Ending campaign via the PCs potentially sacrificing themselves to improve the world?

[Armored Walrus]

OK playgrounders, give me some feedback as to how you would react as a player, or how you would attempt to pull off as a DM, a campaign in which one of the possible endings is that the PCs can save the world, but the only way to do so is to give up their lives, with no possibility of those characters ever returning to life again.

Let me clarify.

The world is not in danger of being destroyed, rather, there is already a large problem in the world, that the PCs would be given the choice of resolving permanently, but would have to sacrifice themselves, permanently, in order for it to happen. They would have the option of not making the sacrifice, and potentially making progress toward the goal of removing the problem, but they would not be able to accomplish the final solution that way.

Either way, the campaign would end, and we would begin a new campaign with new characters, in the same setting, but modified by the outcome of this campaign. The difference would be whether or not those original characters are still alive and in the world, potentially to be taken up and played again when we want to start up a new high level campaign involving our old heroes, or martyred and immortalized in the collective memory.

Is this a cool option to end the campaign with the players having the option to make a high-stakes, world-altering decision? Or is it only cool from the perspective of a DM that thinks he's telling a cool story but is actually pulling a **** move on his players?

[Unoriginal]

Is this a cool option to end the campaign with the players having the option to make a high-stakes, world-altering decision? Or is it only cool from the perspective of a DM that thinks he's telling a cool story but is actually pulling a **** move on his players?

As a player, I wouldn't have a problem with such an ending, as long as it's explained why it's like that, and depending on the journey to get to that point I could find it awesome. Would not be my favorite kind of ending, though.

On the other hand, do *all* of the PCs need to sacrifice themselves? Because it might cause a lot of arguing if some want to die to help the world and others not.


In any case, make sure to give a satisfying conclusion to the campaign, regardless of the players' choice.

Also, I must warn you that some players will be displeased by that kind of ending and will probably argue you're removing their agency or the like. It can be very frustrating to arrive at the end and then being put in front of an arbitrary choice rather than being allowed to try other ways. But as long as you manage to not make it that, it should be handle-able.

[mephnick]

This kind of thing works a lot better if the party is made with "saving the world" in mind, like having them be members of a religious order with a prophecy that such a thing could occur.

Letting them make any character they want and expecting their murderhobos to sacrifice themselves when they don't have to is akin to making the choice for them (the world doesn't get saved).

DM's are deathly afraid to restrict character creation for some stupid reason, but if you want this to be a tough, high-stakes choice, you need to make sure they create characters where the choice would make sense. This might be easier for some players than others. I generally make "good" characters that would jump at the chance to save the world through sacrifice, but a lot of players don't.

[Armored Walrus]

Do *all* of the PCs need to sacrifice themselves? Because it might cause a lot of arguing if some want to die to help the world and others not.

That's part of the point of my wanting to offer this conclusion. The inter-party conflict would add to the drama.


In any case, make sure to give a satisfying conclusion to the campaign, regardless of the players' choice.

Also, I must warn you that some players will be displeased by that kind of ending and will probably argue you're removing their agency or the like. It can be very frustrating to arrive at the end and then being put in front of an arbitrary choice rather than being allowed to try other ways. But as long as you manage to not make it that, it should be handle-able.

Yes, my intent is to offer a way to have a satisfying ending that would allow the party to make a significant progress toward the solution, but not fix it all at once without the sacrifice. A follow up campaign would give the players to finalize the solution with a new party of heroes, or would delve more deeply into a small slice of the world, taking a break from an epic heroism flavor and spending some time on an intrigue campaign or a hexcrawl or something with a different flavor, leaving the "fixing" of the world to a third campaign yet further down the road. I don't feel like I would be removing their agency, since they have the option of not becoming martyrs, and would still have done the world a favor. Maybe the third campaign down the road would be where they take these characters up again and the campaign focuses on pushing their progress to ultimately find a way to fix the world without the necessity of martyrdom.


This kind of thing works a lot better if the party is made with "saving the world" in mind, like having them be members of a religious order with a prophecy that such a thing could occur.

