of the LG society would be "blindly follow the laws and sacrifice yourself to the greater good." The government would sacrifice people for the laws and the best of the most people {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Of course, there will be varience, but overall a TN society would be better by nature. The values would be more along the lines of "follow the laws as long as they are just and further yourself as long as it is not at the expense of others." More like here in America and most of the western world. If a law is ineffective, we get rid of it. We also have rights and the ability to act as we wish(usually).
Essentially, because the TN society is a better base system, more people would behave ideally(at least in my opinion).

It is easier to perform a neutral act in a neutral society.

I disagree with 'blindly follow the law' here. Sacrificing people its for the sake of something that is not just is not the trait of good. That's more like Lawful neutral, or even evil. Lawful is not blindly following the law or not allowing alteration of law, if that's the case Paladin would not be allowed to fight evil leaders. A lawful good society will certainly aim for a just law. For that matter a Neutral society, will not aim for a just law, but law that benefit the whole society more. If legalizing capital punishment, slavery, etc, is far more beneficial than not doing so, A TN society will do it.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 10:01 AM
A lawful good society will certainly aim for a just law.

What is a just law? There seems to be significant disagreement over this point, and I can easily imagine two LG societies selecting such different results for this that they are in conflict.

Is a just law that which helps the most people? Is a just law that which makes everyone equal? Is a just law one that applies equally to all people?

Imagine taxes alone as one such area with a nearly endless number of possible solutions, among which all sorts of people select different "just" options. It doesn't matter which one you pick, many people will disagree.

AstralFire
2010-12-01, 10:08 AM
And you can murder someone in a lawful good society, you just have to go through a lot of hoops for it. Sorry, all society impinges free will.

Psyx
2010-12-01, 10:11 AM
Committing crimes because you are bored? Doesn't sound non-evil (unless he makes up for it with much good deeds).

They tend to be non-violent and slightly Robin-Hoodesque type crimes. Very much a CN character. He's not very believable, but it's entertaining light reading.

As regards an earlier poster's comment about being Chaotic... I'm not too convinced how well a truly chaotic character can exist in the military without being VERY good at press-ups and with more than one stripe on their arm. Especially with a CN attitude, that brings about the inevitable failure to obey restrictions or orders because 'I don't wanna'/'It doesn't benefit me'/'You're impinging on my freedom, so no'. Everyone I know who would be defined as actually chaotic, rather than neutral would wake up screaming at night at the thought of living such a disciplinarian lifestyle.



It's an extreme example, since literally anything goes, and most societies don't actually go to the very extremes, but it's useful as an example.

True anarchy in the way that people think it means doesn't exist anywhere I can think of, and never will. No society - regardless of the lack of central government - allows members to act completely as they like. Pick a tribe of 50 people with no codified laws, and you'll still hit internal regulation and rules. It's because we - humans - are social animals who benefit from living in a society. If you take it away from us, we will immediately build another society. Rip down government, and pretty soon communities will put up walls and organise leadership and rules.
At heart: Nobody wants to live in anarchy.


The tune of the LG society would be "blindly follow the laws and sacrifice yourself to the greater good." The government would sacrifice people for the laws and the best of the most people(communism! Oh noes!)

No: That's a Lawful society. eg: Logan's Run.
A Good society never 'blindly' does anything, nor requires anyone to sacrifice themselves against their will. I know that the concept of a benign and Good government is hard to swallow because we don't really see it in a true form, but if you imagine that everyone in charge was genuinely 'good', then it would obviously be unthinkable for them to demand blind self-sacrifice. However, if most of the population were good, they would probably be willing to make such sacrifices for the greater good if asked.
There's a big difference to be asked and willingly complying, and to be told to do something. eg: The difference between voluntarily military service and conscription.

Psyx
2010-12-01, 10:13 AM
And you can murder someone in a lawful good society, you just have to go through a lot of hoops for it. Sorry, all society impinges free will.

That's true, but unless you live in a cave on your own, you're a member of a society. We accept impingements on our free will because of net benefit.
eg: If I'm not allowed to steal stuff, then at least I don't have to carry everything with me to stop it being stolen, and I can expect my chocolate bar to be on the table when I get home.

true_shinken
2010-12-01, 10:20 AM
So anyone got any ideas on why they might feel this way or what I can do to correct the situation? I told everyone (including the paladin) that they could change their mind and I would change the epilogue if it would make them happier, but so far no one will budge.

In your place, I would have allowed them to fight the Paladin. You would have a climatic battle to end your campaign.
Also, I agree with your players. If you take choice away from people, you have taken good away from people as well. That's why the good aligned gods don't do stuff like the paladin did.
Have them do their fight. A party fighting a paladin god? Dude, that's like a final boss battle waiting to happen!

Irbis
2010-12-01, 10:21 AM
This is the nature of all society. You are allowed to do whatever you want up until you grossly impinge on someone else's rights.

Aaaand, guess what - no society ever eliminated evil deeds/crime. Even if you take as drastic measures as some countries during war do, that is, sending armed bands with "shoot to kill" orders on sight of any crime, coupled with the most ruthless and brutal secret police in history. No matter how hard you push, something will slip through your fingers.

Any LG society that eliminates evil has to use means far more drastic than that, even if they're not as brutal.


You're making a leap here. Often, a LG society will be portrayed as you describe above, because a Dystopia provides conflict and drama for a story. NOT because it is inevitable.

I'm not making a leap. It is simply impossible. Almost LG society? Sure. Reduced crime? No problem. All LG, no evil? Wait, are we still talking about humans? There's no way to do that, save for reducing free will, or save for most ruthless and accurate secret police pruning evil as it happens. Accurate even above the levels of Minority Report.


I would have thought a LG Utopia would do anything other than execute or imprison the character from Stainless Steel Rat. Punishment for the sake of punishment is not a benevalent reaction. No, it'd be something a lot more rehabilitative. the root cause would be found out, and dealt with, in this case? likely by finding him a more stimulating line of work that would both benefit society as a whole and him as a person. Possibly by offering thoroughly modern incentives? :smallwink:

Eh, I'm opposed to a common mindset 'jail=punishment' as you can be, and I prefer the model that encourages rehabilitation of criminals into the society - but I'm realist enough to know it isn't feasible in all cases. So, then, what you do? Send everyone who won't be rehabilitated behind bars for life? Mindrape them? Kill?

Either way, your LG kingdom has to have some sort of concentration camp in its closet.

As for Jim diGriz, what they can propose him? To be ambassador? Only one country, sorry. Work for military intelligence? Haven't been invented yet, besides, it would have no targets. No, the only work that can give to him is catching criminals, and for someone with his (mildly) good viewpoint, once he sees what happens to the only people worthy of battling wits with him, he quits.


I'd imagine they'd also treat the other likely causes - The feeling that he is not entirely part of society, that he is an outsider, through therapy and maybe some community service.

Anything short of magic won't work, sadly. We're talking about total utopia and all crimes gone.


Now, if you value the free will to take away other's free will, to do Evil by killing, raping, destroying et cetera, then such a regime would indeed by one that limited your 'Free Will', but for the average person, I'm sure they can live with that small loss of free-will, given that it is one that is lost in all meangful societies. I can't think, off of the top of my head, of any real-world examples where the right to murder was enshrined in law. :smallsmile:

Do you know what my biggest problem with some of the above posts is? That people justify living in LG hell by offering only one alternative - CE anarchy. Now, if you live in country with CE leanings (like some countries I won't name here to not break the rules) LG utopia might be attractive, but I happen to live in (mildly) LG society - and I don't find turning in the screw to be that appealing. Just give me larger percentage of crimes found/stopped, more people following the laws (I'm very lawful, myself, and disdain some show for them sickens me) and clean/safe streets - and I'll be happy.

Think about it. We have means of finding out who did crime undreamed of for any medieval society. Even scrying magic only comes close. We haven't eliminated crime - just how much more the screws need to be turned? Big brother watching us 24 hours per day? Anything remotely "bad" banned? That might work, but it would be hell. Even something mild, like - want to read a book containing bad words? Sorry citizen, it has been banned. To not tempt you, surrender your copy so it can be safely disposed of, now.

No thanks. That's what total law observing would total to. People are easily scared animals - once you propose something populist, they'll vote for it without thinking. Bad books? Gone. Motor races? Too dangerous. Games? Too violent. Internet? Too chaotic. Ban!

To me, 100% LG is utter fail. 90% LG, 9.5% chaotic, 0.5% evil - these are stats I could live with, provided that 0.5% of evil would have covered all activities that are not dangerous to the others, while not necessarily good, instead of things bad to the others - I like to have spice in my life sometimes, and seeing it all banned all the time without thinking, when real crimes go unnoticed, pisses me off.


Committing crimes because you are bored? Doesn't sound non-evil (unless he makes up for it with much good deeds).
Being intelligent isn't an excuse.

Because stealing while not always evil: can have evil factors (you could hurt someone in a robbery for instance)

He specifically goes after targets that don't affect society and/or evil men.

And, goes legal pretty quickly.

Huh, why I'm telling this to you? Go read the first tome, it's pretty short and I bet you'll like it! :smallwink:

GoatBoy
2010-12-01, 10:22 AM
I would guess that it didn't have to do with the nature of the ending, just the idea of the ending, itself.

Did they know it was coming? If they didn't, they might have still been in the mode that, everything is a challenge to be overcome, nothing is as it seems. Or even if they did know, it's a hard mode to get out of.

Alternatively, the truly "mega-happy ending" is not always as satisfying as it seems. How often do you see really great films that end on a completely and totally happy tone? Very rarely.

Remember John Wayne at the iconic end of "The Searchers." He has reunited his niece with her family after years apart, but he doesn't go into the house with them, because he knows that the quiet, happy life of a family is something he can never be a part of.

And even the complete vanquishing of Sauron and the reign of the king couldn't change the fact that the story had to end, and the Fellowship had to part ways.

Also, see just about every British film ever. Unconditionally happy endings are something we grow out of along with our childhood, unfortunately, as we learn that life just isn't like that.

My suggestion to curb your disappointment would just be to write a narrative of the overall story, ending it with something along the lines of, "although peace and prosperity were now the rule of the land, the heroes were gone, refusing to live in a world where fighting in the name of good is not needed." Do it for yourself, if no one else.

Psyx
2010-12-01, 10:29 AM
A party fighting a paladin god? Dude, that's like a final boss battle waiting to happen!

I think with divine rank the pally would still probably be a walk-over :smallbiggrin:

Tengu_temp
2010-12-01, 10:34 AM
Does the OP even say that the paladin eliminated all crime and evil? All I see is this:

In the epilogue I said that she was able to drive evil from the land and reestablish her empire as a utopia free of disease and poverty.
And that pretty much means "the monsters and cults were driven away". The only ones who said there's no choice of doing evil anymore are the over-reacting players.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-01, 10:53 AM
Does the OP even say that the paladin eliminated all crime and evil? All I see is this:

In the epilogue I said that she was able to drive evil from the land and reestablish her empire as a utopia free of disease and poverty.
And that pretty much means "the monsters and cults were driven away". The only ones who said there's no choice of doing evil anymore are the over-reacting players.

Ha, ninja'd. Yeah, this is pretty much my reaction also. It was disease and poverty that were removed altogether, which is well within the limits of a divinely ruled, well meaning magical society.

Also, I don't see any suggestion of a world-spanning, single civilisation. The paladin restored a single Empire, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of others existing. It doesn't even make it impossible for others to be founded, now that the apocalyptic wasteland scoured by cults and demons isn't so scoured by cults and demons. As mentioned above, societies form quite naturally.

So yeah, Jim diGriz can be an ambassador, or a police officer, or an internal affairs officer (only by constant vigilance could a society be kept clear of corruption, after all), he could be a politician, striving to meet the needs of the people and uphold the high quality of living the empire has, in the face of resource related issues, foreign relations and so on, not to mention keeping the empire relevant and able to deal with the issues of the day.

I must say Ibris, this concept you have of what a LG utopia would actually entail really does not resemble my understanding at all, rather being a much more convincing description of a LE Dystopia. I agree in the case of the empire that you describe, that would indeed be a kind of lawful hell.

We are after all talking about the society more than we are talking about the demographics. A LG society will still contain members of other alignments. Indeed, it is how they are dealt with that is how you verify the Good side of the alignment, as with how the society treats those worst off, those who have wronged it, and so on.

As for the treatment of the untreatable, that's a simple enough concept to answer. If an individual is genuinely incapable of being safely released into the public, then they must indeed be kept seperate from the public. Not as a punishment, rather for the greater good. So it would likely mean a well furnished institution with reasonable amenities and plenty of worthwhile things for them to sink their time into, so that they may live out as full a life as possible without endangering the general public. However, I'd imagine that such people would be pretty rare, especially in a society that has eliminated Poverty, and the institutions could most accurately be modeled as mental health institutions rather than as prisons, per say.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 11:06 AM
They tend to be non-violent and slightly Robin-Hoodesque type crimes. Very much a CN character. He's not very believable, but it's entertaining light reading.

As regards an earlier poster's comment about being Chaotic... I'm not too convinced how well a truly chaotic character can exist in the military without being VERY good at press-ups and with more than one stripe on their arm. Especially with a CN attitude, that brings about the inevitable failure to obey restrictions or orders because 'I don't wanna'/'It doesn't benefit me'/'You're impinging on my freedom, so no'. Everyone I know who would be defined as actually chaotic, rather than neutral would wake up screaming at night at the thought of living such a disciplinarian lifestyle.

I thought that might come up. Easy enough to explain. Twas a way to escape an even more authoritarian lifestyle. Started out with two stripes due to college classes taken early, and anyhow, there is a broad variation in military types. If you're sufficiently good at dodging the rules, you can break a great number of them with relatively little risk. Presumably this would be less practical in a D&D setting ruled by a diety. If he can wipe out hunger and poverty, he has to be fairly effective.

Chaotic tending types almost invariably do not reenlist in the military, either.


True anarchy in the way that people think it means doesn't exist anywhere I can think of, and never will. No society - regardless of the lack of central government - allows members to act completely as they like. Pick a tribe of 50 people with no codified laws, and you'll still hit internal regulation and rules. It's because we - humans - are social animals who benefit from living in a society. If you take it away from us, we will immediately build another society. Rip down government, and pretty soon communities will put up walls and organise leadership and rules.
At heart: Nobody wants to live in anarchy.

Certainly it has. It does not tend to be a long lasting government(most extremist things have issues), but google can easily find you real world examples. I'd prefer not to delve into them myself, thanks to board restrictions, but while uncommon, they have existed.

And there is a difference between cultural norms and laws, in almost all societies. Traditions and the like are very common everywhere, but what happens when you break them varies pretty significantly. I would assume that a lawful society would tend to code everything you must do in the form of actual laws.

Salbazier
2010-12-01, 11:08 AM
'society free of poverty and disease'

somehow it reminded me to Star Trek.

adibobo
2010-12-01, 11:25 AM
'society free of poverty and disease'

somehow it reminded me to Star Trek.

Are you talking about that episode in the original series witch featured a world without disease and death, witch literally became so crowded that it was a living nightmare?

Shademan
2010-12-01, 11:35 AM
Are you talking about that episode in the original series witch featured a world without disease and death, witch literally became so crowded that it was a living nightmare?

no star trek human society in general

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-01, 11:51 AM
Aaaand, guess what - no society ever eliminated evil deeds/crime. Even if you take as drastic measures as some countries during war do, that is, sending armed bands with "shoot to kill" orders on sight of any crime, coupled with the most ruthless and brutal secret police in history. No matter how hard you push, something will slip through your fingers.

Any LG society that eliminates evil has to use means far more drastic than that, even if they're not as brutal.

I'm not making a leap. It is simply impossible. Almost LG society? Sure. Reduced crime? No problem. All LG, no evil? Wait, are we still talking about humans? There's no way to do that, save for reducing free will, or save for most ruthless and accurate secret police pruning evil as it happens. Accurate even above the levels of Minority Report.

Yeah, I'm with Irbis here. There is a huge difference between a) having an LG society (which strongly encourages LG behavior in its citizens and discourages Chaotic and Evil behavior) and b) having a society made up completely of LG citizens (some of whom apparently lived all their previous lives in a NE or CE world). If the players perceived (rightly or wrongly) your description of the epilogue as b) rather than a), then they naturally would feel that free will had been grossly impinged upon. For anyone who is not strictly Lawful (IRL), the loss of free will involved in that radical a shift is completely unacceptable. I'm not saying that the players' behavior was appropriate, but I could completely understand it from that perspective.

Seerow
2010-12-01, 11:55 AM
Man some of the arguments in this topic amaze me.

"In a Lawful Good society, if I murder someone they'll either redeem me and prevent me from murdering again, or kill me! I have the god given right to rape murder and steal as I desire and anyone who tries to stop me through any value is taking away my free will!"


Give me a break.

Irbis
2010-12-01, 11:55 AM
A Good society never 'blindly' does anything, nor requires anyone to sacrifice themselves against their will. I know that the concept of a benign and Good government is hard to swallow because we don't really see it in a true form, but if you imagine that everyone in charge was genuinely 'good', then it would obviously be unthinkable for them to demand blind self-sacrifice. However, if most of the population were good, they would probably be willing to make such sacrifices for the greater good if asked.
There's a big difference to be asked and willingly complying, and to be told to do something. eg: The difference between voluntarily military service and conscription.

Impossible. The government can be made up of angels all I care, the people they rule are still humans. So, you try to persuade them, set example, enlighten, etc. Let's say 90% gladly follow you. What you do with 10%? Lock them up?

Plus, in real world, it would be like 20% following them, 80% doing what they want. There are sizeable minorities you just can't change the views of, be it denials of: poisoning others (smokers), polluting the atmosphere (climate change), poisoning the soil (lead in benzine/gasoline, large, wasteful engines), conspiracy theories, etc, etc. When you have all the leading scientists saying something is true, with visual proofs for all to see, yet some still negate that - how do you convince them without using magic about something far less material?

Your government would be utterly ineffective, or ruling with them most iron fist imaginable.


Does the OP even say that the paladin eliminated all crime and evil? All I see is this:

And that pretty much means "the monsters and cults were driven away". The only ones who said there's no choice of doing evil anymore are the over-reacting players.

And, right after this part, the very next sentence says: world without evil. Literally. Then it says god-Paladin can achieve that. Yeah, it can be interpreted in so many ways :smallsigh:


Ha, ninja'd. Yeah, this is pretty much my reaction also. It was disease and poverty that were removed altogether, which is well within the limits of a divinely ruled, well meaning magical society.

Also, I don't see any suggestion of a world-spanning, single civilisation. The paladin restored a single Empire, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of others existing. It doesn't even make it impossible for others to be founded, now that the apocalyptic wasteland scoured by cults and demons isn't so scoured by cults and demons. As mentioned above, societies form quite naturally.

See above. It literally mentions conquering evil out of the whole world. With other countries this scenario fells apart.


So yeah, Jim diGriz can be an ambassador, or a police officer, or an internal affairs officer (only by constant vigilance could a society be kept clear of corruption, after all), he could be a politician, striving to meet the needs of the people and uphold the high quality of living the empire has, in the face of resource related issues, foreign relations and so on, not to mention keeping the empire relevant and able to deal with the issues of the day.

Except in such a world, such things would be non-existent/extremely boring. Or almost-evil (sending people to mental institutions). It would be extremely out of character for him to take the job.

Plus, to make a policeman out of him, you'd need (without modern tech) to make him a high-level wizard. At which point he begins plotting collapsing the regime.


I must say Ibris, this concept you have of what a LG utopia would actually entail really does not resemble my understanding at all, rather being a much more convincing description of a LE Dystopia. I agree in the case of the empire that you describe, that would indeed be a kind of lawful hell.

Sooo... how would you eliminate all evil, then?


We are after all talking about the society more than we are talking about the demographics. A LG society will still contain members of other alignments. Indeed, it is how they are dealt with that is how you verify the Good side of the alignment, as with how the society treats those worst off, those who have wronged it, and so on.

Still, the only way to eliminate evil is purge parts of society or bar them from having free will. It is not modern limiting of free will - it is purging choice altogether. It is the only way to eliminate evil.


As for the treatment of the untreatable, that's a simple enough concept to answer. If an individual is genuinely incapable of being safely released into the public, then they must indeed be kept seperate from the public. Not as a punishment, rather for the greater good. So it would likely mean a well furnished institution with reasonable amenities and plenty of worthwhile things for them to sink their time into, so that they may live out as full a life as possible without endangering the general public. However, I'd imagine that such people would be pretty rare, especially in a society that has eliminated Poverty, and the institutions could most accurately be modeled as mental health institutions rather than as prisons, per say.

So, mental institutions? Modelled after the Arkham Asylum, to stop inmates from doing harm to themselves, each other, and the wardens?

So, in order to function, this LG empire has to run concentration camp pretty much all the time, maintain a wide net of reeducation camps for less serious crimes, constant, 24 hour surveillance, bar anything even slightly non-good by law... Remind me, how it is utopia at all? It would be preferable to anarchy, yes, but only slightly.

And who would watch the watchers?

Doughnut Master
2010-12-01, 12:06 PM
Interesting idea. Shame they killed themselves.

I thought that with your ending and their reactions, you had the makings of a killer sequel. Start a new campaign, set the PaladinGod up as an NPC. It's years later, and the utopia isn't all it's cracked up to be. Possibly something like Brave New (Old) World, or 1984 with a smile.

You can have rebels and free thinkers. Maybe team up with a chaotic god to try and take on the throne. Heck, now it even sounds sort of biblical. You could run something where they try and overthrow the monarchy, fail, but the war ends in a stalemate, thus restoring balance to the land.

I think you still have options to resolve this.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-01, 12:19 PM
Man some of the arguments in this topic amaze me.

"In a Lawful Good society, if I murder someone they'll either redeem me and prevent me from murdering again, or kill me! I have the god given right to rape murder and steal as I desire and anyone who tries to stop me through any value is taking away my free will!"


Give me a break.

Every D&D alignment test I've ever taken showed me as LG (with NG tendencies) or NG (with LG tendencies), so I appreciate the value of law and good, but you completely misunderstand the argument. Of course an LG society would and should attempt to redeem criminals and prevent their crimes. However, although there are certainly people who would be fine with a society in which people are reprogrammed before the fact so that they would never wish to commit any crimes (not just evil acts, but also chaotic acts) in the first place, anyone who places any value in the concept of free will would see such a thing as an abomination.

Chauncymancer
2010-12-01, 12:19 PM
The word Utopia has baggage:
Advertised***********Reality
No Pain ***********No Determination
No Danger ******** No Courage
No Evil *********** No Good

And even if that's not what happened, when you say Utopia, that's what I hear.

Let's pretend for a moment that the Paladin was the DM of a game inside the game, and that the other PC's were playing this game inside the game.
The paladin railroads the players into a "totally awesome" Monty Haul game, where nothing is a high enough CR to really threaten them. This is boring, so they leave the game.
But they're fictional characters, in the fictional word, so they CAN'T quit the game world. Walking out on the game of life is suicide.

TL;DR: As players, they reacted immaturely and should have taken the time to talk out their objections. But as characters, I can understand their frustration and desire for death. From a CN perspective, Law is Evil, Evil is Law, Good is Chaos, and Chaos is Good (Paste character portraits onto the alignment square, then flip the square onto its L side.)

