Forced to kill

[positivespace]

Hoy, I've reached a point in a game where someone needs to have their mind/emotions/will broken, and it's been decided we'll do so by nudging them into a situation where they have to kill someone they claim to love if they don't find another way out.

Issue is, I can't think of a really good one. Any help? Bonus points for situations where the PC could go ahead and not do it, but would die if they didn't.

[tahu88810]

Watch any of the older batman movies.

You're welcome.

[Jay R]

Go watch Old Yeller.

[mucat]

Go watch Old Yeller.
If it's an Old-Yeller style mercy killing (or for a modern version, the recently canonical question (http://notalwaysromantic.com/?s=Till+Undeath+Do+Us+Part) among geek couples, "What would you do if a zombie infected me?") then the character is likely to end up grieving and traumatized, but not necessarily "broken".


Bonus points for situations where the PC could go ahead and not do it, but would die if they didn't.
In this case, unless you know the PC has been consistently portrayed as cold and selfish, you should be prepared for them to go ahead and sacrifice their own life instead. Depending on the situation, this could come across as an epic (and, to the player, satisfying) end to the PC's story, or as a must-throw-all-the-books-at-the-DM case of egregious railroading.

It sounds as if your players are in on the plan, OOCly (since you were using plural pronouns.) What are their thoughts?

[Rhynn]

This sounds completely bass-ackwards. Situations and scenarios should be born organically from the characters and their actions; it's very telling that you can't even think of a way to execute this scenario you want to impose on the player(s) for no reason other than, bluntly, caprice.

A good rule of thumb: if it's very hard to think of a way to pull off a scenario, give it up and think up a better scenario.

[positivespace]

In this case, unless you know the PC has been consistently portrayed as cold and selfish, you should be prepared for them to go ahead and sacrifice their own life instead. Depending on the situation, this could come across as an epic (and, to the player, satisfying) end to the PC's story, or as a must-throw-all-the-books-at-the-DM case of egregious railroading.

It sounds as if your players are in on the plan, OOCly (since you were using plural pronouns.) What are their thoughts?


This sounds completely bass-ackwards. Situations and scenarios should be born organically from the characters and their actions; it's very telling that you can't even think of a way to execute this scenario you want to impose on the player(s) for no reason other than, bluntly, caprice.

One of the PCs is sorta in on it. The PC to be put in the situation is a bit of a **** and doesn't care much about human life, but claims to care for those under their lead. The plan is to amass ideas so that if a chance is seen, things can be not railroaded but nudged a bit in that direction. The PC winds up proven a liar, or is emotionally hurt. Either way, character development!

Oh, and the player of the PC in question is well aware that his character's morality is in question and likely to be tested.

[Scow2]

With your further information...

No. Just don't. Take this idea out back, shoot it until its dead, bury it in a deep hole, and forget it ever existed.

This has "I'm That DM"/"Paladins are meant to fall"/"The perfect way to keep a game running smoothly and happily is by passive-aggressively punishing and screwing over players I have a problem with" written all over it.

[Deophaun]

I basically agree with Scow2. However, that's not to say that PCs should never have their back-stories put to the test.

If the PC claims to care for those underneath him, then put those underneath him in danger, throw in some conflicting goals and risk (where it would be easier to complete the objective if he just ignored the plight of his subordinates) and see how he reacts. That will be your answer. There's no need to make it into a sadistic choice where, one way or the other, the PC loses. To the contrary, possible outcomes should include the PC feeling like a big damn hero after such a test.

[A Tad Insane]

Have PC-1 know that McGuffen X will do horrible horrible things unless destroyed, but make NPC-2, whom PC-1 said they would protect, believe that horrible horrible things would happen if McGuffen X was destroyed. I would personally make it so the destruction of McGuffen X would do horrible horrible things, just to further mess with PC-1 and sow a few seeds of discord with NPC-2, but that's just personal style. Although this would require a hefty amount of railroading, and I don't think it would be a good idea to go this far out of the way for 'character development'

[Berenger]

Hoy, I've reached a point in a game where someone needs to have their mind/emotions/will broken, and it's been decided we'll do so by nudging them into a situation where they have to kill someone they claim to love if they don't find another way out.

Was the player of that character part of the "we" doing the "deciding" or is this a case of surprise character development?

[Rhynn]

Oh, and the player of the PC in question is well aware that his character's morality is in question and likely to be tested.

Why on earth is the character's morality in question out-of-character? Who cares and why? If other characters question the PC's morality, have them question it in-character. A GM's job isn't to be some kind of cosmic force of karma or retribution for the PCs (unless, I suppose, there exists an in-universe cosmic force of karma/retribution, in which case you really should model it with some kind of game mechanic to be fair).

[The Dark Fiddler]

Why on earth is the character's morality in question out-of-character?

"My character has a slightly unclear morality that could be taken in a few ways? Huh, interesting. Can't wait to see how that develops."

[Jay R]

Hoy, I've reached a point in a game where someone needs to have their mind/emotions/will broken, and it's been decided we'll do so by nudging them into a situation where they have to kill someone they claim to love if they don't find another way out.

Issue is, I can't think of a really good one. Any help? Bonus points for situations where the PC could go ahead and not do it, but would die if they didn't.

So who has decided that "someone needs to have their mind/emotions/will broken"? What are the exact reasons why it's been determined that this will be a fun, challenging adventure? You've left out any detail that could make this seem like the best way to play a fun game.

In any case, this is backwards. Don't decide on the result, and seek an encounter to force it. Decide on a fun, challenging encounter, and play it to see what result occurs.

[KillianHawkeye]

This is a classic case of writing the ending before writing the story. Only the greatest of writers are able to pull it off successfully. If you are not a great writer, I'd suggest a more organic method.

[Callin]

Hostage situation. His underlings are taken hostage and the bad guys are willing to trade all of them for him. If he accepts then he has a chance to escape before being executed. Should he decline the underlings are executed one at a time until he gives in or they run out. Should they run out they attempt to assassinate the PC.

edit- He goes in almost naked. No gear, unless he wants to try and be sneaky. If he gets caught with contraband then they beat him into unconsciousness taking 1/3 of his time to escape from him.

[Deophaun]

This is a classic case of writing the ending before writing the story. Only the greatest of writers are able to pull it off successfully. If you are not a great writer, I'd suggest a more organic method.
Hardly takes a great writer to pull off. But this is a table top roll playing game, not a book. If the DM is writing a story instead of running a campaign, he's probably got the wrong hobby.

[Rhynn]

Hardly takes a great writer to pull off. But this is a table top roll playing game, not a book. If the DM is writing a story instead of running a campaign, he's probably got the wrong hobby.

A fact unfortunately lost on many GMs, but no less true than that. Writing a story and running a game are very different things, but because computer games, movies, TV shows, and books are the primary frames of reference for GMs and players alike, they get all sorts of confused and think they're supposed to create stories and then have them acted out...

[nedz]

I'm not sure, from the way you phrased the question, whether you are a player or the DM ?