Letting them make any character they want and expecting their murderhobos to sacrifice themselves when they don't have to is akin to making the choice for them (the world doesn't get saved).

Yeah, that's potentially problematic. Initially we thought this was going to be an intrigue campaign, but then for various reasons, it's veered more toward epic heroism. I do plan to give them an option in the near future, when we finish a current story arc and the characters will have some downtime, to consider whether we want to steer the campaign back to intrigue, or whether we want to fulfill the saving the world arc instead, and offering an opportunity for anyone who doesn't think their character fits whichever direction we're going to go, to roll up a new character with the rest of the campaign in mind.

[The Glyphstone]

Rather than making it an all-or-nothing, since that would likely force the interparty conflict into OOC ill-feelings before too long, can you make it graded? If not sacrificing themselves will not solve the problem at all, but everyone sacrificing themselves would permanently solve it completely, maybe some of the people giving their lives would permanently reduce the magnitude of the crisis, potentially making it easier for the 'survivors' to carry out their post-sacrifice mitigation efforts? That lets everyone's individual choice make sense, preserving player/character agency instead of potentially forcing people to bow to peer pressure; they either sacrifice themselves now for a guaranteed benefit, or stick around for the potential of greater or lesser contributions.

You can still do the 'new party' thing, with the old PCs who died revered as martyrs, and the ones who stayed to ensure their friends' sacrifice wasn't in vain as benevolent NPCs.

[tieren]

Personally I would make the sacrifice something more open-ended. To stop the horrible thing once and for all they must throw themselves into the portal of impending doom, never to be seen again.

But...if you ever want to do an interesting high level campaign start with them hopping through the portal to some other extra planar dimension and having to fight their way back to the prime material (or some other even higher multi-verse saving goal).

[Armored Walrus]

Good ideas in both of the above posts. I'll keep in mind that the sacrifice could only "appear" to be final, but that it would give me the option to bring them back for a later, truly epic campaign. Or, and I think it has to be an "or", allow them to individually make the decision, with a sliding scale of success based on how they all decide. I think it has to be one or the other. If only half the party throws themselves through the portal, them I have no option to revisit that party later.

Edit: The individual choice option also allows me to go back and have small occasional one-shots with the characters that were left behind during the sessions where not everyone shows up, where they have to accomplish things to make sure the fix sticks. Interesting...

[Waterdeep Merch]

I've done it twice.

The first time, it was because of a recursive loop necessary to prevent the release of Tharizdun (the players learned towards the end that they were actually major deities given mortal form so that they *could* die to accomplish this, including Pelor, Corellon, etc.). Their choice was to either die and ensure Tharizdun would disappear forever along with them, choose to become gods again and repeat the time loop, or allow time to progress (with or without deity-hood) and allow the release of Tharizdun, threatening all of reality.

The second time, it was the end of a larger eldritch campaign where the players were mantling gods (actually elementals from a plane of dreams, which created the mortal realm as an escape). By killing the last of the forces that could have opposed it, the great destroyer came to the mortal realm and explained that he was actually a simple man from our world, as in Earth, that was trying to put his comatose friend to rest- the original dreamer that created the elementals that created their reality. The players could have convinced the destroyer to simply leave, letting them live as gods until the end though that meant that the plane of dreams and their world would eventually decay into nothingness, allowed the destroyer to erase everything to end his friend's suffering, beaten the destroyer back and then recreated the plane of dreams and resurrecting their original 'gods', or sacrificing the plane of dreams entirely but separating it from their world, ending the existence of gods and magic but saving everything else.

I feel a sacrifice is more poignant if the players have alternatives. I especially like pointing out that such a sacrifice isn't necessarily strictly better than all other answers, and has caveats of its own. More than just their lives are riding on the line, after all, and anything that could shake the world will have casualties regardless of what you do.

[Armored Walrus]

I've done it twice.

Did you receive or solicit any player feedback as to whether there was any sense of loss of agency when you did this the players enjoyed having to make this decision? Any tips on how you made sure that it wouldn't be taken as a loss of agency would still be a satisfying end to the story regardless of which way they decided?