Tryll
2010-12-01, 12:28 PM
In the discussion of how a diety-created LG paradise would deal with lawbreakers, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the "exile" option. A lawbreaker's conversation with the Sheriff would go something like this:

"You keep trying to inflict harm on your neighbors. This is not allowed by our laws. You can either go to our How To Not Be Evil school, or you can leave.

If you choose to go to school you are free to drop out at any time, but if you drop out you will have to leave.

If you choose to leave, you can take with you anything and everything that you own. We will give you any reasonable transport you might require for this - free of charge, of course, since we have conquered poverty. While in exile you are free to remain in contact with your friends and relatives, and they are free to come and go to visit you.

If you choose to leave but later change your mind and want to return, you will have to attend How To Not Be Evil school before being allowed back in."

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-01, 12:29 PM
Alright, let's get theoretical.

The majority of crime comes, not from some kind of politically motivated expression of 'Free Will', but from disadvantage. In the scenario where poverty is removed, where healthcare is free and effective and where society actually does care and look out for those who would otherwise fall through the cracks, you are essentially left with a fraction of the potential for crime. The majority of those who would commit it anyway can be treated, redeemed, helped to end the cycle, etc, and become productive and happy members of society.

In the few cases where that's not possible, you are literally talking about the mentally ill. The problem with Arkham Asylum is that it's got a revolving door and is frequently run by the corrupt, the cruel and the incompetant. If we assume that in our Utopia, there would not only be a basic level of understanding but rigorous standards, training, oversight and so on, even the Joker can be safely segregated from society. As he is too dangerous to leave roaming around, (being a murderous psychopath who defies even classification let alone treatment), the best case scenario is to house him safely and securely in such a place as for him to live out his existence peacefully.

There is a hell of a lot of difference between incarcerating a verifyably dangerous, incurable madman and running a concentration camp, after all.

Likewise, the various progressive treatments for non-serious offenders currently being used and trialed in various western countries in the real world hardly constitute 'Re-education camps'. Merely expanding the principles behind these initiatives to form the backbone of your penal and reform system doesn't change their fundamentally benevolant nature into some facist parody.

As for the personal freedoms angle, I'd think that'd be the first thing to be enshrined in law. A constitutional document outlining the rights and responsibilities of the population would surely be as important a step in founding our Utopia as it was in the founding of modern-america. This is a Lawful and Good society, after all.
Given that this is a society formed in the aftermath of a demon-infested-apocalyptic-wasteland scenario, I somehow doubt that Big Industry is much of a current problem. With that in mind, pollution need never become a problem, as Industry would be founded with the kind of guidelines necessary to regulate such a thing before it could get to the point it has in the modern world, where change and regulation is coming too late to be easily implimented.

As for health related issues, that would likely be a problem in any utopia, but if we are assuming that it is a good one, then it would almost certainly follow the course of education over penalisation. When good, healthy food is available, and the cost isn't an issue (remember, it's almost always the worst off that lack access to affordable healthy food), then there should be a general lack of such health epidemics as we are currently facing. Likewise, with the Lawful and Good nature of the society, it would be difficult for cynically unhealthy industries to spring up in the first-place.

As for our Jimi diGrizzle finding his jobs boring, well. If he finds difficult meaningful jobs boring, preferring instead to loaf about and commit more romantic petty larceny, then that speaks less about the level of stimulation offered by any of the many avenues available to him and a lot more to underlying psychological problems, and can be managed simply enough. If all else fails, as a fledgling utopia in a blasted, empty wasteland, there is plenty of room for Frontiersmen to push back the bounderies of the wilderness.

This is quite a rambling post, Admittedly. Okay, one final theoretical response;
Who would Watch the Watchers? The Department for Constitutional Oversight perhaps.

Our Utopian society would have the appropriate checks and balances built into the system from the very start, along with the mechanisms to carry out reform where it is needed. Accountability, transparency and so on would be very important. Suitably empowered agencies would exist purely to ensure that the central principles of the empire are maintained and not used for personal power, gratification and so on. Democratic structures would inevitably be built in at all appropriate levels to give the citizenry direct say in the running of their society and the ability to make a genuine difference.

While I'm not entirely sure either way about Exile as a method for treating the incurably criminally insane, I do heartily endorse How Not To Be Evil School. :smallbiggrin:

Seerow
2010-12-01, 12:30 PM
Every D&D alignment test I've ever taken showed me as LG (with NG tendencies) or NG (with LG tendencies), so I appreciate the value of law and good, but you completely misunderstand the argument. Of course an LG society would and should attempt to redeem criminals and prevent their crimes. However, although there are certainly people who would be fine with a society in which people are reprogrammed before the fact so that they would never wish to commit any crimes (not just evil acts, but also chaotic acts) in the first place, anyone who places any value in the concept of free will would see such a thing as an abomination.

The point is taking away your ability to commit crime isn't taking away free will. If you were going to have your mind wiped and turned into a slave doing nothing but a set job for your entire life, I could see the argument. But saying being prevented from committing crime is removing free will entirely is false. It paints an extremely black and white picture where you can either do whatever you want with no consequence, or you can do nothing except what government tells you.

Unless a LG society made it against the law to choose your own job, enjoy yourself with friends, or do anything that is not explicitly productive to society as a whole, you maintain your free will. Or else you're implying every law abiding citizen in the world has given up their free will, which is an idea I find preposterous. There is always something you can do without breaking the law, unless law is extended to an unreasonable amount. There was no indication that that would happen, and assuming it would is a big logical leap.

Irbis
2010-12-01, 12:32 PM
I appreciate the value of law and good, but you completely misunderstand the argument. Of course an LG society would and should attempt to redeem criminals and prevent their crimes. However, although there are certainly people who would be fine with a society in which people are reprogrammed before the fact so that they would never wish to commit any crimes (not just evil acts, but also chaotic acts) in the first place, anyone who places any value in the concept of free will would see such a thing as an abomination.

This. So much this. The government we're talking about isn't just discouraging crime - it is literally holding loaded gun to your temple 24 hours a day threatening to shoot if you commit crime. You need means of that calibre to do what was proposed. Anyone thinking he would be okay with such an arrangement should consider what she/he would feel if their favourite pastime was also considered a crime. For their own good, of course.

This is about how it feels when you have all these little things you wanted to try sometimes banned. No variety in life, just being marched along, forced to smile, work, and be productive.

Anyone who would be okay with that has no imagination or feelings at all.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 12:34 PM
To the person who suggested Exile: Is it really good to send out evil people to the rest of the world? That strikes me as....doubtful at best.


And yeah, a follow-up campaign where the deaths of the PCs inspire malcontent and such in a LG world gone wrong would be pretty awesome. Thats probably the best idea I've heard that doesn't require retconning.

AstralFire
2010-12-01, 12:34 PM
Of course, we're still not seeing at what point we've been told that the society became anything like this, so...

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-01, 12:35 PM
If you are holding a metaphorical loaded gun to someone's head to prevent them being Chaotic or Non-Good, 24hrs a day, as described above, then you do not have a LG society.

You have a LE society, with LG people and people forced to act as if they are LG living in the society.

That is the important distinction in my mind.

Seerow
2010-12-01, 12:37 PM
This. So much this. The government we're talking about isn't just discouraging crime - it is literally holding loaded gun to your temple 24 hours a day threatening to shoot if you commit crime. You need means of that calibre to do what was proposed. Anyone thinking he would be okay with such an arrangement should consider what she/he would feel if their favourite pastime was also considered a crime. For their own good, of course.

This is about how it feels when you have all these little things you wanted to try sometimes banned. No variety in life, just being marched along, forced to smile, work, and be productive.

Anyone who would be okay with that has no imagination or feelings at all.


So your favorite passtimes include stealing, murdering, rape, and other such crimes?

If so, I'm perfectly happy if this utopia holds the gun to your head or just outright kills you. You really have no place in civilized society if that's how you really feel.

Nothing at all about the description indicated anything unusual was outlawed in this society. Yes, if the society is going to start saying "No you can't run a business to make more money, that's not fair" or "No, you're not allowed to eat that food it's bad for you" or "Any gathering of more than X people will be dispersed" and other such things I'd agree with you.

However we have no indication this is the sort of thing being removed. I would assume things that are actually crimes are cracked down hard on, but beyond that, any assumption is stretching it as far as I'm concerned.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 12:40 PM
As you make a society increasingly lawful, the difference between LE and LG diminishes. The only real difference is what motivates the creation of the laws. The evil dictator will do it because it'll make society function, since it's in his best interest to have the society he controls working well. The good person will do it because he thinks it's morally right.

And oddly, laws that make society function well have a lot of overlap with what people tend to think are morally right. After all, if it's a law that makes society worse, can it really be morally right?

AstralFire
2010-12-01, 12:41 PM
To the person who suggested Exile: Is it really good to send out evil people to the rest of the world? That strikes me as....doubtful at best.


And yeah, a follow-up campaign where the deaths of the PCs inspire malcontent and such in a LG world gone wrong would be pretty awesome. Thats probably the best idea I've heard that doesn't require retconning.

I can't be the only person tired of this cliche. I can't be.

Sillycomic
2010-12-01, 12:44 PM
Why can't the PC's take on the paladin-god in a final battle over whether or not the Utopian empire is established?

You say they can't because the paladin has godly powers and they don't...

However, earlier in your campaign you said that the group took on several gods and won. So the group is already established as god killers and have the means and powers in which to do so.

You also said they couldn't go kill the paladin because they were long time friends?

I don't think that's any sort of reason to say they can't do something.

You can't kill deer because they're cute.
You can't kill a paladin because she's your long time friend.

That makes no sense. If a player wants to kill someone, they can try kill them (and have all the consequences that follow such actions)


You said this was from the epilogue. So I'm assuming this was just you telling everyone what happened. At no point did the paladin say this is what she was going to do. This is more of...

"So you guys wake up one morning. All disease is purged from the land, no more evil people trying to rape and pillage... oh and your paladin friend has just established herself as the inarguable leader of everyone and everything. What do you guys want for breakfast? Sausage? Toast?"

And you are wondering why they reacted with such hostility? Barring the entire epic conversation about free will versus a lawful good society, this paladin is clearly using her powers for selfish means. (at least if I were a character in this campaign, I would rationally think that, and then start rationally thinking of how to take her down)

She's no better than the warlords in the post apocalyptic wasteland. There's more to eat and no more herpes, but that doesn't mean much. There have been generous warlords in the past, doesn't mean they aren't warlords.

If the paladin had come to her friends and said, "This is what I want to do, you're all my friends, help me create a better society..."

Then there's little room to complain. As players they all get input into how the story ends and the world is put back together (and not simply told what is happening around them) As characters they're brought up as leaders and advisers who can push the world in whatever direction they feel is most appropriate.

TL:DR: If you want to change things either get everyone else involved in how the world is put back together, or let them try to kill the paladin.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-01, 12:45 PM
I can't be the only person tired of this cliche. I can't be.

You're not.
Dystopias are cool, but they are a little obvious sometimes.

I like my own suggestion, with a genuine Utopia that needs preserving personally, it's a lot less over-used. :smallsmile:

Telonius
2010-12-01, 12:46 PM
At the climax of the campaign each of the other PCs chose to give up their powers and return them to the gods.

The paladin, however, chose to keep her powers as it was the only way for her to resurrect her lover that had been slain years before. She then continued her crusade, now with godly abilities.

Yeah, I think this passage here is pretty key, depending on how it shook out. So our "Paladin" is exercising power that rightfully belongs to a god, for selfish (no matter how noble) ends? Then refuses to give said power back to the god in question? My Align-o-Meter is registering Neutral to Chaos, with the Hubris warning light flashing.

JonRG
2010-12-01, 12:49 PM
I'm reminded a bit of the end to DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1313), specifically...


This sucks. He gets the uber sword, the kingdom, the hot elf wife and we get to be his handyman and his gardener?
Though a lovely wrap-up for the paladin, you sorta cheated the other players out of any ending not totally overshadowed by their new Holy Overlord. When they freaked out about the mechanics of ablating evil from the kingdom (which you never went into either), they're being "silly," even though the debate over free will has been raging roughly forever. Okay, your players think, Paladin just Good!Mindraped everyone. This is outrageous and we need to stop her. Suddenly, she's MC Hammer and they can't touch her, despite the fact everyone got their original powers from killing gods. The players have (reasonable) issues with the ending that (apparently) haven't be addressed and they are powerless to stop the perpetrator by DM fiat. When viewed that way, suicide seems reasonable.

A more egalitarian ending would have been better for all parties involved (yourself included).

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-01, 01:02 PM
From this post, I suspect what we have here is a basic RP Autonomy conflict.

Some quotes and explanation

In the epilogue I said that she was able to drive evil from the land and reestablish her empire as a utopia free of disease and poverty. To which the other player's reacted extremely violently.

They claimed that the paladin was now a tyrant and had removed free will from the world. When I asked how they said that power corrupts, and that a monarch is innately evil. People would never obey a monarch willingly, no matter how good, charismatic, and wise they are. Several of the player's said they refused to live in a world without evil, and without evil there can be no good, and therefore no free will.
This here is the crux of the issue. Presuming that they are not merely "spoiled children" it looks like they're objecting to one character being able to overwrite the world they had been adventuring in collectively for so long. Specifically, they believed that this Empire had turned the gritty, post-apocolyptic landscape into a Sunshine & Candy Land - a jarring change, to say the least.

I imagine the following exchange didn't help either

I tried telling them this was nonsense, but they refused to listen. Two of the players said the world was now so horrible (at the start of the campaign it was literally a wasteland ruled by demon worshippers and genocidal warlords) that they refused to live in it. They said they wanted to attack and kill the party paladin. I told them that not only was it not feasible while the paladin had godly powers and they didn't, but it was extremely out of character as they were long time friends and allies where both of good alignment.
From their perspective, the exchange likely sounded like this

Them: Don't we have something to say about how the world turned out?
DM: No.
Them: Fine, then our characters are going to try to change things in their epilogue.
DM: No.

Frankly, they probably would have responded better to "listen, she's a God-Emperor now - you can't just walk up and kill her. So, how do you want to oppose her rule instead?" Then they could have at least had something to do in the epilogue; as it is, it sounds like there was literally meaningful for them to do.


Also: It's generally not a good idea to be so dismissive about your other players' ideas.

They couldn't give any other explanation other than "I have no free will" and the above mentioned clichés about power corrupting and there being no good without evil, and as far as a can tell they are just jealous that one of the other characters kept divine power while they didn't and are acting out in a childish manner as a response.
"Power Corrupting" and "No Free Will" aren't pointless explanations; they're legitimate themes for stories. Considering their story had - up to that point - been taking place in a Crapsack World it seems reasonable to think that the themes the Players raised were consistent with the sort of story they believed themselves to be a part of. Dismissing them off-hand makes it sound like you don't care about their ideas - poor form for collaborative storytelling generally, and Campaign Epilogues specifically.
In short: The undertone of the OP's post suggests that the OP may have seemed dismissive of the other Players' attempts to "make space" for themselves in the Epilogue. In particular, telling them that "their characters wouldn't do that" robs them of RP autonomy at a crucial point - when there is nothing but RP left to do. Faced with such action, it is reasonable for even (particularly!) invested Players to have their characters commit suicide.

In the future, try to be more engaging with the Players generally; don't dismiss their choices of themes or actions out of hand. Don't say "No" - say "No, but..."

OTOH if your Players are just "spoiled children" then there's nothing else to do.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-01, 01:02 PM
The point is taking away your ability to commit crime isn't taking away free will. If you were going to have your mind wiped and turned into a slave doing nothing but a set job for your entire life, I could see the argument. But saying being prevented from committing crime is removing free will entirely is false. It paints an extremely black and white picture where you can either do whatever you want with no consequence, or you can do nothing except what government tells you.

Unless a LG society made it against the law to choose your own job, enjoy yourself with friends, or do anything that is not explicitly productive to society as a whole, you maintain your free will. Or else you're implying every law abiding citizen in the world has given up their free will, which is an idea I find preposterous. There is always something you can do without breaking the law, unless law is extended to an unreasonable amount. There was no indication that that would happen, and assuming it would is a big logical leap.

No, IRL people who are law-abiding have chosen to be so. No loss of free will required. As for law "extended to an unreasonable extent," that is exactly what we're talking about. It is literally impossible to be Good without self-sacrifice. It is quite possible to approve of Goodness in others while still being Neutral and selfish enough to not wish to sacrifice a great deal of one's time and resources to help others. But, if everyone in the campaign world were LG, such Neutrality is apparently no longer possible.

Not having been in the campaign described, I don't know exactly what happened. This is what we've got to go on:

In the epilogue I said that [the paladin] was able to drive evil from the land and reestablish her empire as a utopia free of disease and poverty. To which the other player's reacted extremely violently.

They claimed that the paladin was now a tyrant and had removed free will from the world. When I asked how they said that power corrupts, and that a monarch is innately evil. People would never obey a monarch willingly, no matter how good, charismatic, and wise they are. Several of the player's said they refused to live in a world without evil, and without evil there can be no good, and therefore no free will.

The part about "people would never obey a monarch willingly" is ridiculous. If that's an accurate depiction of the players' reaction, it may be that they were equally off-base about everything. However, I never said that the players were right in their reaction. What I said (and I don't think I was the only one) was that if the players were under the impression that free will had been eliminated by the complete elimination of all evil and chaos, their reaction was understandable.

Ormur
2010-12-01, 01:04 PM
I never know how to treat the lawful factor. Would the ideal government be NG or LG. Does NG perhaps just mean that the government isn't actually up to the task of organizing a whole country or that it isn't consistent? Does lawful mean that order takes precedence over results or is it just very consistent and orderly in trying to achieve results?

What you want in your utopia (presuming you'd like to live a place free of strife and need) is both competency and a respect for individual freedoms coupled with the usual handwaves that distinguish a plausibly competent real life government from a true utopia, like being free of disease and poverty.

I can imagine a LG government (of course calling it a government may be a bit strange where the head of state is literally a god) that acknowledges that not all people are LG but nevertheless strives to make them happy and fulfilled without hurting other citizens. If that government was completely successful there would be very few evil people because people become evil through evil acts. Because of the respect for individual freedoms that would have to be achieved by removing incentives and causes for evil acts and by preventing evil actions from happening. Things would have to be done in a very orderly manner for that to happen.

I mentioned a successful example of a fictional utopia before. They handled murder first of all my making it both very unlikely and hard to commit (no scarcity or diseases or other conditions) and secondly by simply making sure no one could commit a murder twice. The punishment for murder wasn't death or imprisonment but simply that you wouldn't get invited to parties and the bother of having a robot watching your every move.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 01:08 PM
The part about "people would never obey a monarch willingly" is ridiculous. If that's an accurate depiction of the players' reaction, it may be that they were equally off-base about everything. However, I never said that the players were right in their reaction. What I said (and I don't think I was the only one) was that if the players were under the impression that free will had been eliminated by the complete elimination of all evil and chaos, their reaction was understandable.

Realistically, some people would, some people wouldn't.

If it's a world where EVERYONE did, you have to assume that free will has been violated on that path to that, to at least some degree. It's pretty hard to get truly unanimous agreement on anything, if you've got a big enough group of people involved.

Severus
2010-12-01, 01:26 PM
Reading this, I think if I was one of the non-god-pally players I'd be kinda pissed too.

They all played the campaign together for 6 years. They'd all like to be equally 'rewarded' at the end. Instead, Pally gets to be god-emperor and they're what? left-overs who sacrificed all so another player could lord it over the world?

I can see this working if all the players are aligned with the pally and that's the way it goes, but in a typical group, everybody has their own motives.

I played in a game where we were all scions of a noble house and we had to overthrow the corrupt demon-worshiping king. I got to be king at the end, but everybody was in agreement that that was the plan from about session 5 of the multi-year campaign.

If they weren't on board with this, then I don't think you gave equal 'shinies' to everyone at the end of the day.

JeenLeen
2010-12-01, 02:00 PM
I think I agree with most of the possibilities those above are saying.


1. Players are upset about lack of input -- they did not get to influence the ending and would have acted to make it otherwise than it was.

2. Players are upset that the paladin-player got the rewards. They feel shifted.

3. Players are upset because, due to a 6-year investment in the world and their characters, they dislike how the world finalized. I agree with the OP philosophically and think that the players are being illogical when they say power necessarily corrupts or that a good monarchy/dictatorship cannot exist, but if they believe that, it is reasonable for them to base their characters responses on that and dislike it if the DM enforces his philosophical views on the world, especially if they consider the D&D universe as being one where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are all equal powers/paths/views.

Problem 1 could have been resolved by asking the players how they react while the paladin-god does his thing. Problem 2 by the DM realizing the players would be annoyed/offended by this, if this indeed is the offense. Problem 3 is harder to deal with, but I think both could say "I think you are wrong philosophically and I am right, but I understand we have different views." Problem 3 isn't really a problem if the players could react, and, as they've killed gods before, I imagine they'd be able to again unless the paladin-god consolidated all of their power.

Denamort
2010-12-01, 02:17 PM
I don't think is really important if a "Lawfull Good" utopy is good or bad, or if it bans free will. The point is, there is a debate about it. I believe Utopy is imposibble, by definition. If a DM where to end a capaing like the OP did I would be very piss of. Is like someone telling me that the capaing ends with everyone joining a religion. It can be a religion that encourages good, like Heironeous, but most of my characters are Atheist, so I would find that very offensive. If a DM finishes a camping this way, he's imposing his view upon the players, and I think that's wrong.

But I don't think this is why they where so angry with this ending. If a DM ended a camping this way, I wouldn't commit suicide or try to kill my Paladin friend, with whom I have been adventuring for many years in-game, and playing six years in real life. I would said that I don't like the ending and ask the DM if he/she can change it, not have a tantrum like the one the OP describes.

Personally, I have a hard time beliving that after SIX years of playing together they would sudenly and without warning explode and say they hate the ending and it's so bad they have to kill themselves. How did the OP miss that he was playing all this years with 7 year olds? I think there has to be something else to the situation that cause such a reaction and I think we need more information to give an opinion.
For instance, how did the OP didn't know after six years that all his players are cynical and believe utopys to be impossible? When you are making and eding this kind of thing should be the first to consider.

I'm surprise how many people have accused the players of jealousy. As Legolas said in "DM of the Rings": "He gets the uber-sword, the kingdom, the hot elf wife and we get to be his handy man and his gardener?" In LotR this makes sense, it's appropiate for the plot. In this case, the players are stuck in the world-wide empire of the Paladin, have no say in what she can do. For what the OP says, they weren't even mentioned in the epilogue. So, I don't think this is jealousy, I think is a perfectly valid complaint.
The Paladin kept his power for completly selfish reasons. I'm sure the other players also had reasons to kept their powers and they gave them away anyway. I believe there was a reason for them to have to give that power back, an I would like the OP to said why they did it. And then, not only the Paladin doesn't loose her powers, she becomes the unchallenged ruler of the world? From what you said there were at least four players in your campaing, and in the ending only one of them was reward or even mentioned.

The fact that all your players complaint about it makes me thing that it's not a childish tantrum. I can't believe that everyone but the OP and the Paladin are as immature as the OP says.