I feel a sacrifice is more poignant if the players have alternatives. I especially like pointing out that such a sacrifice isn't necessarily strictly better than all other answers, and has caveats of its own. More than just their lives are riding on the line, after all, and anything that could shake the world will have casualties regardless of what you do.

How important, in this forum's opinion, is it for the players to understand the possible unintended consequences of making that decision. I fully expect to give them an unambiguously "good" ending to the campaign if they choose the sacrifice route. When I kick off the new campaign, however, part of the theme would be to explore how that decision impacted the world they left behind in both good and bad ways.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Did you receive or solicit any player feedback as to whether there was any sense of loss of agency when you did this the players enjoyed having to make this decision? Any tips on how you made sure that it wouldn't be taken as a loss of agency would still be a satisfying end to the story regardless of which way they decided?
They thought it was a good, moody way to get their ending based on what they'd seen so far. I never actually told them their options up front. Some NPC's tried pushing them towards specific ends, but the decision point was roleplayed just like any other major event. Afterwards my players would talk about the ending in terms of right and wrong, how they believed they'd made the correct choice, what I expected them to do, and what other endings I had planned. This is why I prefer bittersweet endings loaded with choice- they stick with you, and the ending you choose means more than any unalterable narrative ever could.

When the players start going down a particular path in any ending to my games, I usually have an NPC, typically the last one(s) standing, give some hints as to how things are about to turn out. If untold innocent lives will be lost, they'll mention that they're worried about their fate. Or if their decision might unintentionally bring about a greater evil, they'll foreshadow that. So that they have a good grasp on the stakes when they make their final decision.


How important, in this forum's opinion, is it for the players to understand the possible unintended consequences of making that decision. I fully expect to give them an unambiguously "good" ending to the campaign if they choose the sacrifice route. When I kick off the new campaign, however, part of the theme would be to explore how that decision impacted the world they left behind in both good and bad ways.
I'd hint at the consequences more than outright say them, as mentioned above. Their sacrifice should be a moral decision, but not the only moral decision. Otherwise they're just being shoehorned into it.

In my Tharizdun example, committing to another time loop might have actually been the least destructive option. The idea was that if they turned back the clock enough times, they might finally come across a method of destroying Tharizdun without killing themselves (they were his living, temporal prison, hence why their deaths would drag him with them). The issue was that Tharizdun was equally aware of the time loop and the seal was wearing thinner with each loop, meaning it was no guarantee. There was also the possibility that, as gods, they might have been able to simply defeat him after his resurrection, though failure to do so could lead to the destruction of everything.

All possibilities. Self-sacrifice was simply the safest route to ensure the survival of everything.

[Pex]

I accept at face value you aren't trying to screw over your players, but to be honest part of me would balk at the proposal. I have played characters who in character would sacrifice themselves, but you're pretty much making this a metagame threat. Kill your character or else the next campaign setting won't be so hunky dory. Even if in character I'd do it, out of character I am going to be miffed. I am not wanting to play the next campaign regretting my choice of the previous campaign due to DM ultimatum. The regret will sap some of the fun for the whole time I'm playing.

[Armored Walrus]

Hey Pex, you were one of the folks I specifically had in mind when I asked for feedback, and had a feeling you would likely respond as you did.

That being said, from your point of view what would make this ending option less likely to come across as "DM ultimatum". Because that's certainly not what I'm going for here, and want to avoid the impression that that's the position I'm going to put the players in.

It's a "choose your own ending" and I thought this would be a cool option for them to be able to pick - to go out as heroes.

Edit:
you're pretty much making this a metagame threat. Kill your character or else the next campaign setting won't be so hunky dory.
Just to clarify, the problem with the world already exists, and is not even seen as a problem by everyone in the world. So it's a matter of the players deciding if it's their character's goal to fix it or not. If they choose not to sacrifice, there will be some other ending of the campaign that will complete their story arc, and the next campaign will simply exist in the same setting. It's just a decision as to what impact they want their first characters to have had on the world. I should not have used the phrase "save the world" in my thread title.