On how to solve the problem, I don't think rebooting the ending is going to do any good. The moment is lost, really. I would talk to every player, first individually and then with all together, find out why they were so angry and, if it was indeed your fault, apologise.

By the way, how did the Paladin react to all this?

Tryll
2010-12-01, 02:31 PM
To the person who suggested Exile: Is it really good to send out evil people to the rest of the world? That strikes me as....doubtful at best.

Hmmm, you have a point there... Dumping your problems in your neighbor's back yard is kinda nasty, especially when some of those problems are murderous.

Since the empire is being run by a deity-level character with deity-level powers, maybe each exile gets their own little pocket dimension. Big enough that they could never hope to fully explore it in one lifetime, and filled with unseen servant spells to attend their needs (no fear of starvation, freezing to death in winter, etc). They still get to keep all their stuff, and are allowed visits by friends and relatives, but still can't come back without first attending How To Not Be Evil school.

Talakeal
2010-12-01, 02:31 PM
Wow, a lot of posts over night. Never had a thread grow this fast.

To the people who are telling me to discuss it like an adult I tried after the game. I spent a good 20 minutes telling them that they are thinking of it in far too black and white terms and explaining real life philosophy to them to try and relate how it was not all bad, and I offered to change my own epilogue or allow them to change their decisions leading up to it, and told them that it killing off their character of six years seemed to me a offensive and childish overreaction. The player who came up with the idea responded to this by simply saying "My decision stands."

I have had problems with this character before using anti authority arguments to justify seemingly selfish or childish behavior, for example as a PC I posted
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158872

The paladin king used no form of mind control or oppression. They merely banished those who simply could not live within the society and were unwilling to change their alignment or receive medical help for mental illness, and against those who lived outside the society and refused to co-exist peacefully they were slain in honorable combat.
The people of the kingdom were free to pursue any activities they liked, there was no censorship of any kind. People were free to pursue any craft, entertainment, art, knowledge, or even sorcery they liked without fear of poverty or violence.
The other players said that everyone must be mind controlled by the paladin or else they would not follow them. I said they follow her because she is a paragon of virtue who can protect them and has the highest charisma and wisdom of anyone living on the planet. To which the player said "call it what you will, if you are telling me it is out of character to kill her on whim it is mind control".

While I agree such a world is "boring" from an adventurers perspective. If they had all given up their powers they could have kept adventuring in the world, albeit with new characters, theirs were simply too high level to be challenged further. However, just because a few people get their kicks out of slaying orcs, does that really justify the people who lose their own happy lives or those of their loved ones to war, those who are raped or pillaged by marauders, those who are tortured, crippled, or simply go mad from the horror of battle? I don't think a world without violence is a horrifying place.

Other than the lack of violence (and there is nothing stopping willing people from fighting each other in gladiatorial style matches) and the fact that the world is a monarchy (and I honestly don't see how an INDIVIDUAL loses rights in a given system of government) led by a god who people have to accept as real (even if they choose to worship some other god).


Some background on the world:

The campaign world is an extremely fantastic version of post Arthurian Britain. The entire world is set on a very large island that was once home to a powerful monarchy, but when the king died and fell to a broken heart the land turned into a plagued wasteland and ruled by various evil wizard and barbarian warlords.

The campaign was split into four tiers, each lasting about seven levels. The first was spent as standard adventurers, working for a secret society of witch hunters to ferret out supernatural evil and recover lost magic items.

The second was spent trying to recover several artifacts that could heal the world and reestablish the old empire including the holy grail and Excalibur. Also during this session the wizard (the one who later kills herself) learns that she is not a person, but a simulacrum created by the long dead god of magic, and at the climax of the tier resurrects this god.

The third tier involves defeating all the powerful warlords, sorcerers, and monsters that rule the world and reestablishing the kingdom.

The fourth tier involves magic dying from the world, and the gods and other spirits leaving the collapsing planes to establish new kingdoms on the prime material. The player's restore balance amongst the elemental and outer planes, recover the lost artifacts which the gods used to create the world from primordial chaos, and then slay the interloper gods.

The party became hosts to several gods during the fourth tier, as the gods either had to leave the material world forever or become avatars due to dying magic. The wizard became host to the god of magic, and learned that magic was leaving the world because the energy of creation was simply running out. She sacrificed the divine essence of the god of magic within her to recharge the worlds batteries, and to allow everyone on the planet, not just a chosen few, the ability to learn magic and the potential to become as powerful as they choose. Hardly no impact on the lasting campaign world. The others made similar choices, however the paladin refused to let the goddess within her sacrifice herself as they had been lovers in the past (it's a complicated story, I can go into more detail if anyone wants to hear it).

Sipex
2010-12-01, 02:43 PM
Question: Do the other players actually feel this way as well?

I mean, sure they may say it but have any of them initiated this sort of behavior or is it, from the sounds of it, the one player with an authority problem initiating all these sort of things?

If that is true, would it also be acceptable to assume that this player never backs down from an arguement?

Also, would it be okay to assume that this player, when they say something, due to experience, nobody crosses him because it becomes to much hassle and he can sometimes end up taking it personally and acting like a child?

Gnaritas
2010-12-01, 02:45 PM
I do wonder how much roleplaying is involved in this game. I mean, if you are playing for 6 years, why was their endgoal never discussed among the players?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-01, 02:50 PM
The other players said that everyone must be mind controlled by the paladin or else they would not follow them. I said they follow her because she is a paragon of virtue who can protect them and has the highest charisma and wisdom of anyone living on the planet. To which the player said "call it what you will, if you are telling me it is out of character to kill her on whim it is mind control".
Bolded for emphasis.

If a Player actually said that, I'd eye their character sheet (to make sure it isn't Evil) and say "Nobody except Evil people 'kill on a whim' so yes, it would be out of character. Now, do you have a reason for wanting to kill the God-Emperor?"

If they said no, I'd chalk it up to childish spite and probably keep him out of any "serious" campaigns I planned to run in the future.

However, if the Player said "If you're saying my character can't try to kill the God-Emperor, then it must be mind control" then I would agree with them. I would then say "well, it's going to be hard to kill a God-Emperor - how do you plan on going about doing it? I'll warn you that a frontal assault is pretty much suicidal."

So, which was it?

true_shinken
2010-12-01, 02:54 PM
I still don't see how killing the ascended Paladin would be so hard... since the party killed several gods before that.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-01, 02:56 PM
I still don't see how killing the ascended Paladin would be so hard... since the party killed several gods before that.
The first time around they had God Powers of their own (or at least Artifacts). It'll be much harder without those God Powers - and I'd bet the God-Emperor probably rounded up the God-Slaying Artifacts before going on to found her Holy Empire :smallamused:

JonRG
2010-12-01, 02:56 PM
I'm surprise how many people have accused the players of jealousy. As Legolas said in "DM of the Rings": "He gets the uber-sword, the kingdom, the hot elf wife and we get to be his handy man and his gardener?" In LotR this makes sense, it's appropiate for the plot. In this case, the players are stuck in the world-wide empire of the Paladin, have no say in what she can do. For what the OP says, they weren't even mentioned in the epilogue. So, I don't think this is jealousy, I think is a perfectly valid complaint.

I agree with you. I was just posting a comic tangentially that "the scenario reminded me of" rather than making value judgments. Maybe I should have posted one of the comics where Gandalf does everything and the other Fellowship members are powerless. Like this one (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=937).

Tyndmyr
2010-12-01, 02:57 PM
I still don't see how killing the ascended Paladin would be so hard... since the party killed several gods before that.

Oracle has pegged it. Killing on a whim is only appropriate for a character that is both non-good and tending towards chaotic. Even lawful evil people tend to have reasons for their actions.

However, if he has a reason, and you tell him no...then it's a very different story. Note that this does not require agreeing with his reasoning at all. If it's merely a hatred of monarchistic governments, that's still a reason. And there's little practical reason why such a thing would be impossible. Hard, sure.

Tryll
2010-12-01, 03:08 PM
You have to be pretty unhappy, or else very determined to cause trouble, to have your characters commit suicide. How do I know? Because I actually did this once, about thirty years ago, to escape from a game at a convention. It was the most boring, railroad-plotted, unimaginative game I have ever experienced. So badly planned and run that I can still remember it after more than half a lifetime.

However, that game had been running for only a few hours, not six years. And I didn’t kill myself off in a childish snit, I found a way for my character to die a noble death trying to save another character from drowning. I’m not sure if I really fooled anyone as to my true motive (get out of there and go do something that might actually be fun), but at least there were no harsh words or unpleasant accusations.

If this player was so unhappy, you’d think she would have said something sooner. So, I’m leaning toward the “cause trouble” answer. Some people are just like that.

Aotrs Commander
2010-12-01, 03:10 PM
To the people who are telling me to discuss it like an adult I tried after the game. I spent a good 20 minutes telling them that they are thinking of it in far too black and white terms and explaining real life philosophy to them to try and relate how it was not all bad, and I offered to change my own epilogue or allow them to change their decisions leading up to it, and told them that it killing off their character of six years seemed to me a offensive and childish overreaction. The player who came up with the idea responded to this by simply saying "My decision stands."

I have had problems with this character before using anti authority arguments to justify seemingly selfish or childish behavior, for example as a PC I posted
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158872

Well, that does sounds rather childish on the part of that player at any rate. I think maybe you could have handled the whole epilogue slightly better (by perhaps realising your players might take umbrage at it), but that's easy to say in hindsight and you sounded geniunely blindsided. On the other hand, the fact they refused your offer to "fix" implies it's much more about them (or that player) than you.

(Of course, it's possible, even likely, that if you were a tad angry yourself (understandably in my opinion) at that point, you may have not been as concilatory as you might have been, given time to think and cool off, and may have percieved still as being high-handed about it, whether you intended to be or not.)


The paladin king used no form of mind control or oppression. They merely banished those who simply could not live within the society and were unwilling to change their alignment or receive medical help for mental illness, and against those who lived outside the society and refused to co-exist peacefully they were slain in honorable combat.
The people of the kingdom were free to pursue any activities they liked, there was no censorship of any kind. People were free to pursue any craft, entertainment, art, knowledge, or even sorcery they liked without fear of poverty or violence.

And this is what makes me think it's a mostly OOC issue with the player's anti-authority streak. It's not the whole world you're talking about, it's just one kingdom, and there would be nothing stopping the characters leaving it, then. While it might be your phrasing might come across as a bit harsh, there would be nothing stopping the the players and you coming to a compromise in which the characters left said kingdom to go on to new adventures elsewhere (or to gather power to murder their dear friend companion of six years *sigh*). And you apparently did try to redress your mistake, and they didn't seem willing to meet you half way.

I think my personal advice, given that player's past history, is not to play with them again, frankly. (I certainly wouldn't tolerate that kind of attitude in my games, not from anyone, especially my friends.)

White_North
2010-12-01, 03:29 PM
After reading the OP's last post, something occured to me. How exactly does this society work? 'Cause, from what you told us, the God-Emperor only kills people who actively try to destroy that kingdom and simply removes those who prove unwilling to live by the rules of the society he has established. Now, that's all fine, but how is that different from pretty much any other society? I think the problem is that you say the kingdom is free of all evil and violence. The thing is, if what I said previously is correct, then it really isn't. Like most other societies, it tries to remove evil and violence, but ultimately, it can only ever react to it.

For example, someone commits murder. God Emperor then banishes him. That's fine, but the violence has still occured. The only way for there to be absolutely no violence or evil would be to pre-emptively remove those elements which would cause pain. And that's when you start to get into the territory of a dystopia. In order for that kingdom to be absolutely free of all evil, it would be necessary for the God Emperor to exile anyone who is evil or who presents traits of violent mental illness before they ever actually do anything. And that's where the totalitarian regime would kick in. People would have to meet strict standards or be banished, regardless of whether or not they've actually commited a crime. Because they only way to prevent any form of evil or violence would be to remove the potential for there to be any. Hence the whole "dystopia/mind control" argument.

And, while I agree that their reaction was somewhat childish, I can't help but empathize with them. Their characters all gave up god-like powers to help the rebuilding of the land. The Paladin refused to do so for what appears to be an entirely purely selfish reason (Godess was her lover). Then, they were treated to that one player's vision of the future without being able to do anything about it, even if they didn't like it. And when they did want to do something about it (killing the Paladin), the OP flat-out told them "no". The DM isn't the only one attached to this campaign. The players have a strong emotional attachment to their characters too. So when, after all that effort, they saw the one person who refused to give up his powers for the greater good steamroll in, make all their input irrelevant and shape the world into something they obviously didn't like, they were understandably pissed. I'm not saying they were right in having their characters commit suicide. I'm just suggesting that the DM isn't the only one who felt badly cheated here.

AstralFire
2010-12-01, 03:44 PM
I really get the feeling everyone's trying really hard to read moral repercussions into a fairy book ending that wasn't intended to give a blueprint of how to establish a utopia.

White_North
2010-12-01, 03:46 PM
Well, most people usually wouldn't. But the players involved here obviously felt cheated and didn't like that particular ending. I was just suggesting a reason as to why they didn't like it.

Sipex
2010-12-01, 03:48 PM
Well, most people usually wouldn't. But the players involved here obviously felt cheated and didn't like that particular ending. I was just suggesting a reason as to why they didn't like it.

This is what I was thinking at first, I thought. "The guy is a bit extreme, yes, but I'd be pissed too if I played a 6 year game and the ending focused on the Paladin."

This was until I heard that he offered to re-do the ending though and the players refused.

White_North
2010-12-01, 03:54 PM
This is what I was thinking at first, I thought. "The guy is a bit extreme, yes, but I'd be pissed too if I played a 6 year game and the ending focused on the Paladin."

This was until I heard that he offered to re-do the ending though and the players refused.

True. I went back to re-read the OP's last post and you're right. At this point, that player's just being vindictive. I've had a player do that same thing to me once. Didn't like the ending, so I offered to change it, and he refused. Now, granted, it's hard to forget about an initial disappointment and back-pedaling the plot always feels a bit cheap, but the player is just being vindictive if he refused the DM's offer to change the epilogue.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-01, 03:56 PM
This was until I heard that he offered to re-do the ending though and the players refused.
Huh, missed that :smallredface:

Anyhow, it's quite possible that the Player was just annoyed by his previous treatment and decided it wasn't worth trying to "fix" the story at this point.

Still, if the DM's portrayal of events is accurate, then it sounds like this is a Problem Player. Either figure out what, exactly, is the Player 's problem or isolate them from games where they would cause problems. Don't worry too much about them "ruining" the campaign in any case; up until the epilogue it seems like everyone was having a good time :smallsmile:

Akal Saris
2010-12-01, 04:03 PM
Yeah, I'm with White North on this one. The ending is awesome for the paladin, but pretty lame for everyone else involved.

That said, it's surprisingly difficult to end a campaign happily. You're not the first DM to have it go sour at the very end.

kyoryu
2010-12-01, 04:08 PM
I think the real reason for the upset players is much simpler than any "LG = totalitarian" thing.

The other players gave up their powers, presumably for the better good of the world. They made a significant sacrifice. Presumably, there was prompting from the DM that this was a good thing.

The Paladin kept her powers for primarily selfish reasons (resurrecting dead lover).

Despite the other characters acting altruistically, and the Paladin acting selfishly, in the aftermath the Paladin is treated as the "Good" one, and the one that actually redeemed the world.

In one shot, this invalidated the sacrifice that the other players made, and made the choice to sacrifice their powers seem like a con. They could have kept their powers as well, and perhaps made the world a great place along with the Paladin, but instead they did what they believed was the right thing and get nothing for it.

It's like asking people to either donate $5000 to feeding the poor, or not - and then telling them that the people that didn't feed the poor ended up banishing poverty entirely.

Sillycomic
2010-12-01, 04:15 PM
Offering to redo the ending is nice, but it still means the god-like paladin still gets everything she ever wanted (plus a puppy) and everyone else is left to... well go do whatever they want.

If you do change the epilogue, the paladin's character is still going to want to put her kingdom back together and run it. Then the other characters will complain of free will and evil monarchy's...

And then it will turn right back into the same fight you have now.


I don't know if this character is stubborn. Reading your other post it looks like he's just firmly in the belief that a monarchy is wrong and evil. His characters have that same notion as well. There's nothing wrong with that opinion.... you can't change his opinion about it. It's what he believes.

Aotrs Commander
2010-12-01, 04:18 PM
I think the real reason for the upset players is much simpler than any "LG = totalitarian" thing.

That may be so, and that may well have been an error of judgement of the DM's part (in wanting to set up a "happily ever after" ending, which was apparently the wrong thing to do...)

However, that doesn't excuse them for when Talakeal realised he'd bogged it up and offered to fix it for them. Especially since it seems Talakeal genuinely hadn't expected anyone to to jump down his throat for saying "and they all lived happily ever after." No DM is perfect1, everyone bogs up now and again. Throwing a wobbly about it helps no-one and engenders a poor playing enviroment.



1Well, aside from me of course...

kyoryu
2010-12-01, 04:36 PM
That may be so, and that may well have been an error of judgement of the DM's part (in wanting to set up a "happily ever after" ending, which was apparently the wrong thing to do...)

However, that doesn't excuse them for when Talakeal realised he'd bogged it up and offered to fix it for them. Especially since it seems Talakeal genuinely hadn't expected anyone to to jump down his throat for saying "and they all lived happily ever after." No DM is perfect, everyone bogs up now and again. Throwing a wobbly about it helps no-one and engenders a poor playing enviroment.


You've got a point there, but I can see the players' point of view on this as well - since the ending was pretty much DM fiat, what does replaying it really mean? They may have been aware that they were throwing a wobbly, and didn't want to prolong it. Keep in mind that we're only hearing one side here...

Talakeal
2010-12-01, 04:44 PM
The group consisted of six regular players.
The paladin, the wizard, an artificer, a monk, a rogue and a fighter.

The other character did influence the outcome of the campaign.

The party wizard chose the level of magic in the campaign world and the party artificer chose the level of technology in the campaign world. Both of these events were independent of what the paladin did and had major impact on the campaign ending.

The monk had left the campaign last year both in and out of character and didn't factor into the ending.

The fighter and the rogue where the girl friends in tow of the wizard and artificer respectively. They did have relatively little impact on the plot as they were only there because their boyfriends were there and were new to role-playing, and I was never able to fully get them immersed in the game. They would frequently miss sessions or be distracted during sessions, and their role-playing was basically just the "maximize my character for combat, kill everything that looks at me funny, loot everything that isn't bolted down" munchkin style that we all go through in our first game. As a result they basically just went along with their respective BF, the wizards GF killing herself and the artificers GF going along with the story.

The wizard's player is a difficult player. He cares a lot about gaming, although he is definitely more concerned with mechanics and optimization than motivation or storytelling. As a person he prides himself on never having forgiving a slight or a admitting he is wrong (so much so that he used this as justification for giving himself a superhuman willpower in a play yourself one shot we did a few years back). Almost ten years ago I promised him I would run a gaming session, and then the other players cancelled on me and so I didn't live up to my promise, and he still frequently tells me that he hasn't forgiven me that and doesn't believe a single word I say as I am a known liar and breaker of promises. He also refuses to back down in an argument, and even if proven wrong he states that he is still right, the source or method you are using to prove him wrong is simply unreliable.

We are all in our mid 20s btw. And everyone was aware that this adventure would be the end of the campaign before it started that this would be the end of the campaign and their character would either die or retire at the end of the adventure.

Mystic Muse
2010-12-01, 04:47 PM
Didn't all the players get godlike powers and, other than the Paladin, gave them away?

That's different than the situation in the DM of the rings. It's more like all the players got the girl, the sword and the kingdom, and the 5 out of 6 decided they didn't want it.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-01, 04:49 PM
The wizard's player is a difficult player. He cares a lot about gaming, although he is definitely more concerned with mechanics and optimization than motivation or storytelling. As a person he prides himself on never having forgiving a slight or a admitting he is wrong (so much so that he used this as justification for giving himself a superhuman willpower in a play yourself one shot we did a few years back). Almost ten years ago I promised him I would run a gaming session, and then the other players cancelled on me and so I didn't live up to my promise, and he still frequently tells me that he hasn't forgiven me that and doesn't believe a single word I say as I am a known liar and breaker of promises. He also refuses to back down in an argument, and even if proven wrong he states that he is still right, the source or method you are using to prove him wrong is simply unreliable.

We are all in our mid 20s btw. And everyone was aware that this adventure would be the end of the campaign before it started that this would be the end of the campaign and their character would either die or retire at the end of the adventure.

He sounds like a serious jerk. Why on earth do you hang out with this person?

Mystic Muse
2010-12-01, 04:49 PM
He sounds like a serious jerk. Why on earth do you hang out with this person?

Agreed. I'd drop this "Friend" like a bad habit if I were in this situation.

Talakeal
2010-12-01, 04:53 PM
He sounds like a serious jerk. Why on earth do you hang out with this person?

I am a shy person who prefers the jerk I know to a stranger, and of my friends he is one of the few who has the long attention span and open schedule to regularly show up to gaming.

Sillycomic
2010-12-01, 04:59 PM
I'm really not sure how to give advice to someone who willing role plays with a jerk because he has an open schedule...

You role play with a jerk and when you ended your campaign he acted like a jerk. Why are you complaining again? Didn't he do exactly what he usually does? Maybe a little moreso because he was frustrated by the whole thing.

Meh, just move on. The campaign is over anyway. People are all happy or dead, so whatever.

true_shinken
2010-12-01, 05:00 PM
The group consisted of six regular players.
The paladin, the wizard, an artificer, a monk, a rogue and a fighter.

You did your best, dude. We usually say here in Brazil: not even Jesus was able to please everyone.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-01, 05:02 PM
...so, the Wizard Player sounds like a Jerk. Do you like having him in your games? Or is he just a friend who games?

If you like having him in your games then... I guess you need to figure out what he likes to have in a game and include it.

If he's just a friend who games then you need to think carefully about whether he's right for the sorts of games you run. If he is, then see above; if not then you should tell him so - say "Listen, I can see you didn't really enjoy how that last game turned out. Unfortunately, I don't think I could have run it any differently. Maybe it would be better if I don't run games for you anymore - I don't think you'll have fun."

Trust me - it's no fun DMing for people whose play styles are opposed to your DMing style; and they're not going to have a good time either.

EDIT: So he's just a friend who games. Well, I'd heartily recommend getting over the shyness and finding a larger group of gamers. Or see if any of your other friends know other games you could join as a Player.

Life is short enough without wasting time with jerks :smallsmile:

Sipex
2010-12-01, 05:05 PM
I can understand playing with a problem player, especially one with your history.

I mean, he's your friend.

He's a giant douche but he's your friend.

...

I will state this though, you'll eventually snap if you haven't already and that day will either show you that he'll either never change or he'll change once he realises how big of a jerk he is.

kyoryu
2010-12-01, 05:05 PM
The wizard's player is a difficult player. He cares a lot about gaming, although he is definitely more concerned with mechanics and optimization than motivation or storytelling. As a person he prides himself on never having forgiving a slight or a admitting he is wrong (so much so that he used this as justification for giving himself a superhuman willpower in a play yourself one shot we did a few years back). Almost ten years ago I promised him I would run a gaming session, and then the other players cancelled on me and so I didn't live up to my promise, and he still frequently tells me that he hasn't forgiven me that and doesn't believe a single word I say as I am a known liar and breaker of promises. He also refuses to back down in an argument, and even if proven wrong he states that he is still right, the source or method you are using to prove him wrong is simply unreliable.


Yeah - he sounds somewhere in the autistic or narcissistic spectrum.


Didn't all the players get godlike powers and, other than the Paladin, gave them away?

That's different than the situation in the DM of the rings. It's more like all the players got the girl, the sword and the kingdom, and the 5 out of 6 decided they didn't want it.

More like they all got the girl, sword, and kingdom, but were given reason to believe that the way to save the world was give them up - only to find out the one person that didn't give them up is the one that actually saved the world.

Mystic Muse
2010-12-01, 05:06 PM
More like they all got the girl, sword, and kingdom, but were given reason to believe that the way to save the world was give them up - only to find out the one person that didn't give them up is the one that actually saved the world.

I didn't see that in the original post. I saw it mentioning that they gave their powers back but didn't mention why.

Unless I missed something in a following post.

Even then, it sounds like the Paladin saved one kingdom, not the world.

Sipex
2010-12-01, 05:07 PM
Yeah - he sounds somewhere in the autistic or narcissistic spectrum.



More like they all got the girl, sword, and kingdom, but were given reason to believe that the way to save the world was give them up - only to find out the one person that didn't give them up is the one that actually saved the world.

He actually explained this, the others 'saved the world' in their own ways, it just didn't involve god powers.

By the way, did their sacrifice do anything? If you explain this I think the forum will be less opposed to what happened.

Tryll
2010-12-01, 05:26 PM
...
As a person he prides himself on never having forgiving a slight or a admitting he is wrong (so much so that he used this as justification for giving himself a superhuman willpower in a play yourself one shot we did a few years back). Almost ten years ago I promised him I would run a gaming session, and then the other players cancelled on me and so I didn't live up to my promise, and he still frequently tells me that he hasn't forgiven me that and doesn't believe a single word I say as I am a known liar and breaker of promises. He also refuses to back down in an argument, and even if proven wrong he states that he is still right, the source or method you are using to prove him wrong is simply unreliable.
...


Why in the world are you still associating with this person?!?!? Kick them to the curb now! Don't wait, don't let someone else talk you out of it. Don't let anyone say "Oh, but friendship is too important to casually toss away..." This person is not your friend, never has been your friend, and never will be your friend.

Remember, you are judged by the company you keep. Get yourself out from under this person's aura of idiocy, so that others don't think of you as either an idiot or an idiot's doormat.

kyoryu
2010-12-01, 05:27 PM
I didn't see that in the original post. I saw it mentioning that they gave their powers back but didn't mention why.

Unless I missed something in a following post.

Even then, it sounds like the Paladin saved one kingdom, not the world.

Well, I read between the lines a bit. I assumed there was *some* reason that 5 of 6 of them did, and that the Paladin only didn't because of a compelling personal reason. Most players/characters don't willingly give up power just because they can.

Since the only real place they could have gotten the idea "it's good to give up your godly powers" would be the DM... I just kind of put 2 and 2 together. Though I may have come up with 5, admittedly.

JonRG
2010-12-01, 05:27 PM
He actually explained this, the others 'saved the world' in their own ways, it just didn't involve god powers.

By the way, did their sacrifice do anything? If you explain this I think the forum will be less opposed to what happened.

From what I understand, the wizard recharged the world's life energy source at the cost of his God of Magic powers. He didn't seem to get much credit for it though.

Ormur
2010-12-01, 05:47 PM
As a person he prides himself on never having forgiving a slight or a admitting he is wrong (so much so that he used this as justification for giving himself a superhuman willpower in a play yourself one shot we did a few years back).

Being a jerk is one thing, but actually being proud of it... I don't know what to say. Never forgiving a slight is like bad cliché from Mafia films and never admitting you're wrong just means you're an idiot. Ugh, tell him you just slighted him, big deal, and obviously he must take a blood oath to avenge that or something. No sense trying to come to a compromise when he boast of never accepting them.

If the other player isn't a jerk you could talk to him and ask if there's something you can do to reconcile him to the ending.

Tryll
2010-12-01, 05:49 PM
I am a shy person who prefers the jerk I know to a stranger, and of my friends he is one of the few who has the long attention span and open schedule to regularly show up to gaming.

Do you live anywhere near the Daytona Beach / Palm Coast area of Florida? If so I'd be happy to invite you to my game so you can meet some people who are genuine friends.

wadledo
2010-12-01, 05:50 PM
From what I understand, the wizard recharged the world's life energy source at the cost of his God of Magic powers. He didn't seem to get much credit for it though.

I don't see that at all. They gave up their powers to the other gods and then complain that they have less of an impact than the character who kept her powers.

JonRG
2010-12-01, 05:55 PM
I don't see that at all. They gave up their powers to the other gods and then complain that they have less of an impact than the character who kept her powers.

It was in OP's first response post, at the bottom.


The party became hosts to several gods during the fourth tier, as the gods either had to leave the material world forever or become avatars due to dying magic. The wizard became host to the god of magic, and learned that magic was leaving the world because the energy of creation was simply running out. She sacrificed the divine essence of the god of magic within her to recharge the worlds batteries, and to allow everyone on the planet, not just a chosen few, the ability to learn magic and the potential to become as powerful as they choose. Hardly no impact on the lasting campaign world. The others made similar choices, however the paladin refused to let the goddess within her sacrifice herself as they had been lovers in the past (it's a complicated story, I can go into more detail if anyone wants to hear it).

AstralFire
2010-12-01, 05:57 PM
Personally, I'd be pretty stoked that magic only exists because of me.

HunterOfJello
2010-12-01, 06:00 PM
Their response was to kill themselves.


This has to be one of the most interesting campaign endings I've ever heard of.

At least your group did something original.

Starbuck_II
2010-12-01, 06:00 PM
The wizard did a unselfish act by restoring magic, but yet acts selfish and bad to the pally.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-01, 06:02 PM
Yeah, I'm going to second/third the above suggestions; consider this event the motivation you need to conquer your shyness, it's time to game with a few strangers. I'd recommend looking up your nearest FLGS or so for a start.

I don't know how the artificer reacted or acted in comparison, but the Wizard at the very least seems frankly like a bit of a piece of work. He's got no respect, and this kind of thing will happen rather inevitably.

You may very well be suprised how easy it is most times to find cool, friendly and nice people to game with, and how quickly a stranger can become a friend.

wadledo
2010-12-01, 06:04 PM
It was in OP's first response post, at the bottom.

Ah, I beg your pardon. So since the character is now the person who made magic work, and could (If the player wanted to) be venerated as a good/do something cool with that, they instead decide that instead of making something even more interesting from that, they complain.
Why do we have any sort of compassion for them again?

Mystic Muse
2010-12-01, 06:05 PM
knowing at least what state/Country you live in may help. If you lived anywhere near me, I'd be more than happy to introduce you to decent people.



Why do we have any sort of compassion for them again?

At least in the case of the wizard, I don't.

World Eater
2010-12-01, 06:07 PM
Your players were replaced by Doppelgangers. Slay them immediately.

AstralFire
2010-12-01, 06:11 PM
Your players were replaced by Doppelgangers. Slay them immediately.

I disagree with World Eater simply because they are Pro-Skub.

DeckOneBell
2010-12-01, 06:13 PM
It really just seems as though the players and the DM weren't on the same page. Toss the blame around all you want, I'm sure there's enough to go around for everyone at the table.

Players still wanted to role-play, DM wanted to create a pretty specific epilogue. There's definitely nothing wrong with a little railroading (in my personal opinion) but the players weren't looking for that. Also, I don't think anybody made a "The Paladin FALLS" claim yet, but when he's a god, it probably doesn't matter. Still, it's not very LG to hold onto godhood for the express purpose of reviving your lover, because that's an entirely selfish reason, even if you use your powers for good afterwards. At least, again, in my opinion.

Mystic Muse
2010-12-01, 06:19 PM
Still, it's not very LG to hold onto godhood for the express purpose of reviving your lover, because that's an entirely selfish reason, even if you use your powers for good afterwards.

I would say that depends entirely on how much of a priority it was for you. Granted, the act is selfish either way, but if that's not the reason you held onto the godhood, or simply one of many, I don't think it would affect your alignment.

Kris Strife
2010-12-01, 06:27 PM
I would say that depends entirely on how much of a priority it was for you. Granted, the act is selfish either way, but if that's not the reason you held onto the godhood, or simply one of many, I don't think it would affect your alignment.

Actually, as long as it didn't directly hurt anyone, it'd be a neutral act at worst.

T.G. Oskar
2010-12-01, 06:28 PM
Just curious, OP.

Let's not get into things as to whether it would have been a good or a bad thing what the Paladin did. What would have happened if, just like the others, the Paladin had given up its powers? The wizard re-energized the world so that everyone learns magic; maybe the Paladin realizes that, and if by any reason any single spellcaster defies him, it'll be like his old "pal" defying him every single time.

Then there's the rest; it seems like they got the short end of the stick (aside from the Wizard, whom may be very well considered the new god of magic, or even the anthropomorphic (in the broadest, "humanoid" sense of the world; better to use sentient + sapient) manifestation of the power of magic in the world. What they got was reasonable by any sense in comparison to the happy ending the Paladin got?

Maybe that's what has them angry and bitter towards the ending. They thought it would be a noble sacrifice, but the least-expected person didn't follow and now is a god-like entity. Personally, while I find the attitude of the other players was childish, I feel the world is still incomplete; the happy ending may or may not be a true happy ending, but it seems they got cut short of the benefits and decided that they couldn't live in a perfect world. I mean, they definitely lost the chance to do that (unless evil still roams and uses them as a catalyst, with the player that went with the Paladin may or may not desire to oppose his former character.

I don't wanna go further with discussions about "LG utopias", except for one thing: if the Paladin would have had a true happy ending, after some time, the Paladin would simply disappear. The Pally was an adventurer just as the others; losing former companions is not an easy thing to do (even as a near-godlike individual), and perhaps the attempt to bring them back may cause great despair. I find that few people are considering that the Paladin's stay as a ruler of an "utopia" needs not be permanent; perhaps the Pally tires of a perfect world, or despair takes the best of the former hero to an extent that abandoning the post would be the sane decision.

Maybe it was that idea that the Paladin would be an immortal god-king that drove the other players mad. Perhaps his story in legend is probably exploited by other people who wish to keep the utopia but have really removed free will from the populace or other things that may lead to an actual dystopia ("the road to evil is paved with good intentions"), but the Paladin doesn't have to do anything with it. Maybe, just maybe, centuries later the greatest leader of the opposition is the Paladin himself.

There's a good load of ways to fix the apparent problem. It was on the side of the players to do something silly out of jealousy, without considering to tell the DM that perhaps it wasn't the right way to end it, and that perhaps it wasn't the ending they sought.

What also worries me is their "good" alignment, though. Or perhaps how the Paladin behaved towards them. Any idea on how the party behaved amongst themselves?

...Then again, no need to take me that serious. It's already tough to deal with a group of bloodthirsty (to a degree) group of newbs whom will now get a Paladin on their midst...

JonRG
2010-12-01, 06:30 PM
Why do we have any sort of compassion for them again?

Visceral reaction against railroading and Gary-Studom. The epilogue still seems exceptionally selfish of the paladin. I mean, of all the people who should not forgo sacrifice in lieu of a free ride to godhood, paladin is one of them. Plus long-lost descendant of the monarchy and has a goddess lover? Seems a bit much for one character.

That aside, your one player seems to be a colossal ass (and an uncreative one at that). Initially, the party comes off as "non-LG players feel subverted by LG kingdom of rainbows and eternal exile for those who are chaotic/evil." On further reading, it's more like "DM tried to deliver happy place for everyone to live, but Wizanarchist refused to be happy/negotiate and wanted to ruin it for everyone."

kyoryu
2010-12-01, 06:32 PM
While I think the players were a bit whiny, I think there is room for valid criticism of how this was handled.

I kind of see it like this (from the players' POV)

DM: So, you know, it would probably be a good idea to release the power of the gods. Since it would, you know, impact the world and whatnot. I mean, magic's dying because the power of the god of magic is tied up.

DM: So, Wizard, what are you going to do?

Wizard: Well, we don't want to kill magic, so I'll sacrifice the power of the magic god.

DM: Cool. Because of your heroic sacrifice, more people can perform magic! Artificer, what about you?

Artificer: I'll make the sacrifice as well. Seems like the right thing to do, make a lasting mark of good on the world and all that.

DM: Cool. Because of your heroic sacrifice, more technology is available! Okay, Paladin, what about you?

Paladin: Screw that. This god was my lover. I ain't giving anything up.

DM: Okay. As a result of your selfish actions, you go on to finish the quest that your whole group was on, bring peace and prosperity to the land, and found a glorious empire that brings a golden age to the land for a thousand years.

Artificer and Wizard: WTF?

Mystic Muse
2010-12-01, 06:35 PM
I mean, of all the people who should not forgo sacrifice in lieu of a free ride to godhood, paladin is one of them.

Only if the sacrifice would have had a better result for the forces of good would a Paladin give that kind of power back. They wouldn't give it away if giving it away served no purpose.

Edit:

While I think the players were a bit whiny, I think there is room for valid criticism of how this was handled.

I kind of see it like this (from the players' POV)

DM: So, you know, it would probably be a good idea to release the power of the gods. Since it would, you know, impact the world and whatnot. I mean, magic's dying because the power of the god of magic is tied up.

DM: So, Wizard, what are you going to do?

Wizard: Well, we don't want to kill magic, so I'll sacrifice the power of the magic god.

DM: Cool. Because of your heroic sacrifice, more people can perform magic! Artificer, what about you?

Artificer: I'll make the sacrifice as well. Seems like the right thing to do, make a lasting mark of good on the world and all that.

DM: Cool. Because of your heroic sacrifice, more technology is available! Okay, Paladin, what about you?

Paladin: Screw that. This god was my lover. I ain't giving anything up.

DM: Okay. As a result of your selfish actions, you go on to finish the quest that your whole group was on, bring peace and prosperity to the land, and found a glorious empire that brings a golden age to the land for a thousand years.

Artificer and Wizard: WTF?

Except we don't know if this is the situation at all. If the DM posted that he encouraged the players to give up the god powers to save the world, and I'm unaware of it, would somebody mind telling me where this post is?

Irbis
2010-12-01, 06:37 PM
Ah, I beg your pardon. So since the character is now the person who made magic work, and could (If the player wanted to) be venerated as a good/do something cool with that, they instead decide that instead of making something even more interesting from that, they complain.
Why do we have any sort of compassion for them again?

Gee, maybe the fact that they were supposed to let their powers go for the good of the world, but one of them reneged on the decision, selfishly kept his powers, and not only not made things worse (by leaving whatever part of the world he was supposed to repair unhealed) but was greatly rewarded for that, pushing others back to being schmucks?

Which was made doubly wrong by the fact the parson in question played a paladin? :smallconfused:

If I were on the receiving end of it, and if that wasn't agreed before, I'd have said how sue-ish this resolution was, if only for the reasons mentioned earlier. Exiling people is still placing them in concentration camps, you just move these outside of your kingdom, crime doesn't magically disappear regardless of the quality of rule, unless paladin really uses mind-control powers. Even if he tries to pretend he is not using them, he does simply by virtue of being god with the highest charisma on the globe, like diplomancer.

And, really, am I the only one appalled on how casual the convincing people to dump others behind their backs got? He might have acted poorly, but as many people pointed out, they would behave similarly, and the proper way of resolving this would be to talk to them later one on one, privately, if only to make them see things your way. It's great you people can make friends so easily, but the OPs position is a bit different, and casual dumping of people on internet advice (to me, that is) is worse than everything the wizard player did.

Hell, I can say from my experience how people that played the game used to be something to be hold on even if they were jerks, especially if you knew them for so long. I'd only consider pushing them away after something much worse, or them being unable to get hint for years. Just my 0.03$.

Talakeal
2010-12-01, 06:40 PM
They all had a choice, essentially it was too keep power for themself or share it with the world. For the wizard the power in question was magic, the artificer technology, and the paladin political power.

Each of the three had three choices with what to do with the power. I had tendings prepared for each contingency. None where wholly bad, but none where without sacrifice either.

wadledo
2010-12-01, 06:42 PM
Exiling people is still placing them in concentration camps

If you can even think that those two are equivalent, then I have absolutely nothing to say to you.

kyoryu
2010-12-01, 06:45 PM
Except we don't know if this is the situation at all. If the DM posted that he encouraged the players to give up the god powers to save the world, and I'm unaware of it, would somebody mind telling me where this post is?

Well, we do know that the players knew that the lack of the god of magic was killing magic in the world.

We do know that 5 of 6 of the players thought that giving up their power was a good idea - that had to come from somewhere.

At any rate, I'm not saying that my dialog above is accurately what happened. I'm simply suggesting that it is likely that this was the players' interpretation.

And, as I also said, it sounds like a few of the players overreacted as well.

Based on Talakeal's description of the option (keep the power, or share it), it doesn't seem *unreasonable* to assume that the result of keeping all of the political power would be, effectively, an authoritarian regime. Again, this is from the POV of the players, and may or may not represent Talakeal's intent or description of the events to the players...


If you can even think that those two are equivalent, then I have absolutely nothing to say to you.

To be fair, you can have concentration camps that aren't Nazi-style death camps, for instance the Japanese internment camps in the US during World War II. Comparing exile to those is at least somewhat more fair.

Mystic Muse
2010-12-01, 06:47 PM
And, really, am I the only one appalled on how casual the convincing people to dump others behind their backs got? He might have acted poorly, but as many people pointed out, they would behave similarly, and the proper way of resolving this would be to talk to them later one on one, privately, if only to make them see things your way.


The OP described the person as never ever letting the smallest slight go and being incapable of thinking they're wrong.

That's why people are advising to dump the person. Not because of a bad reaction at a game.

EDIT:


Based on Talakeal's description of the option (keep the power, or share it), it doesn't seem *unreasonable* to assume that the result of keeping all of the political power would be, effectively, an authoritarian regime. Again, this is from the POV of the players, and may or may not represent Talakeal's intent or description of the events to the players...
\

Okay. I just wanted to make sure everybody had their facts straight and we weren't misinterpreting anything. I hate it when I do that in a debate.

Irbis
2010-12-01, 06:53 PM
They all had a choice, essentially it was too keep power for themself or share it with the world. For the wizard the power in question was magic, the artificer technology, and the paladin political power.

Each of the three had three choices with what to do with the power. I had tendings prepared for each contingency. None where wholly bad, but none where without sacrifice either.

I get it, and I don't say you get wrong, but if you used theme of sacrifice, there should have been consequences for those who kept their powers, negative as well as positive. Especially for the good characters. Remove those, and you present your players with two doors: "YOU SUCK!" and "OTHERS SUCK!". At least how it looks to them afterwards. Had the Paladin picked sacrifice, they would have seen that as fitting ending to the story. Had all three picked keeping their powers, they would do so with knowledge they're doing it for themselves harming others. It's the discrepancy that killed the scene.


If you can even think that those two are equivalent, then I have absolutely nothing to say to you.

[yawn] You do realize that not every concentration camp was equal to those of 65 years ago? And that it is easy to imprison someone while letting them roam, simply by denying them things they want?

Exile is evil, plain and simple. Worst case, you make someone else suffer for what was your problem to begin with, best case, you punish someone who didn't deserved it.

If you think it's so great, tell me please, why no one is using it anymore?

Talakeal
2010-12-01, 06:59 PM
Exile is evil, plain and simple. Worst case, you make someone else suffer for what was your problem to begin with, best case, you punish someone who didn't deserved it.

If you think it's so great, tell me please, why no one is using it anymore?

Because there are no longer areas of unclaimed wilderness for people to be exiled to? Although we do deport foreigners who cannot behave, that is similar.

true_shinken
2010-12-01, 07:04 PM
Because there are no longer areas of unclaimed wilderness for people to be exiled to? Although we do deport foreigners who cannot behave, that is similar.

I think he meant concentration camps.
And there are plenty of areas of unclaimed wilderness. A whole continent, in fact.

T.G. Oskar
2010-12-01, 07:23 PM
They all had a choice, essentially it was too keep power for themself or share it with the world. For the wizard the power in question was magic, the artificer technology, and the paladin political power.

Each of the three had three choices with what to do with the power. I had tendings prepared for each contingency. None where wholly bad, but none where without sacrifice either.

There are more questions than answers with this one.

First; there were other people. What were the things that they allowed after giving up their powers? The wizard unlocked magic (so he could be considered the god or the personification of magic), and the artificer unlocked technology (thus he could be the god or personification of technology, albeit I consider that instead the artificer unlocked magitech, not mere technology). But the others are on the loom. I recall there was a druid (hence, I can extrapolate nature), but not sure about the monk...

Second; I'm just seeing two choices, not three. There's giving your powers, there's keeping your powers. Third choice is? Reviving the deity? Share your powers with someone else? Become the deity? I think that's the big deal, as it seems that the entire group was on the idea of giving or keeping their powers, no third choices allowed.

Third, I can see why they're angry. There's...no sacrifice I can see on the Paladin's option. If anything, it was quite probably better to retain the power than give it freely; that way, the Paladin has absolute political power, and that leads a bad way. Perhaps, just perhaps, it could still be salvaged; the Paladin gives up his seat, thus giving up his power as well, but instead of being concentrated on various people it would be concentrated on just one. I can see they're angry because they might have expected a sacrifice and the Pally gets none; furthermore, the goddess-girlfriend apparently still lives, and he gets a cool power (though none like magic or superior magitechnology) to keep (not to share).

How long does the campaign ended? Also, how happy is the Paladin's player with his ending of the story? Perhaps it may still be salvaged with the Artificer's player; there's no way the Wizard will accept your apology (and IMO, I believe the Wizard player may be a tad detrimental since it pushed everyone's decision, aside from the Paladin's, towards what he decides; has he attempted to DM once or something?). A six-year old campaign is nothing to scoff at; the fact that it finished was even greater. Perhaps it's just a big misunderstanding that it's currently expanding into something largely undesirable, but perhaps the other players may get it; after all, perhaps you had contingencies for each but didn't considered the majority (some leeway and improvisation helps a bit, actually). But I feel that, aside from the Wizard, the rest of the group may still earn their happy ending.

I find the biggest problem will be with the Wizard; even an admission of "mea culpa" won't satisfy him because he'll just think he's right. In any case, talk to him the last and see if he accepts it; when you deliver in the face that you managed to deal with the rest and (hopefully) reached a satisfactory conclusion, the Wizard won't be capable of backing off. Maybe a "special epilogue ending" or "what really happened ending" which attempts to solve anything, or deal with a "last mission" or something; I mean, the players offed themselves on a system that has several ways to bring people back. The only trouble would be if their characters refuse to come back, for example, but then it would be the players' choices, not DM fiat; you'd be just providing them a chance to fix things up in an amenable way. Perhaps the Paladin just dozes off and finds that his "happy ending" is a dream to tempt him with the promise of greater power, and he may be allowed a change; don't consider that the "end of the adventure" may be an ending, even if it seems to be fixing a boo-boo (since it arguably DOES). It's a bit more responsible for the DM to admit that not everyone was happy with the result and try to make amends than keeping that enmity going on, which could be terrible because then you'd have someone claiming you're a bad DM and that the Pally's player is a bad player and that Paladins suck with no arguably reasonable foundation other than "the DM screwed up the ending".