[Pex]

I can be so predictable. :smallbiggrin:

"Sacrifice" is a loaded word. I actually experienced this. A 3E campaign was about preventing the DM's world version of Tharizdun and his minions from entering ours. He used the term Thoon for the enemy, but it had nothing to do with mindflayers. We were eventually victorious over the Thoon armies, but there was still Thoon himself and more armies. He was a glorified mcguffin. With the transdimensional breach repaired, at campaign end the party ascended to become Celestial Warriors forever ready to guard the closed breach and fight any Thoon attempting to cross, saving the world. We were given the option not do this for our characters, there would still be Celestial Guardians, but there really wasn't much of a choice. I smart at the stain of railroad ending, but it is cool to have ascended into a defacto Angel.

If it's not a "sacrifice" it's more palatable. Sacrifice implies finality, something worth less than just loss of mortal life. If the character does become an Angel or Celestial Being, becomes part of the world's mythology, revered a Saint, referenced as a Constellation as part of the heavens and Celestial Court, a god's Messenger, something more than just "your character is dead, so sad" the sting would be salved.

[Breashios]

My suggestion would be to end the campaign with the climactic struggle, but offer a bonus option of "sacrificing" (not the right word) individually (by character) to incrementally improve the outcome for the world (never tell them if they all sacrifice that they get the ultimate result). Maybe even having just one character "sacrifice" themselves in this way would be the ultimate awesome ending for them.

If you can swing it, you can even have that "sacrifice" be something like suspended existence, with the potential (not even necessarily stated) that they could be brought back someday! Like riding off into the sunset...sequel not guaranteed.

[Kane0]

Have you spoken to the players about this? I wouldn't mind this kind of ending if proper closure was given.
The last campaign I was in ended with the party keeping a lich occupied for as long as possible, the longer we held his attention the less damage he could cause before he unravelled and destroyed himself. We all died of course, but we saved quite a number of lives doing so.

[Naanomi]

My most recent 'completed' campaign ended more or less this way. The Goddesses of the world were trapped in a cycle of an eldritch horror waking and the Goddesses banishing it with most of the world dieing in the process. As long as the Goddesses lived, the cycle would continue.

The players aborted the cycle but realized it would just happen again; they were given the choice to sacrifice themselves and become the new Gods/Goddesses (with most of their own being destroyed in the process) untethered from the horror... or they could kill the Goddesses, breaking the cycle but destroying clerical magic in the world... or they could walk away and just be happy saving the world this one time.

In the end, the party didn't agree. A bunch chose to be new Gods but two players refused... one killed the Goddess of Death; and one looted everything left behind when everyone else ascended (leaving one Goddess still tied to the cycle of Destruction, the Trickster Goddess).

Players seemed satisfied and new adventurs in the same world had their old Characters as some of the Gods (and one super wealthy master thief living on a private island). Also there were a lot more Incoporeal Undead in the setting with no Death God to shepherd them to the afterlife

[TheCrowing1432]

Depends on my character, honestly.

My CN rogue is gonna say Fk that.

However my CG barbarian who believes in glory in death would say bring it on.

[Armored Walrus]

"Sacrifice" is a loaded word.

I'll stand by the word choice, though. It seems to fit for me.


If the character does become an Angel or Celestial Being, becomes part of the world's mythology, revered a Saint, referenced as a Constellation as part of the heavens and Celestial Court, a god's Messenger, something more than just "your character is dead, so sad" the sting would be salved.

Yeah, I meant for there to be pros as well as cons to having chosen sacrifice. I don't know about them becoming deities or other exalted beings, but they definitely would experience some of the other bits that you listed, and maybe some other boons we can think of. Maybe they have progeny who all receive some blessing, or disciples that try to learn from the legends that will spring up around the characters (vastly exaggerated, but loosely based on things the characters actually did in the campaign) in order to shape themselves into a force for good, institutions and landmarks that bear their name, etc.


Depends on my character, honestly.

My CN rogue is gonna say Fk that.