Aotrs Commander
2010-12-01, 07:49 PM
The wizard's player is a difficult player.
*snip*


*facepalm*

Well, that'd be your problem right there. So, yeah, my initial reaction way back at the start of the thread was correct, he's a complete...person who I cannot easily describe on a polite forum.

Yes, in hindsight , you probably could have handled the epilogue better (but live and learn, right?)

The wizard's player, however, is going to be a continuous problem until you tell/make him not to be such a complete pillock1, or even better yet, stop playing with him. Really.

I mean, look at it this way. You have already been dealing with one difficult player, so learn from it and remember the odds are higher that a new player won't be as much of a jerk.

So, yeah, what Oracle_Hunter said:


Life is short enough without wasting time with jerks :smallsmile:



1I recommend judicious application of the Folding Chair of Salvation, a large club with nails in it, a partical accelerator cannon or my person favorite, the butt-end of a rocket launcher... Or possible all of the above at once, while on fire.

JonRG
2010-12-01, 08:05 PM
Only if the sacrifice would have had a better result for the forces of good would a Paladin give that kind of power back. They wouldn't give it away if giving it away served no purpose.

Though I can't say what Tala had planned, sacrificing "political power" makes it sound like you get a non-monarchical system of free government (whichever one you like best) instead of an authoritarian who's always a possible candidate for corruption. He's immortal, it could happen eventually.

To me, sacrificing the gods' power provides a marked improvement for these poor dystopic citizens. Saying "I'm gonna keep mine because I wanna make out with my girlfriend" is not an acceptable excuse for a holy warrior.

Mystic Muse
2010-12-01, 08:19 PM
Though I can't say what Tala had planned, sacrificing "political power" makes it sound like you get a non-monarchical system of free government (whichever one you like best) instead of an authoritarian who's always a possible candidate for corruption. He's immortal, it could happen eventually.

To me, sacrificing the gods' power provides a marked improvement for these poor dystopic citizens. Saying "I'm gonna keep mine because I wanna make out with my girlfriend" is not an acceptable excuse for a holy warrior.

If it would be a marked improvement for people, then I agree. However, we don't know what the DM made the two options sound like so I dunno.

Denamort
2010-12-01, 11:13 PM
Ok, this new information changes things.

First, the ending was a bad one, at least in my opinion, and there's two people to blame. The OP and the Paladin. The Paladin, for not giving her powers away. For what the OP says, it was implied that the sacrifice was for the "Greater Good" and would bring more benefits than keeping the power. Then the Paladin decides not to give her power away. The OP, for making no consecuence to the Paladin keeping his powers. You gave her every possible benefit of Godhood and make and ending where keeping her powers benefit her and the world.

" They all had a choice, essentially it was too keep power for themself or share it with the world. For the wizard the power in question was magic, the artificer technology, and the paladin political power.

Ok, how is that not a Tyrany? The Paladin willingly choose to kept all the power in the world, the right to make decision, all to herself.

However, this doesn't excuse the behaviour of the other palyers, particulary the wizard.
Of the six original players there where only five remaining. Two of these five where the respective GFs of the Wizard and Artificer, and from what you said it sounds like they do what their BFs tell them to do.
So, you have three players that were actually playing and actively participating in the campaing. Althoug the ending only benefited the Paladin, from what you said it seems like the Artificer was willing to negotiate and just got carried away by the wizard, who happens to be a mayor jerk.
So, I think the problem is in the wizard, that caused such animosity, and if he wouldn't have participated you could probably have arrive to a more balanced discusion, instead of a collective suicide.
My advise, talk to the other players, see if you can make amends with them, and tell the wizard that he was rigth, you screwed up the ending, but if he ever makes a tantrum like that you won't play with him ever again.
If he doesn't listen, I guess you would have to find new players.

Talakeal
2010-12-01, 11:31 PM
The whole story is a LOT more complicated than I let on, it is after all a six year campaign.

In short, the world is dying, and magic is dying with it. The gods cannot directly influence the world, and needed to take up mortal avatars.

In my campaign world one of the gods who sided with humans over the other gods in the distant past ala Prometheus was bound into a sword. The sword could only be drawn by someone who was a worthy champion ala Excalibur. The sword possessed the lover of the paladin to lead them toward drawing the sword and lifting humanity out of the dark ages.

The party wizard had a similarly epic destiny, merging with the dead god of magic and consuming the powers of the eight successor gods whom each ruled a single school. For a time actually the wizard's player thought she was going to take the powers of all the gods and become a single all powerful being, and at that point didn't seem to have any objections to an all powerful figure or a single player with an unfair ending.

Essentially the party could do three things. They could either do nothing or fail on their quest, which would destroy the world or make it fall to madness and conquest by lovecraftian entities from beyond.

They could all keep their god powers. They were granted a vision of what would happen some time ago, and in this vision they would go to war with each other, the wizard eventually killing the paladin and the world being nearly destroyed in the battle.

They could give up their powers, renewing the world. Essentially the world would start fresh, without all the evil and corruption that had plagued it before.

Because 2 chose to give up powers and 1 to keep them I had to create a hybrid ending, which was not as good as them all giving them up, and not as bad as them all keeping them. The paladin player did make a "selfish" decision, but not an evil one, and I didn't want to unfairly punish that player.

The paladin's decision is a bit more complicated. As the god they would need to sacrifice was their lover, they had more to lose than the others. Erebus, the god of primordial darkness, made a deal with the paladin. If the paladin would allow herself to become the vessel of Erebus and thereby giving Erebus complete dominion over the world, Erebus would allow the paladin to use Erebus' powers for good ends, and avoid sacrificing their lover. The paladin accepted. Whether this is "good" or not, I don't know, it's a deep philosophical issue, that the wizard's player and his GF refused to even acknowledge as having merit let alone accepting as valid.

Also, the rest of the world was a barren wasteland with no major kingdoms. The party had recovered the Holy Grail, granting health and eternal life to those they allowed to drink from it. The rest of the world was dying, and most animals and people had become sterile. Eventually those who refused to join the paladin's kingdom and receive the blessing of the grail would eventually die on their own, and so after several centuries the paladin would rule the entire world.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-01, 11:40 PM
I'd just like to add that in my opinion, though there is room to fault the paladin for not giving up deific power in order to save their lover, you cannot really fault the paladin's player for that, because it's a legitimate in-character response to the situation, and shows a certain level of having genuinely engaged with the game that the suicide pact suggests that the others hadn't really commited to.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-01, 11:52 PM
The paladin's decision is a bit more complicated. As the god they would need to sacrifice was their lover, they had more to lose than the others. Erebus, the god of primordial darkness, made a deal with the paladin. If the paladin would allow herself to become the vessel of Erebus and thereby giving Erebus complete dominion over the world, Erebus would allow the paladin to use Erebus' powers for good ends, and avoid sacrificing their lover. The paladin accepted. Whether this is "good" or not, I don't know, it's a deep philosophical issue, that the wizard's player and his GF refused to even acknowledge as having merit let alone accepting as valid.
What :smallmad:

Angry Rant
Read this over again. Read it a third time. Do you see a problem with it?

The Paladin gave dominion of the world to the Primordial Darkness rather than give up his GF... and nothing bad happened?

...OK, the Wizard Player is still a jerk but man does he have cause to be pissed.

Basically, the "jerk" of the party was maneuvered into giving up Real Ultimate Power because he was told that he personally would destroy the world... and then the character he was prophesied to slay not only got to keep her Real Ultimate Power but she was able to use it to create a pocket Utopia - after signing away dominion of the rest of the world to one of the Gods they had been trying to kill.

And then you, the DM, told the Wizard that not only was he not allowed to try to kill the Paladin, but that there was nothing wrong with the Paladin's Rule.

Hell, if I was in the Wizard's situation I probably would have thrown a fit as well :smallannoyed:
Calmer Recap: You set up a scenario where the Wizard was basically compelled to give up Real Ultimate Power due to DM Fiat - prophecy said if he kept his power he'd blow up the world. Ditto for the Artificer.

Then you let the Paladin not only keep her Real Ultimate Power but she got to use it to create a Perfect Kingdom with no bad outcomes. Worse, in order to achieve a selfish end - the life of a loved one - she made a Deal With The Devil... and nothing bad happened. Heck, the deal she signed is a traditional route for causing the Fall of Heroes since time out of mind!

Anyone would react badly to that scenario, and your Wizard has a long history of reacting badly to imagined slights. And the Artificer is the Player's GF? No wonder the two of them threw their hands up and walked away.

Sillycomic
2010-12-02, 12:19 AM
The more you explain the situation that leads up to the horrible explosion of anger during the epilogue...

The more I tend to side with the jerk player.

He was a jerk player, and he had jerk reasons for doing what he did, but man... if my DM ever did that to me I would have done something just as frustrating.

The fact that an evil god now has dominion over the world and there's a monarch government taking over everything would even push the character's further into trying to stop this from happening.

The hybrid ending gave you a hybrid response. If everyone kept their powers the paladin and wizard would want to kill each other. If they all gave up their powers they would live happily ever after.

Wizard gave up his powers. Paladin kept hers.

So the hybrid response would be:

Paladin lives happily ever after.

Wizard wants to kill the paladin.

wadledo
2010-12-02, 12:22 AM
I'd like to point out something very, very important that everyone is going to ignore because it doesn't fit into your acceptable mindsets.

A God Of Darkness Is Not Necessarily Evil.

This is a player who hates monarchy, who severely dislikes the DM, and who has been playing for 6 years. I do not understand you people at all.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 12:27 AM
I'd like to point out something very, very important that everyone is going to ignore because it doesn't fit into your acceptable mindsets.

A God Of Darkness Is Not Necessarily Evil.

This is a player who hates monarchy, who severely dislikes the DM, and who has been playing for 6 years. I do not understand you people at all.
But the God of Primordial Darkness is one of the very Old Gods that the PCs had been running around slaying for the previous part of the campaign.

Oh, and remember that this kingdom of Perfect Justice is being run by the Paladin who is now the mortal vessel of that very God.

I'm not saying that the Wizard Player is a good guy - but the OP here was not in the right here! Even total jerks can be legitimately angry sometimes, y'know.

EDIT: I think you can trust this board to know that Dark Is Not Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkIsNotEvil); no need to imply that we're too narrow-minded to consider it.

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 12:30 AM
So what is it are you saying I did wrong?

Should I have ignored the paladins decisions?
Should I have made the ending black and white evil so that everyone is miserable and mad with how the campaign turned out?

wadledo
2010-12-02, 12:31 AM
I'm not saying that the Wizard Player is a good guy - but the OP here was not in the right here! Even total jerks can be legitimately angry sometimes, y'know.

Legitimately angry enough to have the character commit suicide, and when the DM offers to change the ending to suit the characters taste refuse?

Being angry and being in the right are two very different things.

Sillycomic
2010-12-02, 12:45 AM
You made the ending a grey area of people being unsure what was evil and what wasn't...

And they were all miserable and mad with how the campaign turned out anyway.

Well, except the paladin who got her kingdom, kept her oober godlike powers, didn't have to sacrifice her lover, and didn't have anything bad happen to her when she made a deal with a god of darkness... except for some apparent internal conflict that no one even cared about.

This was the ending you were going for?

Personally black and white is sounding more and more appealing.

But, like I said if the players refuse to retconn it and aren't really interested in it anymore, not sure what to tell you at this point. Next time if your players want to do something... like kill a god because she's taking over the world and changing it to how she sees fit, let them do it.

Oh, and get over your shyness so you don't pay with jerks who want to upend your campaign simply because of something you said 10 years ago? That one seems like the big no brainer in my opinion... but I'm just a silly comic, what do I know.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 12:47 AM
So what is it are you saying I did wrong?

Should I have ignored the paladins decisions?
Should I have made the ending black and white evil so that everyone is miserable and mad with how the campaign turned out?
No, you should have taken my original advice: listen to your players.

Elaboration
When a Player raises a point, don't just say "you can't/don't do that" - say "no, but..."

For example:
Wizard: "Well, I kill the Paladin"
DM: "He's a God now, and you're mortal. How do you plan on doing it?"

If you don't understand why a Player is insisting on a course of action, don't dismiss it as "silly" but ask "why does your character want to do that?" If you disagree with a character's decision, ask more questions - "But he's your friend - why would you decide to kill him now?"

In this particular situation, you shouldn't have let the Paladin get off scott-free; one is not allowed to make Deals With The Devil without consequence. Perhaps the Kingdom is as perfect as it can be - but by having his Pocket Utopia, the Paladin allows Darkness to swallow the rest of the world.

Actions need to have consequences and compromises must have prices. Setting up a "black and white" situation (i.e. give up your powers or blow up the world) and then making it "white and white" for one Player smacks of unfairness. This is doubly galling when you, as the DM, have just invoked You Can't Fight Fate to compel a particular course of action.

I mean, what if the Paladin and the Artificer had given up their power but the Wizard decided to keep his Godhood. Do you think they would have been happy with that result?
Of course, this ship has already sailed - and at least one crew member is a jerk to boot. Listening to your Players is something that needs to be done continuously during play - and it's something that even skilled DMs can forget about in the heat of the moment.

Don't let this campaign gall you too much - your particular error was done in the heat of the moment and for the best of intentions. Also, seriously consider booting the Wizard - if he's as bad as you say he is, he has some major growing up to do before he's fit for the gaming table.

EDIT:
@Wadledo - A Player causing his character to commit suicide is about the least disruptive thing an unhappy Player can do in a game. And while there is a difference between being legitimately angry and throwing a tantrum, the fact that the Player threw a tantrum does not make the his reason for being angry any less legit.

Seerow
2010-12-02, 12:57 AM
For future reference, if you're going to modify your ending on the spot based on a decision made, you will probably want to make the darker side of this grey area ending be applicable to the person who made the decision he knew had a chance of destroying the world.

What I mean is you told the players if they maintained their godhood, the world would die in the aftermath. This makes keeping your powers the 'bad' choice, and giving them up the 'good' choice.

Yet in your ending, the person who made the 'bad' choice got off scott free while those who made the good choice are left wondering why they had to give up anything to get their happy ending. As others have suggested, having some drawback to the Paladin's decision, making it result in some unforseen bad stuff happening would have been a better way to handle it.


And thinking it over now, I'm inclined to think the arguments of "There's no free will!" stems more from you saying "No you can't attack him" than from complaints about government. At least in that context it makes more sense imo.

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 01:07 AM
They said they wanted to attack him BECAUSE the paladin had removed free will from the world, that was their only justification for it.

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 01:16 AM
The other character got what they wanted from the campaign.

The wizard got to preserve magic and restore the balance between the schools and allow everyone equal access to magic.
The artificer brought lost technology back to the world.
The rogue got to kill all the big monsters and loot their hoards (which as far as I can tell is all she wanted)
And the fighter purged evil from the world, which was her stated goal.

Nothing bad happened to any of them, and they all got to influence the world.

The only thing they weren't allowed to do was attack the paladin and destroy the world for no good reason, and as a result they got mad and the wizard and his GF decided to kill themselvess.

The only motivation I can see is jealousy of the paladin because I didn't smite her for her decision to keep her power, but rather had a more grey ending. I feel that if I had done anything less it would have removed the purpose of giving the players a choice, like the old NES games where they say "do you want to be evil?" and if you say yes they say "Evil is bad, game over. Start again and make the right choice!"

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 01:26 AM
They said they wanted to attack him BECAUSE the paladin had removed free will from the world, that was their only justification for it.
Well... that is a pretty good justification, you have to admit :smalltongue:

Listen, I don't know how much clearer we can lay out the central problem here: there was a bait and switch, and those who took the bait got shafted.
The Wizard, Artificer, and Paladin were told - by apparently infallible Prophecy - that they would destroy the world if they all kept their God Powers. This framed the "give up your powers" option as the Good Choice. Taking the bait, the Wizard & Artificer gave up their powers For The Good of All. The Paladin did not, and still got the Good Ending. In fact, the Paladin got the Better Ending - not only did she get to "return" civilization to the world, but she did so while still being a God-Emperor; the Wizard & Artificer are just high-powered adventurers at this point.

Additionally, the icing on this Bait Cake is particularly rich:
(1) The betraying Party Member is the Paladin - the paragon of faithfulness

(2) The Paladin betrayed the party (and, ostensibly, The Greater Good) for a selfish reason - and Paladins are paragons of selflessness.

(3) The Paladin was able to betray the party thanks to a Deal With The Devil that granted an Old God literal dominion over the world.
The fact that everything seemed to turn out as good (if not better!) than the proffered Good Ending is what makes this an Epic Fail.
We (or at least I) are not saying that the Wizard acted well in the situation, or even that his stated reason are legitimate. However, that is rather beside the point. Even the best of parties would likely have been miffed by this particular turn of events - it betrayed the expectations of your Players and (it must be said) you were not particularly interested (at the time) in working them out.

Now, you did the right thing - you took the aggrieved Players aside and asked them if they wanted to redo it. Unfortunately, some things can't be undone; endings, in particular, just aren't the same when they're re-enacted weeks after the story was concluded. In these situations you just need to learn from your mistakes and move forward :smallsmile:

EDIT: I really don't think your Players got what they wanted from the campaign. At the very least, their actions (questioning the stated epilogue, demanding the death of the Paladin, suicide) speak to a dissatisfaction with the way things turned out.

If you honestly believe that they had no good reason to be unhappy, then it might be best not to invite them to future games. If a Player is willing to ruin one game simply out of spiteful jealousy, he cannot be relied on to be a good Player in future ones.

Ailurus
2010-12-02, 01:28 AM
Well, I need to echo the people saying that you may want to reconsider hanging out with someone who holds grudges for 10 years, but I do need to agree with him in saying the Paladin's decision is without merit.

Paladins do not work that way. Paladins do not tell primordial gods "sure, I'll give you dominion over the whole world in exchange for a promise that you'll let me do some good stuff with your power and a chance to get some time in the sack" Honestly, even though that may be able to squeak by as a neutral act, I think the paladin should have already fallen.

By definition, most paladins need to be in service to a deity already (they all at least are supposed to be devoted to a cosmic ideal), and your paladin just told another god "feel free to take over my body and the whole world, just gimme my lover back!" Might make sense for his levels to transfer over into levels of 'paladin of primordial darkness' but that does not fall under LG territory. (Frankly, it sounds like Blackguard territory to me) So that alone would raise serious questions for me as to whether or not the paladin was still good. (And if the paladin was not, well, then primordial darkness does not even have the possible moderation of the paladin and it seems like the whole world would have issues.)

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 01:32 AM
I don't play with alignment. And that is exactly the reason why. It is non sensical circular logic. "If I make a deal with the devil for a good cause I become evil and therefore will use the power for evil" is not a realistic mode of thinking to me.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 01:36 AM
Out of morbid curiosity - what is your relationship to the Paladin's Player? Good friend? Romantic interest?

Sillycomic
2010-12-02, 01:36 AM
The players did have a good reason, if you read through this thread there are several good reasons to see what the paladin had done and decide something needs to be done about it.

The fact that the player in question didn't give you any of the good reasons we have put forth only means that he either didn't articulate what his true intentions were, or he didn't like where the ending itself was going and wanted to stop it.


And yes you did give the players a Nintendo choice.

The first choice you gave them was: The world is ending, magic is ending... you guys can just sit here and do nothing and let it happen.

Seriously who is even going to choose that? The fact that you consider that a choice is silly. Given those circumstances you could say that at any point the characters going off and killing themselves is technically a choice. So, now we've got 4 choices the characters have.

Choice 2: Keep your powers and you will all kill each other and the world itself.

Again, this is a choice? There's no point in having god-like powers if there isn't a world to use it in, and you only use those powers to try and kill other god-like characters.

Choice 3: Give up your powers, renew the earth and life can live happily ever after.

Even power hungry characters will see this is the only and obvious choice. The paladin chose wrong. If she were told she had to give up her powers in order to renew the world, and she chose instead to keep her powers... knowing full well that the entire world would be destroyed in a petty battle over wits, she chose wrong.

And we haven't really gone over this before, but this would cause a paladin to fall! Yes it would. There is nothing lawful or good about this choice. This is an evil choice with world ending consequences. I don't see how you call this a grey area where mostly good things happened.

I'm curious if she chose this before everyone else? Did the paladin wait for everyone else to give up their godlike power and then say "Nope... I'm staying a god. Screw you suckers!"

The bottom line, you told your characters if they chose option 2 the world would end.

1 character chose option 2 and she got all of the cool shiny stuff and happy plot endings that every other character got, plus she kept her powers, and her lover, and made entirely new government for herself (and a puppy) and the only bad thing you gave her was a guilty conscience?

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 01:40 AM
Friend from high school, same as the wizard's player (although he is far less of a grudge holding jerk to me).

I did not intend for him to keep his god powers, but it was his choice. If the mage had chosen to keep his powers and everyone else give them up, the mage would have been in much the same position. I really don't think it is an issue of GM favoritism between the two.

If it had been one of the girlfriend's in tow raising the complaint I could see this, as neither have really gotten engaged in the story, but the wizard had every bit the same opportunities, and was actually looking forward to becoming the all powerful god of magic before he learned that doing so would deprive the rest of the world of magic. However, had he made that choice, it would not have damned the world or any such thing, it would have been an absolutist grey ending in the same manner.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 01:43 AM
If it had been one of the girlfriend's in tow raising the complaint I could see this, as neither have really gotten engaged in the story, but the wizard had every bit the same opportunities, and was actually looking forward to becoming the all powerful god of magic before he learned that doing so would deprive the rest of the world of magic. However, had he made that choice, it would not have damned the world or any such thing, it would have been an absolutist grey ending in the same manner.
So... was the prophecy a lie? Did you give any hint this might be the case? Because, from what you've told us so far, it really sounds like they were given a "cake or death" decision - give up the power for the Greater Good or doom the world to destruction.

Seerow
2010-12-02, 01:44 AM
Friend from high school, same as the wizard's player (although he is far less of a grudge holding jerk to me).

I did not intend for him to keep his god powers, but it was his choice. If the mage had chosen to keep his powers and everyone else give them up, the mage would have been in much the same position. I really don't think it is an issue of GM favoritism between the two.

If it had been one of the girlfriend's in tow raising the complaint I could see this, as neither have really gotten engaged in the story, but the wizard had every bit the same opportunities, and was actually looking forward to becoming the all powerful god of magic before he learned that doing so would deprive the rest of the world of magic. However, had he made that choice, it would not have damned the world or any such thing, it would have been an absolutist grey ending in the same manner.


So, as a random thought: If the Paladin kept his powers, had you let the rest of the party go and attack him, would that not cause the prophetic ending you made made as option 2: The party goes to war with each other and causes the destruction of the world?

Sure it wouldn't have been happily ever after, but once the Wizard said that's what he wanted to do, you could have easily said "Yeah, sure. All of you go and attack your previous friend. The resulting battle destroys the world. The end."

While I doubt that was actually the Wizard's intention (given your description of him, that doesn't seem like something he would do), it is ironic how what he tried to do would have played perfectly into your prophecy, thus living up to the idea that not giving up the powers results in the world dying.

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 01:44 AM
That was a vision they were given by an oracle who had both partial and highly biased knowledge of the future. It was only a potential ending which served as a "what if" one shot adventure within the larger campaign. If they had all chosen to keep the power it WOULD NOT have ended the world, atleast, not as they saw it in the vision.

If the mage had chosen to keep his power and the paladin they likely would have divided the world between them, whith the physical (and now free of magic) world under the domain of the paladin and the various outer planes the absolute dominion of the magic god.

Seerow
2010-12-02, 01:47 AM
That was a vision they were given by an oracle who had both partial and highly biased knowledge of the future. It was only a potential ending which served as a "what if" one shot adventure within the larger campaign. If they had all chosen to keep the power it WOULD NOT have ended the world, atleast, not as they saw it in the vision.

If the mage had chosen to keep his power and the paladin they likely would have divided the world between them, whith the physical (and now free of magic) world under the domain of the paladin and the various outer planes the absolute dominion of the magic god.

Did the players have any way of knowing that this vision was heavily biased and highly unlikely?

No offense, but honestly the longer this thread goes on, the more your story seems to shift, and the more I agree with the other guy.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 01:51 AM
That was a vision they were given by an oracle who had both partial and highly biased knowledge of the future. It was only a potential ending which served as a "what if" one shot adventure within the larger campaign. If they had all chosen to keep the power it WOULD NOT have ended the world, atleast, not as they saw it in the vision.

If the mage had chosen to keep his power and the paladin they likely would have divided the world between them, whith the physical (and now free of magic) world under the domain of the paladin and the various outer planes the absolute dominion of the magic god.
Ah, another valuable lesson: Players assume that any prophecy is DM Enforced - unless clear evidence says otherwise.

Prophecy is a dangerous weapon to have in a campaign: Players instinctively heed it because everyone else does. If you intend for a prophecy to be false or mutable, you need to provide ample and powerful evidence that this may be the case. As it was, you (the DM) had intended to provide the PCs with a Good Ending no matter what while the prophecy (a tool of the DM) indicated that a Heroic Sacrifice was needed. When it turned out their Heroic Sacrifice was pointless (i.e. the Paladin's Kingdom made the world a better place, not Magic or Technology) they were rightfully angered. It did not help matters that you then rebuffed them when they protested about the turn of events.

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 01:52 AM
As I said, it was a six year campaign which we played regularly. I am not giving you the full story. It would take way too much time for me to type, let alone read, and I probably wouldn't remember all the details.

So I am sorry if my story is seeming to shift, I am trying to only give the pertinent details, not to mislead you. A one sided story does anyone little good, especially on the internet.

Although now that you bring it up, maybe the mage was expecting the real epilogue to mirror the vision exactly, which, once he learned of the source of the vision (a trickster god whose best interest them not keeping their divine powers) I didn't even think ofthat as a possibility. Maybe he was expecting the paladin to turn evil and him to destroy the paladin like in the vision, and when I told him it wasn't possible to do without divine powers of his own that is what set him off. I hadn't considered that, but that may be what happened.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 01:55 AM
Although now that you bring it up, maybe the mage was expecting the real epilogue to mirror the vision exactly, which, once he learned of the source of the vision (a trickster god whose best interest them not keeping their divine powers) I didn't even think ofthat as a possibility. Maybe he was expecting the paladin to turn evil and him to destroy the paladin like in the vision, and when I told him it wasn't possible to do without divine powers of his own that is what set him off. I hadn't considered that, but that may be what happened.
Yes, that is almost certainly what set him off.

Like I said, the spark on this bonfire was the bait & switch.

Revealing well after the fact that a Trickster God not only gave a false prophecy in order to force the PCs to give up their powers, but that the Trickster God didn't even profit from doing so is more than enough to light that fire.

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 01:56 AM
They killed him immediatly after he gave them the vision, so no, he didn't profit.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 01:57 AM
They killed him immediatly after he gave them the vision, so no, he didn't profit.
...did they realize that there was a connection between the two? That the Trickster God was linked to the False Prophet?

Sillycomic
2010-12-02, 01:57 AM
Personally I would love to know the paladin's thoughts behind her actions.

And the wizard's as well.

Can you give them a link to this thread? Let them post.... I think if we got more insight we might be able to understand what happened better.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 01:58 AM
Personally I would love to know the paladin's thoughts behind her actions.

And the wizard's as well.

Can you give them a link to this thread? Let them post.... I think if we got more insight we might be able to understand what happened better.
Maybe not.

I doubt the Vengeful Wizard will be well disposed after the entire thread called him a jerk :smalltongue:

Still, asking the Players to send in a debriefing statement (1 paragraph) on their thought process might be illuminating.

I can't say it enough: Communicate with your Players! :smallsmile:

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 02:00 AM
Ok, so question. As a DM, what should I have done in this situation?

I felt that making the paladin become an evil overlord and doom everything would have been overly dark, and if the paladin had then killed or enslaved the other players I figured they would flip out and get mad, so I tried to make a more ambiguos ending where they could still be happy within the world (which apparently they couldn't).

What did I do wrong here? I am not being defensive, I am genuinly curious, as you are apparently looking at this from an angle that I missed.

Also, do you see their in character motivation for their suicide pact, or was it just manifestation of out of character jealousy and dissapointment about the "Bait and switch?"

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 02:03 AM
Well, the wizards player would probably get very mad at me if he saw this thread after I mentioned the out of game stuff about him holding grudges and what not, but I am on IM with the paladin's player right now, I will send him a link.

Thrawn183
2010-12-02, 02:04 AM
I might be able to provide an alternative viewpoint. I've played with quite a few paladins that, while great party members, could be a bit overwhelming. I've had plenty of characters who can get along with them well enough in the pursuit of their mutually coinciding goals but absolutely would not want a world where the paladin was the god in charge of everything.

There may be an element of PC on PC dislike that never was a serious enough issue to need to be addressed until suddenly the Paladin took over the world and enforced their rule upon everyone.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 02:21 AM
Ok, so question. As a DM, what should I have done in this situation?

I felt that making the paladin become an evil overlord and doom everything would have been overly dark, and if the paladin had then killed or enslaved the other players I figured they would flip out and get mad, so I tried to make a more ambiguos ending where they could still be happy within the world (which apparently they couldn't).
The "Fade to Black" is always a pleaser :smallbiggrin:
The God-Empress went to the capitol and began organizing her Holy Empire. People flocked to her as naturally as sheep to a shepherd and soon her Light covered the whole of the Island. She was a kind and just ruler, but she brooked no dissent - those who persisted in their wicked ways and were not willing to be reeducated were banished to the mainland.

Thanks to the sacrifices of the Wizard and the Artificer, he Holy Empire was able to make great advances in both magic and technology. The standard of living improved dramatically and soon there was no want for any within the borders of the Holy Empire.

Time passed and the God-Empress and her consort enjoyed the love of their people and the long years that progress granted them. Soon there were none within the kingdom who sought to do Evil and indeed most of them were Good. With no one to exile, the Imperial Citizens turned inwards; they didn't even notice when refugees from the mainland stopped arriving.

It used to be that people traveled the world, seeking adventure and fortune. For the Imperial Citizen there is no need to travel - the best of everything is right at hand! Now, many do not even consider the lands outside their borders; those that do have taken to calling them The Dark Lands - an uncivilized area where men live like animals, devoid of order or peace.

In the early days, there were those who said that the Holy Empire should reach out to the barbarians and bring them to the Light of Civilization. Yet, for some reason, the God-Empress always told them no. Her friends from her adventuring days would have said her voice took an odd tone; that of a being much more ancient than her years suggested. But they have long since passed from the Empire and now there is no one who can - or will - judge her actions.


Also, do you see their in character motivation for their suicide pact, or was it just manifestation of out of character jealousy and dissapointment about the "Bait and switch?"
In all honesty I can't tell you about their in-character motivations because I don't (and possibly can't) know them as well as I need to. As you've said, these characters are the results of six years of adventuring; their personalities are probably sufficiently complex that they may as well be real people.

Now, are there possible justifications? Sure! A Chaotic character who discovered that an invincible God would judge & control his every action may be compelled to suicide - the last free act of a free man. Of course, declaring a character to have committed suicide is also a very common way for unhappy Players to rebel against the dreaded "Railroad DM:" even the most hardened of Railroad DMs are unwilling to say to a Player "No, your character cannot die" when the Player wills it to be. Such naked power over PCs is - at the very least - uncomfortable to even happy Players. Plus, the Player need only say "well, have fun playing him them" and leave if he is thwarted.

Really though, you shouldn't focus on the character suicide. Instead, try to figure out what made the Players so unhappy that they were willing to go to such lengths.

kyoryu
2010-12-02, 02:27 AM
Ok, so question. As a DM, what should I have done in this situation?

I felt that making the paladin become an evil overlord and doom everything would have been overly dark, and if the paladin had then killed or enslaved the other players I figured they would flip out and get mad, so I tried to make a more ambiguos ending where they could still be happy within the world (which apparently they couldn't).

What did I do wrong here? I am not being defensive, I am genuinly curious, as you are apparently looking at this from an angle that I missed.

Also, do you see their in character motivation for their suicide pact, or was it just manifestation of out of character jealousy and dissapointment about the "Bait and switch?"

The Paladin made a deal with a devil to keep all the political power in the world for himself.

How do you really see that going down? I can only see a few ways:

1) The Paladin eventualy gets twisted by the Devil, turning the good the Paladin tries to do into a dark subversion of it
2) Paladin ends up as a tyrant, but is ultimately taken down (by a collection of magic users and technologists) resulting in a happy world
3) The Paladin makes Happy Magic Kingdom, but at a cost of destruction and chaos in the rest of the world.

Yes, this might upset the Paladin - but you know what? That's what happens when you make a pact with an Elder Abomination. There's no real way that the Paladin could claim that the result was unfair.

Fenrisnorth
2010-12-02, 02:43 AM
Hi, everyone, Paladin in question here... Let me answer your questions on motivation in character if I may....

"It has been years since I've seen your face, since I felt your breath on my lips, or heard your voice, save in my dreams. The night you died, my life was gone. The child died, and the warrior was born. Since that day, I have done nothing that was not intended to make the world a better place, or, more importantly, find a way to bring you back to me. Here I stand, at the end of all things, a step away from seeing you again.

My dearest friend, the Wizardly prodigy, begs me to cast power back to the heavens. She has achieved her goal, magic flows to every man, woman and child... but what of mine? Doing this will bring back every demon, every monster, every crooked aspect of the cosmos that we have bled to defeat will surge back at full power.... and you, you will be lost to me forever. I cannot unleash that on the world again, but that is secondary.

I will see you again. If giving it all up would put you back in my arms, I would go back to the farm with you in a heartbeat. But, the thing is, it won't. It won't do a damned thing, but undoing everything I've worked for. So just wait a few more seconds, my love, and we'll be together again..."

I never played for the power, it was a means to an end. The rest of the group looked at it the wrong way. I didn't even really WANT the divine mantle, but when I asked the GM what choice would bring us together, it turned out there wasn't really a choice after all.

I regret only that I couldn't make the others see that. I wish our epilogue had shown all of us happily ever after, but I made that choice in the same vein as every other choice for the last six years. "How do I get back to my love?" It was an AMAZING campaign, I haven't laughed, or cried, as hard as this story made me, from the rush of the highest triumph, to the dull ache of all the times I thought I had my goal in my grasp, only to have it slip away, I truly felt ALIVE. If only the villain from the prologue had been around at the end, he would have made a great addition to the final battle, and brought everything even more full circle.

I must admit, I was a little flummoxed at the reactions of the rest of the group, but they didn't really understand WHY I chose the way I did. I wish I had explained it better...

-L

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 02:50 AM
I never played for the power, it was a means to an end. The rest of the group looked at it the wrong way. I didn't even really WANT the divine mantle, but when I asked the GM what choice would bring us together, it turned out there wasn't really a choice after all.
That's probably the issue right there.

I'm glad you had fun and - let it be said - you did everything correctly. There is no shame in taking the selfish path in a Heroic Fantasy game - provided there is some barb in it.

Plus, something tells me the Wizard wouldn't have been any happier if you had said "listen, I don't really care about the God Power!" After all, he cared deeply about the very same power and felt compelled to give it up.

BladeSingerXIV
2010-12-02, 02:58 AM
I would just like to point out that the paladin giving or keeping political power probably wasn't the best choice of final acts you could have given. I mean, yeah, it's a pretty big difference between having a monarchy that one is in charge of and having a democracy. On the other hand, the difference between having ultimate magic and leaving the world to die? Or even if I'm misreading that and it's the choice between having ultimate magic and allowing the average person to cast spells, that's a huge difference in legacy.

And frankly, it doesn't sound like there was really very much political power to spread around. The world, the animals, and the people are all sterile. From what I can tell, there is literally no possible way, spread political power or not, for this society to do anything but stagnate.

I'll admit that maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it kind of sounds like this was the paladin's only chance for a happy ending. On taking the choice to give up the power: lose a loved one, spread around political power, hang out with old quest buddies, the world stagnates. On taking the choice to keep the power: keep lover, rule country, the world stagnates.

To answer your question, Talakeal, on what I think you should have done as a DM, I think you should have made it more attractive for the Paladin to take the "give up the power" choice. Make it so that the life of the world would be renewed as well, or that the lover might stay alive anyway, or something.

Yes, the Wizard was kind of a jerk and no, I still don't agree with his reasoning or his stance at all, but it sounds like he and the artificer had way, way stronger reasons to give up the power than you gave the Paladin.

I do agree that it sounds like there wasn't nearly enough to suggest that the prophecy was not immutable. That would be my other recommendation for what you should have done.

Edit: Oh, hey. Looks like I shouldn't have gotten distracted while posting. Glad to have you with us, Fenris, even if you did kind of ninja me. I agree that you didn't do anything wrong here, except maybe mis- or underarticulate yourself. That much is hardly a crime, I feel.

Sillycomic
2010-12-02, 03:03 AM
I think that is an excellent reason for keeping your power, Fenris. And good on you.

However, as touching as your speech sounds, I can just as easily hear it coming out of a villain as a hero.

There have been countless villains who would destroy the world and sacrifice innocent lives and freedom for a chance to get their one true love back. (the Mummy comes to mind, the mummy only wanted to be back with his cute girl, it wasn't his fault the only way to do that was to eat people and cause plagues)

The wizard saw you have too much power, maybe even a little too much megalomania for his taste and decided you were the very evil he was trying to stop in this world, so you need to be taken down as well.

The way I see it, Tala, you did 2 things wrong.

1. You never told your players that the prophecy they saw was anything more than rubbish. They had no way of knowing the vision wasn't the utter truth.

If you have a wizard with god-like powers, I imagine it wouldn't take that hard of a spell to find out if that one prophecy he saw that one time was the truth or not.

Or... if they could... like the paladin was able to, keep their powers and still get everything they ever wanted out of the campaign.

2. You didn't let your players go through with their choices. The paladin made a choice to find her lover, no matter what consequences. The other characters decide to stop her, as she has grown power hungry and mad and they already got a vision saying to keep the powers will result in another apocalypse.

So, they do what they've been doing for 6 years, try to take down what they perceive as evil.

And you just stopped them from doing it. You flat out told them no. Why not? They had legitimate reasons for taking the paladin down. Even the flimsy, "Well she set up a monarchy and all monarchy's are evil."

So it's flawed logic. Characters are allowed to have flawed logic, they're allowed to run off and do something based on an assumption that is wrong.

Heck, you didn't correct them when they assumed the only way to have everything they ever wanted was to give up their god-like powers. You could have said at that point, "Wait, you guys know that prophecy was rubbish. You can keep all your powers and still have your happy endings..."

They assumed the only way to accomplish this was to give up their powers. They assumed wrong, but as the GM you let them have the consequences of that action.

Now they assume wrong when the paladin sets up her new happy government and enjoys her immortality with her lover. But this time you won't allow them to do anything about it?

I will admit killing yourself is a jealousy gut reaction. It was childish of them, and if they were more adult about it, things could have gone in a better direction.

However, even the best and most adult of players would have found fault with this ending. I would have found fault with this ending. If I make a wrong decision in a D&D game based on false (but compelling) evidence my character has, I consider it good role playing if I'm allowed to follow my own flawed logic to its ends.

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 03:05 AM
The paladin's lover would have been sacrificed to renew the world. Giving its life to put everything back to normal, end the corruption, heal the land, and put the gods of good, evil, and neutrality back into their rightful, balanced positions.

As it is the world will remain static. Although eternal life can be given to those alive, few new children will be born. Although this one good, orderly, kingdom will exist forever, no new ones will arise.

In essence it is the choice between preserving the world as it is and keeping hope for a better one.

Furthermore, there is the matter of responsibility. The paladin, is NOT a megalomaniac, or at least I don't think she is. Having to rule the world forever is in many ways a curse rather than a blessing. As the god who was her lover said, no matter what you do someone will suffer, and you must decide who. A lucky ruler can take the brunt of the suffering unto them self, but not all have that option.

I hope I made sense there, its a complex thought I am trying to get across and it is getting late.

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 03:14 AM
I guess the wizard never questioned that the vision was accurate, where it never occured to me that he would take it as authentic.

Everyone was very tired from the twelve hour long final battle, and had to be up early the next morning, and there wont be another opportunity for another session for several weeks. I didn't really feel a one sided PvP encounter was the best thing to run, especially not at that time.

Should I have really set up a player vs. player battle? Many groups outright forbid it, and I know in the RPGA PvP action gets you and your character booted from the session immediatly. I remember one time when I backstabbed another character after they traumatized mine, and the DM have a level 20 mage / cleric teleport in and power word kill me and true ressurect the victim on the spot.

Would that really have made for a more enjoyable ending to the campaign?


The kingdom and its fate were the paladins story first and foremost. The balance of magic was the mages story, and the level of technology was the artificers story. Everyone was happy with how their own story worked out as far as I can tell.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 03:26 AM
Should I have really set up a player vs. player battle? Many groups outright forbid it, and I know in the RPGA PvP action gets you and your character booted from the session immediatly. I remember one time when I backstabbed another character after they traumatized mine, and the DM have a level 20 mage / cleric teleport in and power word kill me and true ressurect the victim on the spot.

Would that really have made for a more enjoyable ending to the campaign?
No, but you should have let him narrate it.

The epilogue isn't supposed to be about dice rolling - it's about narration. The best DMs I've ever been under do it exactly that way - and so do I. In fact, we just wrapped up a big ol' campaign and the first thing he asked each of us after we finished off the BBEG is "OK, well what does each of your characters do after that?"

It gave us each an opportunity to put a capstone of sorts on our characters. Some people wrote themselves into a "happily every after;" others wrote a "to be continued" storyline. Usually, there's no conflict - but when there is, I always let the Players sort it out verbally. If they can't resolve it between themselves, then setting up The Final Conflict is their ending - "two men enter, one man leaves" but we don't know who is victorious.

In your case, I would have asked the Paladin "if the Wizard showed up and wanted you dead, what would you do?" Just narrate it out a bit - do a little RP and, if the Paladin really wants the Wizard dead then he would be able to say "I smite you with my Godly Power." I suspect that the Paladin might have tried to find some sort of compromise - or, possibly, had a What Have I Done? moment and allowed the Wizard to kill her.

EDIT: Also, I think you might want to ask the Wizard & Artificer what bothered them about the ending of the campaign. At this point, I can almost assure you that they were not happy how it turned out - simply repeating the contrary assertion does nothing more than prevent honest communication between the DM and the Players.

Seriously - every time my Players start "acting out" around the table I take the time to ask them what's up. If nothing else it can nip incorrect assumptions right in the bud before they bloom into something nasty.

Sillycomic
2010-12-02, 03:27 AM
If I were a character in your game, and I saw what happened I wouldn't find it much of a stretch to have my character come up with the conclusion that the paladin is power hungry and a megalomaniac.


It's up to you about the player versus player situation. Most groups come up with rules beforehand on whether or not PVP is even allowed. This is also the time when you usually ask people how you wanna divvy up treasure and other such role playing necessities.

Personally I would have loved a cliffhanger ending of...

GM: Ok... paladin you decide not to sacrifice your powers and you get your lover back. Plus you set up your new empire the way you want it to be run... oh and here's a new puppy.

Rest of the party: What? No way, she can't do that. I refuse to let that happen. She's gone power hungry. She must be stopped.

GM: And... as the players all turn to face each other the screen fades to black. Wow guys, I didn't see that coming. Ok, well we're taking a break for a few weeks, so I can have some time to prepare this. Once we get started again we'll have an epic fight.

Sheesh, you can even put in some cool role playing on either side. As the Gm you just stand back. The wizard and the paladin will argue, try to get them to see each other's side of it, and in the end either work out a compromise or battle to the death.

Heck, either ending would be awesome to see. And happy for everyone involved. Yes, everyone would be happy with this ending.

If they all compromised, then they're all happy with the ending.

If they fought and the paladin died. Well, she's dead so she gets to go to heaven with her lover. So she gets what she wanted.

If they fought and the rest of the party died, they will have died knowing they tried to do the right thing and bring down a tyrant. You can't get any better than that.

Fenrisnorth
2010-12-02, 03:34 AM
@Idon'trememberwho

It wasn't an easy decision to ally with Erebus, but it most certainly wasn't a deal with the devil. We had to fight TEH SATAN (Thanks for the name Spoony) already. The beings on that level don't have much on the way of personality, it wasn't a "you and your bimbo can live in the closet with happy music while I turn the world into a shrine of elemental evil" scenario, it was just.... hell, a means to an end.

As to the options AS I SAW THEM...

Door 1: Destroy EVERYTHING (Bad ending)

Door 2: Allow Erebus to enter me, reclaim lover, prevent destruction of world, (Good ending 1)

Door 3: Restore power to cosmos, resurrect all the gods and demons we had just killed, leaving door open to allow another war between heaven and hell that could spill over (again) into the mortal world, and lose lover forever. (Good ending 2)

Now, I looked at ending 3, and I saw the warlords rising again, the gods and devils fighting each other again, and sucking everyone else into it. It seemed too much like erasing the whole campaign.

Things were not OK in this world, not in the slightest, and while removing the OBVIOUS evil imbalance by sacrificing everything we'd accomplished COULD have worked out OK, it wasn't worth the chance.

Personally, I think Talakeal has done a great job, and has put more effort into this campaign than I have put into almost anything. I think The Wizard Who Did It, is just a jerkwad. I challenge him to make the same decision he made, but with the caveat he has to kill his Rogue GF and shred her soul in the process....

Fenrisnorth
2010-12-02, 03:37 AM
@Sillycomic

I wanted Wizard to stay with my in the epilogue, not to leave. Also, there wasn't a Happily Ever Afterlife, for the two of us. It was all cards on the table, the sacrifice would be her total existence.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 03:39 AM
It wasn't an easy decision to ally with Erebus, but it most certainly wasn't a deal with the devil.
So... what was Erebus's deal? He's the God of Primordial Darkness, right?

(1) Why did he want to possess the Paladin?
(2) How was he able to save the Paladin's S.O. by doing so?
(3) What did he do after the Paladin agreed to the bargain?