However my CG barbarian who believes in glory in death would say bring it on.

Yeah, I'm not really interested in whether any individual character will make the choice or not. I'm more interested in how the players will react, and whether they will think it was a cool option, whether they actually do it or not.

[Armored Walrus]

Players seemed satisfied and new adventurs in the same world had their old Characters as some of the Gods (and one super wealthy master thief living on a private island). Also there were a lot more Incoporeal Undead in the setting with no Death God to shepherd them to the afterlife

This to me seems the ideal outcome. Each one was free to decide, and each got to see the results of that choice when they entered their new incarnation.

[Tanarii]

That's a great idea. But given that they'll immediately going to be moving to new characters either way, if they're aware of that fact at the time of the choice, the motivation to sacrafice themself will go through the roof. Because why not go out awesome, if you're going out either way? So it's probably best if they think it's a choice between sacrafice, or keeping their character alive. That makes it a meaningful choice.


I accept at face value you aren't trying to screw over your players, but to be honest part of me would balk at the proposal. I have played characters who in character would sacrifice themselves, but you're pretty much making this a metagame threat. Kill your character or else the next campaign setting won't be so hunky dory. Even if in character I'd do it, out of character I am going to be miffed. I am not wanting to play the next campaign regretting my choice of the previous campaign due to DM ultimatum. The regret will sap some of the fun for the whole time I'm playing.
That's completely ridiculous. If the player choice as to if they want to sacrifice themself to improve the campaign setting doesn't have a direct impact on the campaign setting, it's a complete loss of player agency AND railroading.

What makes it a meaningful choice is the trade off of either knowing your character is dead for what he thought was the great good (or whatever) albeit without knowing for sure because dead, vs knowing that you weren't willing to sacrafice your character's life and seeing any consequences.

[Pex]

That's a great idea. But given that they'll immediately going to be moving to new characters either way, if they're aware of that fact at the time of the choice, the motivation to sacrafice themself will go through the roof. Because why not go out awesome, if you're going out either way? So it's probably best if they think it's a choice between sacrafice, or keeping their character alive. That makes it a meaningful choice.


That's completely ridiculous. If the player choice as to if they want to sacrifice themself to improve the campaign setting doesn't have a direct impact on the campaign setting, it's a complete loss of player agency AND railroading.

What makes it a meaningful choice is the trade off of either knowing your character is dead for what he thought was the great good (or whatever) albeit without knowing for sure because dead, vs knowing that you weren't willing to sacrafice your character's life and seeing any consequences.

What's completely ridiculous is telling me how I would feel about the scenario is ridiculous. Why should other players' thoughts of the matter be fine, but if I'm not liking it it's ridiculous? If I choose not to do it but next campaign there's some sort of gloom as a consequence, I will regret it because it was my fault that happened. That will lessen my fun. Therefore I must do it, so I don't really have a choice. If I do it, but the result is only my character is dead, so sad, then the DM killed my character by fiat with the illusion it was my choice, again causing me to regret the decision and lessen my fun. It's a Kobayashi Maru. There is no choice. I have to do it because the DM will arbitrarily create a gloom next campaign for not doing it. The only thing that soothes the pain is for my character to become more than just dead. He becomes an Angel, a religious figure, something to signify he's not really dead in the campaign universe.

[JackPhoenix]

What's completely ridiculous is telling me how I would feel about the scenario is ridiculous. Why should other players' thoughts of the matter be fine, but if I'm not liking it it's ridiculous? If I choose not to do it but next campaign there's some sort of gloom as a consequence, I will regret it because it was my fault that happened. That will lessen my fun. Therefore I must do it, so I don't really have a choice. If I do it, but the result is only my character is dead, so sad, then the DM killed my character by fiat with the illusion it was my choice, again causing me to regret the decision and lessen my fun. It's a Kobayashi Maru. There is no choice. I have to do it because the DM will arbitrarily create a gloom next campaign for not doing it. The only thing that soothes the pain is for my character to become more than just dead. He becomes an Angel, a religious figure, something to signify he's not really dead in the campaign universe.