Also: condemning the world to ultimate entropy is a pretty harsh ending. I mean, it sounds like the bargain literally killed Progress.

Also II: I'm pretty happy my "Fade to Black" was pretty similar to the course that was taken. It means I've been paying attention in class :smalltongue:

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 03:49 AM
Erebus had been killed during the creation of the world. He was the ruler of the void before the world existed, and the gods slew him when he objected to their creating a world in the middle of his perfect emptiness. He, and all of his unlimited power, have existed in the void beyond the edge of existence since the beginning of time, waiting.

With the paladin as his avatar he has three things that were deprived to him, lordship of creation, life, and his beloved (the same god which was the paladins lover had been his mate in the beginning).

In addition he was able to feast on the souls of all the gods, who were now in his realm, the place of lost souls beyond the edge of the universe, as well as all the mortal souls whom the paladin slew. Thus he has his revenge, and his sustenance, and can return the spirit world to the bleak oblivion that it was during his reign.

By sacrificing herself the goddess of magic did somewhat thwart his plans though, as he will not have ownership of all the mystic energy in creation, but with magic applied evenly to all mortals none can oppose him, and no new universes can ever be created to disrupt his perfect void between the worlds. Besides, the sacrifice was only temporary.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 03:52 AM
...so, not the Devil, right? :smalltongue:

Fenrisnorth, did you know all that about Erebus when your character made the choice? 'cause that's, um, well, pretty dark :smalleek:

EDIT: Well, reading the response I take it the answer is "I guess I didn't know as much as I thought I did" :smallamused:

Fenrisnorth
2010-12-02, 03:53 AM
1: It was the original creator of the world, and its attempts to enter it, created the 9 schools of magic, and the gods associated with them, by using the paladin as a host, it could enter the world it so desired to experience.

2: She was beyond mortal magic to restore (VEEEEERY simple answer)

3: As I said, it wasn't really a consciousness, it was mostly just a power source at that point AFAIK. It didn't overwrite my personality, or morality.

and 4: (even though it wasn't a question) Actually, there was no Entropy left, things just stayed the same. sun don't burn out, universe doesn't suffer heat death, sorta like Hebrew Heaven.

Fenrisnorth
2010-12-02, 03:55 AM
Paragraph 3 and 4 are news to me, but I knew he was the Creator. I didn't think he had such motivations.

Fenrisnorth
2010-12-02, 03:59 AM
And to those who say "A Paladin shouldn't choose their love" What about a Paladin of Love (A la Paladin of Freedom from I believe the Complete Divine?) or one of the Goddess of Love?

Sillycomic
2010-12-02, 04:20 AM
No one stated you were that kind of paladin. Were you a particular paladin of freedom or love?

And you said yourself, everything you did was to get your lover back.

Which makes me think, what if the GM had told you, "There's this cute little baby. Erebus says that if you kill it, he will bring your lover back and you can live happily ever after."

You already said everything you did in the campaign was just to get your lover back. So, it makes sense that you would kill the innocent child for your own selfish needs.

This is just a broader scale.

Them GM is telling you, "give up your power and the world can start again. People will be able to have children, societies can grow, evil will come back but so will good and hope and promise and flowers...

Or keep your power, make a deal with a dark diety you don't know that much about and you get your lover."

You chose your lover. It's a good choice, but selfish. And not something a paladin would do. (even without the dark diety stuff thrown in there, that's a pretty sketchy choice to make)

I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, or out of character for you in anyway, but it was selfish and other characters who are looking at what you gave up and what the rest of the world has to live with because of your actions would feel compelled to do something about it.

In my opinion this could be a cool campaign in and of itself. A paladin that makes a sacrificial choice to be with her lover and the heroes that try to take her down.

Loki~
2010-12-02, 05:01 AM
{Scrubbed}

well, what can i say.
as a Chaotic Good character in your campaing maybe i rather had decided to live along that world and be a guardian of it, like "if the godly paladin strays his path, i'll be the one to correct it"

on the other hand, liked
Gabe the bard & Zeofar ideas.

Here's mine using some of each one.



You could say that the godly power that once remained in them make them understand that no good world is possible without evil, so they unconsiously kill themselves as an act of rebellion against the good roams the lands, and with this, theyve transformed into 2 evil entities that now balances the world again.




With this i think all of 3 will be happier or at least not like they are now.
6 years is a lot og roleplay, but that doesnt change people fights over the protagonism once in a while.
- if no solution you find, speak with each one separately you must.
if you do this they will open to you, distinctly if you are all together.

hope this has been helpfull. :)

Yahzi
2010-12-02, 05:15 AM
They wanted to save the world, but they were themselves adventurers, who have lived a life of wandering around the wasteland, killing and destroying evil in the name of a better world.

You have classic instincts:



The shire has been saved, Sam... but not for me.

Yahzi
2010-12-02, 05:23 AM
It is very simple if you stop to think about it for a second. Just how your LG kingdom maintains its goodness? There are only two ways - either they remove free will, by barring people from doing evil, or they change people themselves removing capability of doing evil, again, limiting free will.
Or, you know, just don't let people get away with ****.

It turns out that even homicidal lunatics won't usually kill people if they think they will get caught. Now occasionally they do go on a rampage and then kill themselves afterward, but really, that is easy to fix. Raise the victims and leave the sociopath dead. Problem solved. No more evil (although the victims will probably be annoyed at the interruption).

The vast, vast, vast majority of crime can be eliminated simply by making sure everyone understands they will be found out, and they will be held accountable. Under those conditions, they just don't bother.

And the people who commit crimes knowing they will be caught can't even be described as evil, just mentally ill. For which Atonement or Heal would seem to be the appropriate answer.

Yahzi
2010-12-02, 05:28 AM
What is a just law? There seems to be significant disagreement over this point,
You and several millenia of philosophers. :smalltongue:

However, the issue has been settled, thanks in no small part to John Rawls. Just law is fair law. When we say justice, we really mean fairness.

And what is fairness? It's the old you cut, I choose: you divide the cake into pieces before you know which piece you get.

There you go - all the philosophy of ethics you'll ever need to know.

:smallcool:

Yahzi
2010-12-02, 05:38 AM
This. So much this. The government we're talking about isn't just discouraging crime - it is literally holding loaded gun to your temple 24 hours a day threatening to shoot if you commit crime. You need means of that calibre to do what was proposed. Anyone thinking he would be okay with such an arrangement should consider what she/he would feel if their favourite pastime was also considered a crime. For their own good, of course.
So, let me get this straight. You are offended that the government would hold a loaded gun to someone's head and shoot them if they... held a loaded gun to my head and shot me?

This offends you? Really? Seriously, I find that hard to believe.

As for how I would feel if my favorite pastime was considered a crime, that's a red herring. There is no reason to think a LG society would disallow playing D&D or reading scandalous books. Why would they? What about Lawful Good makes you think it means Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?

On the other hand, if your favorite pastime is killing other people, then yes, I am perfectly fine with limiting your free will (in particular since killing someone really stifles their free will). You could just say that my favorite pastime is having a government that makes killing people a crime. By not allowing me to have that government, you are imposing your will on me - so you are the tyrant! You are the one here denying free will, because you won't let me exercise my freely willed desire to deny other people the free will to deny me free will!

Plus, my side has more guns. :smallbiggrin:

Yahzi
2010-12-02, 05:49 AM
I have to disagree here. Many people hold themselves accountable to themselves, with or without a higher power. I know I do. You are using way too much of an absolute by saying that anyone in top position will always turn evil. The world is way too grey to lump everyone into that catagory.
I agree with you. My point was not about higher powers - it was about the nature of morality requiring a give-and-take, as it were.

If you were placed in a position of such extreme power that no one ever said "no" to you, you might find yourself losing your way. Not out of a desire to do evil, but simply because you can't tell what evil is anymore. How do you know when you're being fair if no one ever complains? What does it even mean to do evil if every act, no matter what it is, is greeted with the same ecstatic joy?

I'm not questioning your moral worth; I am making a statement about feedback mechanisms.

Of course in D&D the Gods are immortal, incredibly powerful, and morally fixed. Plus, you know, magic. So my real-world arguments don't really apply here. :smallbiggrin:

Fenrisnorth
2010-12-02, 05:59 AM
Hey, I just remembered the best part... we knew/thought SOMEONE would have to keep godly power. The Wizard was planning on taking the power I ended up keeping for himself... and THAT he wouldn't have had to sacrifice to keep magic from dying... 'lil tidbit for you all to think about.

Sillycomic
2010-12-02, 06:08 AM
I'm not sure why you all couldn't keep the godly power myself.

Truthfully I just don't understand the sacrifice part. You all became the gods of what you were. Wizard a god of magic. Artificer a god of technology, paladin a god of justice and society.

The part that throws me is that you need to sacrifice your power in order for the world to be created anew. Seems like you could have easily just kept all your powers and renewed the world with those powers... you know, cause your all gods n stuff, and then ended the campaign being cool gods with godly powers.

Talk about a win win win win win scenario.

How could anyone possibly complain about the end of a campaign where they're all gods?

Lord.Sorasen
2010-12-02, 06:12 AM
So, let me begin by saying I admittedly didn't read this whole thread. But, let me give a few thoughts out.

The party's reaction really wasn't all that extreme. It sounds bizarre, yes, but consider this. The group apparently agreed that they would not want to control the world. It would be too much power. Morality is somewhat subjective. The paladin is not a God (even if he has there powers) but a mortal, and a mortals ideas would generally not be good for everyone.

The idea that they're jealous of the paladin keeping his godly powers is a bit silly. They all had the option. They chose to give them up. To be honest, I imagine they expected the paladin to do the same. That he'd return the natural balance back to the world. Instead the paladin keeps the powers which from the sounds of things he sort of stole. What angers the party is that the paladin can freely use his godly powers on Earth to create his own vision of a perfect world without repercussions.

But here's the biggest issue. The party decides "We want to kill the paladin." They're upset at this new world. They're upset that the monarchy before is still a monarchy, even if under a new leader. They think the paladin is out of line. However, when they tried you plainly stated to them "you really can't. It's out of character for you to do so, and the paladin is way too powerful for that."

Which is a big deal. The party's fears of a world in which people have no impact is recognized by the fact that they literally weren't even allowed to try and change things. So the characters do something the paladin cannot stop them from doing.



Here's a weird thing: I sort of like this ending. The party saves the world, and the paladin, wishing to save his beloved, keeps his god-like powers and recreates a new world. To many (as indicated by the dm's description) the world is flawless and perfect. But the party feels otherwise. They feel that should evil not exist, what is good? Even if perfectly righteous, the world seems empty to them. They fought evil, they fought gods and demons, and gained great power: but they returned to a world where they had no influence. Enraged, they consider killing their old companion, but when they try they find the paladin is too powerful for them. They are worthless in this new world. And without their own self value, what is life? They kill themselves as a final act of defiance in a world where defiance doesn't exist.

I don't know, I sort of find it neat.

I also wouldn't have blocked off your PCs' demands, honestly. If they wanted to fight the paladin, well, having them talk as close friends might have helped them out. Who knows?

Loki~
2010-12-02, 06:45 AM
Here's a weird thing: I sort of like this ending. The party saves the world, and the paladin, wishing to save his beloved, keeps his god-like powers and recreates a new world. To many (as indicated by the dm's description) the world is flawless and perfect. But the party feels otherwise. They feel that should evil not exist, what is good? Even if perfectly righteous, the world seems empty to them. They fought evil, they fought gods and demons, and gained great power: but they returned to a world where they had no influence. Enraged, they consider killing their old companion, but when they try they find the paladin is too powerful for them. They are worthless in this new world. And without their own self value, what is life? They kill themselves as a final act of defiance in a world where defiance doesn't exist.

I don't know, I sort of find it neat.

I also wouldn't have blocked off your PCs' demands, honestly. If they wanted to fight the paladin, well, having them talk as close friends might have helped them out. Who knows?


Is not a bad ending indeed.
But i think the other characters lost their true purposes:
Why does Heroes appear?

~ because they fight for a perfect, pacific, world.

If they dont want this in the first place according to the campaing they could simply start working for another side.

If they wanted an exciting life full of fights (suitable for a barbarian or a fighter...but not a wizard or a technomancer like an Artificer...) (and they simply could organize tournaments for that purpose) they could just fight on the evil side.

Im playing the same campaing for about 2 years now, and my character started like an chaotic neutral outlaw, but 3 years of fights, lots of deaths and having loved ones the only thing he is starting to desire is a peacefull life.


This is, i think, what a powerfull GOOD heroe that went through some serious **** would want, otherwise is crazy.

As i stated before, you probably are the strongest person in the world, no one can beat you, so desiring stuff to appear in front of you to satisfy your "im your daddy and i kill you :3 " is somehow evil in my opinion... or you just went nuts. :smallannoyed:

Vinyadan
2010-12-02, 09:20 AM
I didn't read all of the many pages of answers, so I may have missed something. However:

I think "power corrupts" to be a cliché and that your players might not know what utopia means. But I also don't think that cliché means "impossible eventuality": the Paladin might actually be corrupted. Although he has godly powers, it doesn't mean he actually is a god; so you should decide if the paladin is a god or a human with godly powers. If he is a god, then everything is fine: gods are enough focused and persistant to keep doing the same things for all eternity, which means, they don't betray their ideals. A human, however, can be as good as you want, but he will never be perfect, because of his earthly nature; in other words, his body will still give him orders and he will still be subject to lust, anger, pride and so on. A human wielding godly powers without being an actual god will live forever (if that's what you had in mind for him) always in a struggle not to fails his ideals; a struggle which he won't always win. Thw problem is: how much evil can a good man do during his life? And how much evil can a good man with an infinite lifespan and godly power do?

The characters may have killed themselves because they figured the weakness of a god-powered human and did not want to live to see the future. The players may have simply been envious.

It would be great a future campaign with the PCs as NPCs, the Paladin halfway to corruption, his survived companions leaders of different factions - some obedient to the paladin, while some consider the self-killed as some sort of great souls a la Cato Uticensis and openly oppose him. The PCs would be new characters having to choose a side (or acting chaos).

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 10:15 AM
Hey, I just remembered the best part... we knew/thought SOMEONE would have to keep godly power. The Wizard was planning on taking the power I ended up keeping for himself... and THAT he wouldn't have had to sacrifice to keep magic from dying... 'lil tidbit for you all to think about.
I... I really don't understand this campaign at all :smallconfused:

Seriously, if the OP wants to know what went wrong with his campaign at this point he needs to ask either the Wizard or the Artificer.

Tryll
2010-12-02, 10:18 AM
Ok, so question. As a DM, what should I have done in this situation?

...

Also, do you see their in character motivation for their suicide pact, or was it just manifestation of out of character jealousy and dissapointment about the "Bait and switch?"

It sounds like you had plans only for the two most extreme outcomes: Everyone surrenders their powers (producing a perfect world), and everyone keeps their powers (destroying the world).

You should have had some plans for intermediate outcomes as well. Preferably outcomes that would have yielded a passably good world, but would have had unplesant consequences for the one or two characters keeping the powers (yes, you have god-like powers, but the stress of personally running a world is draining your hybrid god-human bodies. Soon your mortal humanity will have burned away completely, leaving only a true deity, while your human soul is lost forever - that is to say, your characters gonna DIE).

However, that is a lesson for future campaigns. As others have already said, going back and re-doing an ending is hardly ever satisfying. "I guess saying I'm sorry won't give you back the feeling in your legs." - Eek the Cat

To answer your second question: Even being justifiably unhappy and dissatisfied with the ending, killing off their characters still sounds like a childish, immature, petty, and spiteful thing to do. I would not want any of those players in my campaign.

WinceRind
2010-12-02, 10:27 AM
I agree with the players.

When you're ruled by an omniscient, nigh all-powerful being, there's nothing else to do but to rebel. When the top dog is practically the most powerful being and doesn't have anyone to grovel before, it's a bad situation.

Especially considering how easy it is to change people, both in real life, and many times that in D&D. Programmable amnesia, various enchantment spells...

The world of 1984 is also a Utopia if you're brainwashed to believe it as were most of the people there.

So, yeah, it's better to die futilely in a fight against such power then live in this kind of "utopia". I fully support the players' decision to off themselves, as long as it makes sense for their characters and alignments.

If any of them were lawful good, that might be somewhat out of place. If Chaotic good, the above can make sense. If Neutral anything, certainly the above.

An absolute power can **** with you absolutely, without you even knowing it. Hence, destroy it. If there's a supreme god, it should be everyone's mission to kill it or more likely fail trying.

Starbuck_II
2010-12-02, 10:35 AM
I agree with the players.

When you're ruled by an omniscient, nigh all-powerful being, there's nothing else to do but to rebel. When the top dog is practically the most powerful being and doesn't have anyone to grovel before, it's a bad situation.

Especially considering how easy it is to change people, both in real life, and many times that in D&D. Programmable amnesia, various enchantment spells...

The world of 1984 is also a Utopia if you're brainwashed to believe it as were most of the people there.

So, yeah, it's better to die futilely in a fight against such power then live in this kind of "utopia". I fully support the players' decision to off themselves, as long as it makes sense for their characters and alignments.

If any of them were lawful good, that might be somewhat out of place. If Chaotic good, the above can make sense. If Neutral anything, certainly the above.

An absolute power can **** with you absolutely, without you even knowing it. Hence, destroy it. If there's a supreme god, it should be everyone's mission to kill it or more likely fail trying.

But Ao in Forgotten Realms is an omniscient, nigh all-powerful being, but no one rebels versus him.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-02, 10:43 AM
I agree with the players.

When you're ruled by an omniscient, nigh all-powerful being, there's nothing else to do but to rebel. When the top dog is practically the most powerful being and doesn't have anyone to grovel before, it's a bad situation.

Especially considering how easy it is to change people, both in real life, and many times that in D&D. Programmable amnesia, various enchantment spells...

The world of 1984 is also a Utopia if you're brainwashed to believe it as were most of the people there.

So, yeah, it's better to die futilely in a fight against such power then live in this kind of "utopia". I fully support the players' decision to off themselves, as long as it makes sense for their characters and alignments.

If any of them were lawful good, that might be somewhat out of place. If Chaotic good, the above can make sense. If Neutral anything, certainly the above.

An absolute power can **** with you absolutely, without you even knowing it. Hence, destroy it. If there's a supreme god, it should be everyone's mission to kill it or more likely fail trying.

The world of 1984 is a Dystopia (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Dystopia). Hell, it's the page-opening-quote!

Seriously though, If I had been in such a campaign? I'd find it hard to argue for the paladin to sacrifice their love entirely (that they've been chasing for 6 rl years!) just so that all the demons and gods we decided were worth killing in the first place could come back to ruin the world again. Clearly the correct solution to the situation seeming intolerable is as follows;

You, the pre-eminent wizard in the setting, essentially the father of magic, do not like all of reality being stagnant, do not like civilisation flourishing only under the paladin, and hell, maybe you worry about the God of Darkness who the paladin subsumed, too. Why not?
So, you do something about it. No, you don't murder your friend and long-term ally, you get magical. You find a way to kick-start progress again, find an alternate way to fuel the reaction needed to re-start life without sacrificing too much, and without bringing all the horror of the old world back.
I'm sure it's within the capability of a suitably long-research-and-casting-time Epic Spell, after all. It should be relatively easy, all it will take is time. And with things as they are, that's the one thing you have.

Oh, and you know how every single magic user in reality owes you a major debt? Cash it in. An entire civilisation worth of mages, led by yourself, working towards fixing reality? I'd call that problem solved, frankly. If, with a whole island full of eventually-high-level-wizards you cannot seperate one little god of darkness, remove a little universal sterility problem and generally get things back on-track? Then something else is wrong.

So you spend a fortnight epic-magic fixing that, first. :smallwink:


But Ao in Forgotten Realms is an omniscient, nigh all-powerful being, but no one rebels versus him.

I get the urge to ALL THE TIME, but then I get those kind of urges sometimes, especially with reguards to the Forgotten Realms system of Gods. I've not really encountered anyone else though. :smallbiggrin:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 10:51 AM
I don't think it really matters whether the Wizard reacted "in the right way" to the ending. We already know he's a jerk (or, at the very least, the DM does) and he's not even here complaining. What we have is the OP upset because 2 of his 3 "real" Players had their characters abruptly commit suicide.

For the Wizard, at the very least, it seems clear that he committed suicide because the DM wasn't listening to him.

(1) He insisted that an Empire ruled by a God - specifically the God of Primordial Darkness - shouldn't be all sweetness and light. The DM said No.

(2) He stated that his character wanted to kill the God. The DM didn't just say "that's impossible;" he said "No, you can't even try."

A DM telling you that your character cannot take a course of action that he is perfectly capable of attempting is a slap in the face of any Player. In the end, this is the important takeaway:

Players expect a certain autonomy in the playing of their characters. If you remove or limit that autonomy, expect them to get pissed off.

DontEatRawHagis
2010-12-02, 10:59 AM
To OP

Instead of having it turn into a Utopia for eternity. Just do what they say in the a lot of books, and I quote "And for a time it was good..." This leads for a more imaginative interpretation by the players without bottle necking them into one result. The Paladin gets their Utopian society ending. The Rogue gets his gold mansion, and the Mage becomes ruler of his own Kingdom.

If I was one of your players I would have talked to you about the ending. Saying how unrealistic it is and that it's the Paladin's story that your telling, not the rest of the party. Where is my place in this utopian world? I kill for a living as a mercenary, what can I do?

Emmerask
2010-12-02, 11:25 AM
I agree with the players.

When you're ruled by an omniscient, nigh all-powerful being, there's nothing else to do but to rebel. When the top dog is practically the most powerful being and doesn't have anyone to grovel before, it's a bad situation.

Especially considering how easy it is to change people, both in real life, and many times that in D&D. Programmable amnesia, various enchantment spells...

The world of 1984 is also a Utopia if you're brainwashed to believe it as were most of the people there.

So, yeah, it's better to die futilely in a fight against such power then live in this kind of "utopia". I fully support the players' decision to off themselves, as long as it makes sense for their characters and alignments.

If any of them were lawful good, that might be somewhat out of place. If Chaotic good, the above can make sense. If Neutral anything, certainly the above.

An absolute power can **** with you absolutely, without you even knowing it. Hence, destroy it. If there's a supreme god, it should be everyone's mission to kill it or more likely fail trying.

Agreed, especially since the paladin has already shown that her morality is questionable by retaining the god like powers for her own selfish reasons.

The reasoning was not that she thought she could create a better world for all beings, it was solely to revive her long lost lover and rebuild her ancestors empire, it seems it never crossed her mind that another being given this power might be much better suited for the job :smallwink:

Anyway the players actions make for an interesting ending I don´t think it was that bad and some of my characters I´ve played in other campaigns might have done the same.


But Ao in Forgotten Realms is an omniscient, nigh all-powerful being, but no one rebels versus him.

But Ao does allow good and evil and does not suppress anyone or anything :smallwink:



To answer your second question: Even being justifiably unhappy and dissatisfied with the ending, killing off their characters still sounds like a childish, immature, petty, and spiteful thing to do. I would not want any of those players in my campaign.