So you'd prefer a game where choices don't matter? Isn't "everything will be fine/bad no matter what you do" worse on the player agency and choice front? If the world was crap from the start, and I have an option to sacrifice my character to make it not crap in the next game, it means the choice to sacrifice (or not) the character isn't illusion and it does have meaning. If I do it, the world is fine in the next game, if I don't, the world is still crap. It would be much worse if (for example) the villain's plan was to familicide all elves, then in the next game, despite being set in the same setting in the same timeline after the villain's plan, the elves would be fine even if my character failed decided not to stop the villain, because status quo is god, and no matter what I do, nothing ever changes.

It doesn't matter how do you feel about the sacrifice, the choice is there, it's not illusory and it has meaning... that's the opposite of Kobayashi Maru where you lose no matter what you do (unless you cheat and change the scenario itself like Kirk).

[Spore]

If it fits the overall theme of the campaign, sure. I loved the cheesy saturday morning cartoon vibes one of my campaigns had. My Paladin or Priest would happily jump to their death. My Ranger, Alchemist or Monk/Barb however...would certainly hesitate. The Ranger would probably do it after some consideration (and maybe just do it to protect his wife and boy) but the Alchemist would try to survive and research a way to stop the impeding doom in another way. The Monk/Barb finally would train until he could punch evil in the face hard enough to solve the problem - DBZ style.

But you have to give them freedom how to live out this scenario. You can't simply go: "Do it or the world is doomed and you die anyway." Give them a way to ignore the conflict. Tell them they can still resist but it won't be as effective. In the new campaign, have the sacrificed heroes be revered as heroes, demigods even. Have the surviving heroes lead a resistance. Or enjoy the apocalypse with a front view on their new mansion.

[Pex]

So you'd prefer a game where choices don't matter? Isn't "everything will be fine/bad no matter what you do" worse on the player agency and choice front? If the world was crap from the start, and I have an option to sacrifice my character to make it not crap in the next game, it means the choice to sacrifice (or not) the character isn't illusion and it does have meaning. If I do it, the world is fine in the next game, if I don't, the world is still crap. It would be much worse if (for example) the villain's plan was to familicide all elves, then in the next game, despite being set in the same setting in the same timeline after the villain's plan, the elves would be fine even if my character failed decided not to stop the villain, because status quo is god, and no matter what I do, nothing ever changes.

It doesn't matter how do you feel about the sacrifice, the choice is there, it's not illusory and it has meaning... that's the opposite of Kobayashi Maru where you lose no matter what you do (unless you cheat and change the scenario itself like Kirk).

When the DM is saying kill your character or else, that's not a choice. That's a threat.

[Tanarii]

What's completely ridiculous is telling me how I would feel about the scenario is ridiculous.Good thing I didn't do that then. I told you that suggesting a loss of player agency and railroading was somehow a good thing is ridiculous.


Why should other players' thoughts of the matter be fine, but if I'm not liking it it's ridiculous? If I choose not to do it but next campaign there's some sort of gloom as a consequence, I will regret it because it was my fault that happened.And that regret is exactly what made your choice meaningful and gave you player agency.


That will lessen my fun.Im sorry to hear that you find having agency as a player less fun.


Therefore I must do it, so I don't really have a choice.If I do it, but the result is only my character is dead, so sad, then the DM killed my character by fiat with the illusion it was my choice, again causing me to regret the decision and lessen my fun. It's a Kobayashi Maru. There is no choice. Yes you do. You don't perceive it as a choice because you're refusing to accept The results of one of the two available options. But they exist. You not enjoying one of them doesn't make it not exist. It just means you'll always choose a certain way.


I have to do it because the DM will arbitrarily create a gloom next campaign for not doing it. The only thing that soothes the pain is for my character to become more than just dead. He becomes an Angel, a religious figure, something to signify he's not really dead in the campaign universe.Icing on the cake is nice. But it's not necessary to make the underlying choice any more of a choice.

[Pex]

Good thing I didn't do that then. I told you that suggesting a loss of player agency and railroading was somehow a good thing is ridiculous.