They did tell the dm what they want to do, the dm told them "no your characters can´t do that", basically limiting the players options to bow before the paladin and except her as their new god and do the only thing I allow your characters to do.... spiteful maybe (though as I said the paladins character is questionable) but certainly not childish or immature :smalltongue:

I would have prefered a good nice fight at the end, even if the other players did not have any chance against the (soon to be evil) new god.

Loki~
2010-12-02, 11:38 AM
To OP


If I was one of your players I would have talked to you about the ending. Saying how unrealistic it is and that it's the Paladin's story that your telling, not the rest of the party. Where is my place in this utopian world? I kill for a living as a mercenary, what can I do?


There's none. Killing for a living dont have a place in a world ruled by good. Thats evil. BUT, it always depends on which side you are.







GOOD BEING RULER OF THE WORLD DOESNT MEAN EVIL CEASED TO EXIST







That means you could continue being evil if your not caught or work for the government chasing evil people for a living.





Correct me if what i said pretty destroyed this tread a bit?

no matter how powerfull the paladin is, he cant stop evil deeds, just punish them is it is on his reach.

Anonomuss
2010-12-02, 11:51 AM
In DnD, good and evil become less conceptual and more actual, like a physical quality, so I wouldn't say you've Destroyed this thead.

What the world in this case has, is that the people of the world and their own qualities are governed by their deities powers, as we can see that people don't have a magic god, they don't have magic, etc. So if they don't have evil gods (They are contained and controlled within the paladin), the people of the world cannot be evil. Or at least that's what I've gleaned from skimming the thread.

It seems pretty clear that the players are obvious exceptions to this, although perhas it was this polarity which made the wizard upset. There's a certain school of Criminology which believes that crime (or evil deeds) are a necessary outlet in society, and serve a useful function, as it give people a reason to be good, as they are rewarded (relatively) for doing (what is seen to be) good. It suggests that if people didn't do anything inherently wrong, people will still be punished for minor wrong doings.
I'm not suggesting that this is correct however, as it's merely a theory, and of course DnD is fantasy, so it may have no relevence whatsoever.

Maybe it's a bit obscure, but could this be what the wizard feared was going to happen? And to them it seemed oppressive? :smalltongue:

Loki~
2010-12-02, 12:04 PM
In DnD, good and evil become less conceptual and more actual, like a physical quality, so I wouldn't say you've Destroyed this thead.

What the world in this case has, is that the people of the world and their own qualities are governed by their deities powers, as we can see that people don't have a magic god, they don't have magic, etc. So if they don't have evil gods (They are contained and controlled within the paladin), the people of the world cannot be evil. Or at least that's what I've gleaned from skimming the thread.

It seems pretty clear that the players are obvious exceptions to this, although perhas it was this polarity which made the wizard upset. There's a certain school of Criminology which believes that crime (or evil deeds) are a necessary outlet in society, and serve a useful function, as it give people a reason to be good, as they are rewarded (relatively) for doing (what is seen to be) good. It suggests that if people didn't do anything inherently wrong, people will still be punished for minor wrong doings.
I'm not suggesting that this is correct however, as it's merely a theory, and of course DnD is fantasy, so it may have no relevence whatsoever.

Maybe it's a bit obscure, but could this be what the wizard feared was going to happen? And to them it seemed oppressive? :smalltongue:



Well....if the people of the world cannot be evil because of the ruler god (the paladin that is just a mortal with godly powers) the Criminology part is out of place.
BUT
If you apply this theory, therefor there will be a time when people, not knowing what good and evil is, start commiting evil deeds, and there you go... EVIL.


dont know about other masters or rules as written, but i think players NEVER apply that square way of thinking and suicide themselves after 6 years of playing. Its childish. I believe theres a deeper meaning to their "anger" than
"oh noes! its all good! to much pressure to my systems! X_X"

Tyndmyr
2010-12-02, 12:16 PM
But Ao in Forgotten Realms is an omniscient, nigh all-powerful being, but no one rebels versus him.

Er, you mean like the Time of Troubles, aka the Godswar?

As to why nobody has gone against Ao since then, it's because none of them have even the slightest chance of winning, or even really surviving an angry Ao. And they know this.

Anonomuss
2010-12-02, 12:37 PM
Well....if the people of the world cannot be evil because of the ruler god (the paladin that is just a mortal with godly powers) the Criminology part is out of place.
BUT
If you apply this theory, therefor there will be a time when people, not knowing what good and evil is, start commiting evil deeds, and there you go... EVIL.


Out of place? :smallconfused:
It seems to fit appropriately in the circumstance. The informal name given to the theory is that of the "Society of Saints" after all. It's not that they do not know what good and evil are, rather that they are beyond (It sounds daft, I know) doing evil, and so rate societal wrongdoing on doing insufficient amounts of good. It's the idea that society rewards proper behaviour, but if you have someone who does well, then everyone else relatively looks less well off in the eyes of society.

However, criminology is also an area where it is suggested that society decides what crime is, and that no act should be regarded as inherently criminal. It tries to deal with concepts of Good and Evil in a world where such things are conceptual, rather than actual, and so its not the most reliable. The only reason I suggested the theory at all, is that it deals with societal instruments as opposed to independent actors behaviours.

Also, does anyone get the impression that the wizard's player may have been a fan of some of R.A. Salvatore's later works? Or that of Dragonlance? In that the suggestion in those series was that Neutrality was always preferable to the triumph of one or other of the sides, that goodness led to oppression as a result of pride and intolerance. It seemed to me that the kind of thinking was similar.

I think the whole situation is unfortunate, as the whole campaign sounds really epic to me.

Lost Demiurge
2010-12-02, 12:48 PM
Mm.

The Wizard's player is a jerk. The paladin's player is not at fault. The GM was doing fine up until he said "No, you can't attack the paladin."

Shoulda storyboarded that. "Okay, you gather your resources and give it your best shot, but by the time you're ready to strike she's got too many good people on her side who are of the opinion that they LIKE a stable monarchy where they don't get killed by random monsters and bandits. The fight is fierce and brutal, but with her divinity she's too tough to take down right now."

"Withdrawing to the far reaches of the wilderness, you build your strength and cut deals with monsters. While they're bad, they're not AS bad as the paladin. And they're the only allies you have left... You end up biding your time and building strength until the stars are right... And so a new dark lord enters the legends. There was a chance to eradicate evil from the world, for things to end happily ever after, but no. There must be an evil to fight for heroes to be. You are now that evil. And the blood of heroes will stain your halls forevermore..."

But y'know? It happens. When a PC throws a curve like that after an epic gaming session, and acts like an immature {Scrubbed}, (Refusing to forgive slights? EVER? JACKASS!) then even the coolest of DM's can make a mistake. Like removing autonomy.

Unforgiveable? No. Bad? Yes. But the DM tried to make amends and got shot down by the prideful jackass.

So, oh well. One player's (and his subordinate's) actions ended up spoiling a fairy tale ending. Kick the jerk to the curb and move on, is my advice. You don't need to be friends with someone who can't lower his nose to forgive even the smallest of slights.

Fenrisnorth
2010-12-02, 12:50 PM
@Oracle Hunter

Talakeal did ask them what was the matter. The only response given was "I lost my free will" and no amount of talking would get an elaboration that had more substance than that. Even bringing real world biochemistry (Behavior is caused by neurochemical interactions, I.E. if you are angry, you can't just wish away the seratonin that makes you angry) couldn't elicit a more informative critique.

I really don't think it's a case of "Waaaaah, I gave up my power, why don't you" The Wizard wanted everyone to be a wizard, that doesn't mean "hey, guys, btw, you can multiclass into wizards or sorcerers now" his ritual did FORCE the ability onto every living person on the planet, because magic is the greatest thing ever, and if you don't like the ability to use magic? well fork you!

He didn't so much as sacrifice his power for the "greater good" as split his soul into a million pieces and lodge one into everyone, possession anyone?

The problem is really only that they see a figure that inspires goodness in everyone, and removes the conditions that force people into evil behavior (I'm starving, so I'll turn to banditry) as someone who is somehow mind controlling the population. Seriously, is that such a horrible thing? No one gets told "Go here, do this, be my servant" it's more along the lines of "you have no reason to steal that money, why do it?" I was honestly shocked and depressed that they didn't want a nice place to live. It seemed like they prefered a world where gangs of rapists wander the streets, muggers punch children in the face for school money, and evil overlords rip reality apart as their playthings.

If we do get a chance to play again, it wouldn't have been with these characters anyways. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been a sequel campaign either. As far as I can see, it went like this:

DM: Wizard, you gain control over magic itself, you ARE the magic. However, as you hold it all, no one else can use it. To reach your goal, you must give it back to the world.

Wizard: Hmm, well then I'll make everyone a magic-user.

DM: Very well. you have created a world where everyone has equal magical power to everyone else.

Wizard: YAY I accomplished what I set out to do.

DM: OK, Artificer, you find ancient schematics from to bring Super/Magi-Tek back to the world. People understand that science and magic follow the same rules, and are nearly the same thing.

Artificer: YAY, I'm going to leave my body and enter the Nethrilian (Basically) defense grid to live there! I accomplished what I set out to do!

DM: Good, ok Paladin, you have a choice to make. You can kill your lover's soul, and resurrect all the gods and demons you killed along the way, in the hopes that it won't turn to crap again, although it may not work out. Or you can bring her back and make sure the world is a good, and happy place to live in, although somewhat stagnant.

Paladin: ................ I chose the latter.

DM: Ok, you bring her back, and turn the world into a veritable paradise, where all disease, poverty, and other horrible things are abolished, and everyone can be happy, and pursue their dreams without turning to evil. You all can have places of eminence and power in this new world.

Wizard: Wait! I got what I wanted, Paladin can't get what they wanted!

Artificer: OH NOES, MAH FREE WILLZ IZ GONE!

DM: No, no it isn't...

Artificer: YES IT IS! OMG!

Wizard: THIS IS BULLPOOP! I DEMAND THE PALADIN NOT GET A HAPPY ENDING! I"M THE ONLY ONE ALLOWED TO GET WHAT THEY WANT!

DM: /facepalm

Paladin: Guys, please. This is a better world... Would you prefer the warlords razing it again?

Wizard: YES! (Angry pout)

Artificer: Maybe not, but I don't like people losing their free will

Paladin: I'm not going to tell people how to live, as long as they don't be evil, then I'll talk them out of it (Diplomacy)

Artificer: That still seems like loss of free will

Paladin: We've been making people be not evil the whole campaign, is it REALLY better to kill them for it than be able to talk them out of it?

Artificer: I guess not, but still.....

Wizard: IT IS TOTALLY BETTER TO KILL THEM!

DM and Paladin: :smalleek:

The wizard is a ****, the artificer hates predestination. I wish I had better Diplomacy IRL....

Starbuck_II
2010-12-02, 12:50 PM
Er, you mean like the Time of Troubles, aka the Godswar?

As to why nobody has gone against Ao since then, it's because none of them have even the slightest chance of winning, or even really surviving an angry Ao. And they know this.

Even during Time of Troubles no one challenged Ao, they fought the others I believe though (Bhall, etc).
Remember he made the others mortal not himself (he also exempted Helm).

Fenrisnorth
2010-12-02, 12:58 PM
And Talakeal didn't outright forbid them attacking me, it was more like "Why would you attack Paladin? They've saved your life hundreds of times, you're best friends!" and "you don't have the power to do that" not "Bad command or file name"

As for stripping them of free will, They killed themselves after I begged them to stay and be happy. Sounds like free will to me.

DeckOneBell
2010-12-02, 01:03 PM
Players expect a certain autonomy in the playing of their characters. If you remove or limit that autonomy, expect them to get pissed off.

I think this is the most important point I've seen raised here. I know I'd be pissed as all hell if someone else told me how to play my character. "Oh, no, your bard wanting to kill the good guy is totally out of character, you're not allowed to do that."

... No, that's just absurd.

Also, gigantic philosophical debate-wars have been waged over utopian ideas. Generally, people are afraid of it. But from what I've seen, neither the DM of the campaign or the players never really delved into the moral implications, which everyone else in this thread seems to try to do. Seems like the campaign wasn't quite ready to end yet. A proper epilogue might have taken a bit longer.

But most importantly, player autonomy.


And Talakeal didn't outright forbid them attacking me, it was more like "Why would you attack Paladin? They've saved your life hundreds of times, you're best friends!" and "you don't have the power to do that" not "Bad command or file name"

As for stripping them of free will, They killed themselves after I begged them to stay and be happy. Sounds like free will to me.

While I'm certainly not blaming you for what happened (I think you were perfectly within your rights to make the decisions you did, though, as a paladin, you might've fallen, even though, really, that's not a big deal at level EPIC), from what I've read, it seems like they weren't allowed to attack the paladin, right? Otherwise, they would've done that and possibly died in the fight instead of committing suicide.

Lost Demiurge
2010-12-02, 01:27 PM
@Oracle Hunter

Talakeal did ask them what was the matter. The only response given was "I lost my free will" and no amount of talking would get an elaboration that had more substance than that. Even bringing real world biochemistry (Behavior is caused by neurochemical interactions, I.E. if you are angry, you can't just wish away the seratonin that makes you angry) couldn't elicit a more informative critique.

I really don't think it's a case of "Waaaaah, I gave up my power, why don't you" The Wizard wanted everyone to be a wizard, that doesn't mean "hey, guys, btw, you can multiclass into wizards or sorcerers now" his ritual did FORCE the ability onto every living person on the planet, because magic is the greatest thing ever, and if you don't like the ability to use magic? well fork you!

He didn't so much as sacrifice his power for the "greater good" as split his soul into a million pieces and lodge one into everyone, possession anyone?

The problem is really only that they see a figure that inspires goodness in everyone, and removes the conditions that force people into evil behavior (I'm starving, so I'll turn to banditry) as someone who is somehow mind controlling the population. Seriously, is that such a horrible thing? No one gets told "Go here, do this, be my servant" it's more along the lines of "you have no reason to steal that money, why do it?" I was honestly shocked and depressed that they didn't want a nice place to live. It seemed like they prefered a world where gangs of rapists wander the streets, muggers punch children in the face for school money, and evil overlords rip reality apart as their playthings.

If we do get a chance to play again, it wouldn't have been with these characters anyways. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been a sequel campaign either. As far as I can see, it went like this:

DM: Wizard, you gain control over magic itself, you ARE the magic. However, as you hold it all, no one else can use it. To reach your goal, you must give it back to the world.

Wizard: Hmm, well then I'll make everyone a magic-user.

DM: Very well. you have created a world where everyone has equal magical power to everyone else.

Wizard: YAY I accomplished what I set out to do.

DM: OK, Artificer, you find ancient schematics from to bring Super/Magi-Tek back to the world. People understand that science and magic follow the same rules, and are nearly the same thing.

Artificer: YAY, I'm going to leave my body and enter the Nethrilian (Basically) defense grid to live there! I accomplished what I set out to do!

DM: Good, ok Paladin, you have a choice to make. You can kill your lover's soul, and resurrect all the gods and demons you killed along the way, in the hopes that it won't turn to crap again, although it may not work out. Or you can bring her back and make sure the world is a good, and happy place to live in, although somewhat stagnant.

Paladin: ................ I chose the latter.

DM: Ok, you bring her back, and turn the world into a veritable paradise, where all disease, poverty, and other horrible things are abolished, and everyone can be happy, and pursue their dreams without turning to evil. You all can have places of eminence and power in this new world.

Wizard: Wait! I got what I wanted, Paladin can't get what they wanted!

Artificer: OH NOES, MAH FREE WILLZ IZ GONE!

DM: No, no it isn't...

Artificer: YES IT IS! OMG!

Wizard: THIS IS BULLPOOP! I DEMAND THE PALADIN NOT GET A HAPPY ENDING! I"M THE ONLY ONE ALLOWED TO GET WHAT THEY WANT!

DM: /facepalm

Paladin: Guys, please. This is a better world... Would you prefer the warlords razing it again?

Wizard: YES! (Angry pout)

Artificer: Maybe not, but I don't like people losing their free will

Paladin: I'm not going to tell people how to live, as long as they don't be evil, then I'll talk them out of it (Diplomacy)

Artificer: That still seems like loss of free will

Paladin: We've been making people be not evil the whole campaign, is it REALLY better to kill them for it than be able to talk them out of it?

Artificer: I guess not, but still.....

Wizard: IT IS TOTALLY BETTER TO KILL THEM!

DM and Paladin: :smalleek:

The wizard is a ****, the artificer hates predestination. I wish I had better Diplomacy IRL....


Yeah, find better people to play with. Or at least ditch the wizard player. Really, he's yelling about YOU removing free will after he went and forced everyone to be a magic user? Pft.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-02, 01:29 PM
As far as I can see, it went like this:
DM: Wizard, you gain control over magic itself, you ARE the magic. However, as you hold it all, no one else can use it. To reach your goal, you must give it back to the world.

Wizard: Hmm, well then I'll make everyone a magic-user.

DM: Very well. you have created a world where everyone has equal magical power to everyone else.

Wizard: YAY I accomplished what I set out to do.

DM: OK, Artificer, you find ancient schematics from to bring Super/Magi-Tek back to the world. People understand that science and magic follow the same rules, and are nearly the same thing.

Artificer: YAY, I'm going to leave my body and enter the Nethrilian (Basically) defense grid to live there! I accomplished what I set out to do!

DM: Good, ok Paladin, you have a choice to make. You can kill your lover's soul, and resurrect all the gods and demons you killed along the way, in the hopes that it won't turn to crap again, although it may not work out. Or you can bring her back and make sure the world is a good, and happy place to live in, although somewhat stagnant.

Paladin: ................ I chose the latter.

DM: Ok, you bring her back, and turn the world into a veritable paradise, where all disease, poverty, and other horrible things are abolished, and everyone can be happy, and pursue their dreams without turning to evil. You all can have places of eminence and power in this new world.

Wizard: Wait! I got what I wanted, Paladin can't get what they wanted!

Artificer: OH NOES, MAH FREE WILLZ IZ GONE!

DM: No, no it isn't...

Artificer: YES IT IS! OMG!

Wizard: THIS IS BULLPOOP! I DEMAND THE PALADIN NOT GET A HAPPY ENDING! I"M THE ONLY ONE ALLOWED TO GET WHAT THEY WANT!

DM: /facepalm

Paladin: Guys, please. This is a better world... Would you prefer the warlords razing it again?

Wizard: YES! (Angry pout)

Artificer: Maybe not, but I don't like people losing their free will

Paladin: I'm not going to tell people how to live, as long as they don't be evil, then I'll talk them out of it (Diplomacy)

Artificer: That still seems like loss of free will

Paladin: We've been making people be not evil the whole campaign, is it REALLY better to kill them for it than be able to talk them out of it?

Artificer: I guess not, but still.....

Wizard: IT IS TOTALLY BETTER TO KILL THEM!

DM and Paladin: :smalleek:
...if this is really how you see your fellow party members then you are a dysfunctional group.

You & the DM should stop playing with these two Players for one of two reasons:

(1) They are infantile whiners OR
(2) You two see them as infantile whiners

The lack of respect at this table is appalling :smallyuk:

Talakeal
2010-12-02, 01:38 PM
I'm not sure why you all couldn't keep the godly power myself.

Truthfully I just don't understand the sacrifice part. You all became the gods of what you were. Wizard a god of magic. Artificer a god of technology, paladin a god of justice and society.

The part that throws me is that you need to sacrifice your power in order for the world to be created anew. Seems like you could have easily just kept all your powers and renewed the world with those powers... you know, cause your all gods n stuff, and then ended the campaign being cool gods with godly powers.

Talk about a win win win win win scenario.

How could anyone possibly complain about the end of a campaign where they're all gods?

Ok, let me see if I can summarize this. Skip to the end for the quick on the choices:

The paladin had acquired the Heart of Darkness during one of the party's adventures. This artifact is the literal heart of Erebus, and allows the wielder to trap and slowly consume the soul of whatever they kill. This artifact was originally used for a "good" purpose, but the primordial gods to dispose of demons, and that is what the paladin was using it for. The warlords which ruled the world for the past hundred years had been invested with a large part of the power of the arch devils as it was a loop hole in the pact between the gods and devils that allowed them to indirectly rule the mortal world. The paladin cleansed the land of warlords, and in doing so annihilated the power of most of the powerful demons.

Sometime later magic began to die in the world. The gods needed to take on mortal form to continue their existence as the spirit world began to fade. The ancient dragon Eris, tasked by the titans before their fall to eternally vex mankind and promised rule of the world at the end of time, foresaw this, and subtly bound each of the likely candidates to her will, thus allowing her control of the gods powers once they had been fully transferred. The party discovered her plan, and that the gods planned on remaking and directly ruling the world now that most of the population was dead from plague and there were few demons left to oppose them.

The party slew each of the fifteen gods avatars. However, unbeknownst to the party (at the time), the gods, or to Eris, the heart of darkness also consumed the majority of the gods powers. As the killed each god that gods portfolio started to fall to chaos, and the spirits whom the god had ruled went out of control, and the party realized something was amiss, and divined (most) of the true situation.

So they slay the fifteen gods and eventually the dragon Eris in the climactic battle. The Goddess, mother of the gods, one of whose aspects is the spirit lover of the paladin, appears to explain the situation.

Her father, the over god, imbued the world with the energy of creation at the dawn of time, but that energy is wearing out. The world will soon be frozen in its current form, governed by science rather than magic, as it was always meant to be. This is why the gods, and perhaps the devils before them, were so eager to take mortal form, because there would be no outer planes left afterward.

If the party did nothing, magic would die, and the world, in its current state, would die with it.
If the goddess of magic sacrificed her power she could renew the power of creation, allowing magic to continue to exist for thousands of years, perhaps forever.
If they did this while keeping the gods dead the spirit world would simply fall to chaos. Eventually the far realm would bleed into the material world and lovecraftian horrors would make the world a place of unending madness and horror.
The goddess offered to destroy the heart of darkness and with it Erebus last connection to the physical world, although doing so would cost her own existence, as well as that of each of her avatars, including the paladin's lover. The shards of the artifact, which contained the imprisoned power of the gods, demons, and mortal souls slain in the war, could then be returned to the Well of Souls to renew creation, restoring the spirit world long enough to heal the world before (if) magic faded forever. It could also be thrown in the Styx, ending the world cleanly and quickly, although this option was never really considered.
Erebus offered a counter proposal. He would grant the paladin unlimited power, to stabilize the world without the gods, with or without magic.

The artificer had become a spirit of technology, essentially a fantasy artificial intelligence, and transferred his soul into a golem body. He had made contact with an ancient Atlantean computer network, and chose to merge with it, bringing lost Atlantean technology back into the world and turning the setting from a fantasy tech level to a sci fi tech level.

The two girlfriends (rogue and fighter) didn't really have very meaningful choices in the end. I was never really able to get them to connect with the story or their characters. This is one of my greatest regrets about the campaign, but I don't think it is much relevant to this topic; although the rogue probably wouldn't have killed herself along with her wizard boyfriend if she was more attached to her own character.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-02, 01:42 PM
Even during Time of Troubles no one challenged Ao, they fought the others I believe though (Bhall, etc).
Remember he made the others mortal not himself (he also exempted Helm).

Well that was the Time of Troubles itself, yes, but was that not instigated by dieties opposing Ao's will in the first place?