And that regret is exactly what made your choice meaningful and gave you player agency.

Im sorry to hear that you find having agency as a player less fun.

Yes you do. You don't perceive it as a choice because you're refusing to accept The results of one of the two available options. But they exist. You not enjoying one of them doesn't make it not exist. It just means you'll always choose a certain way.

Icing on the cake is nice. But it's not necessary to make the underlying choice any more of a choice.

You're totally misinterpreting what I said because my criticism was the DM was taking away player agency which I'm against. The DM arbitrarily decided the solution to the World Gloom problem is for the PC to sacrifice his life. If the PC doesn't the next campaign suffers for it. My choice is either kill my character because the DM wants it or my next character will have a more difficult time when it wasn't necessary. Heads DM wins, tails I lose. Either way the DM screwed me over, accepting that's not what the OP wanted. The solution is either a) PC sacrificing his life is not the only way to Save The Next Campaign from the Gloom or b) the PC is rewarded in someway that means it's not just the case of character is dead, so sad.

[Gastronomie]

I am against the idea of the DM setting up a possible ending (even if it's not 100% required) for the sake of just setting it up.

The way I see it, DMs should set up possible endings based on the character sheets the players handed in.

If it seems there's a character who would be very fitting for that ending, perhaps I may set up that ending and have the player decide what to do.
If it seems there's a character who would be better off with a different ending, I will set up a route for him that might fit him better (and again, have the player decide).

Either way, endings to the story should be based on the characters' motivations/goals and personality, not what the DM just randomly thinks will be cool.

Thinking "I wanna end the campaign with the PCs sacrificing themselves" before having the sheets handed in is... eh, not really my thing. If it were that the PCs are a religious group that's willing to devote their whole lives to justice or something along those lines, this "making the better world by sacrifing themselves" would be a really great idea, but otherwise, I'm against it.

[Tanarii]

You're totally misinterpreting what I said because my criticism was the DM was taking away player agency which I'm against. The DM arbitrarily decided the solution to the World Gloom problem is for the PC to sacrifice his life. If the PC doesn't the next campaign suffers for it. My choice is either kill my character because the DM wants it or my next character will have a more difficult time when it wasn't necessary. Heads DM wins, tails I lose. Either way the DM screwed me over, accepting that's not what the OP wanted. The solution is either a) PC sacrificing his life is not the only way to Save The Next Campaign from the Gloom or b) the PC is rewarded in someway that means it's not just the case of character is dead, so sad.
BS. It is a choice. That gives the players agency. Agency doesn't mean 'do whatever I like'. And your solution, either having sacrafice but it not make things better in the next campaign, or choosing not to sacrifice and not having it make things worse, means there is no meaningful choice at all. Either things will be better or worse no matter what the characters do. Their choices become meaningless when both choices result in a single outcome.

So you are advocating removing player agency and railroading.

Edit: leaving that there to prove how stupid I am. What you're saying is you find that those (DM decided) choices unpalatable, and would much prefer other choices. You're right, I did misinterpret what you were saying.

[Armored Walrus]

Not sure if I need to amend my OP or not, but again, to clarify.

*There is no penalty if the characters choose not to sacrifice themselves.*

The campaign would end in some other, satisfying way, and the new campaign would begin in the setting, *exactly as it exists now*.

The players would be rewarded by choosing the sacrifice in that they would be able to remove one obstacle that currently exists in the setting, thereby, kinda, destroying my setting and moving it closer to the default D&D setting. They would be further rewarded by the fact that, in the new campaign, they would be revered, become part of the mythology, etc.

A parallel to what I'm considering would be a Dark Sun campaign that gives the players to option to turn the world into a lush, temperate paradise via martyrdom. Or, don't be a martyr, and let's play another Dark Sun campaign.

Finally, this is a campaign in progress, with at least two characters that do have an idea that maybe it would be cool if someone could do something about this, but they don't currently have any information as to whether it is even possible. What I'm considering is making it possible, all at once, via the sacrifice. Or they will find some less effective way that allows their characters to live, but makes progress toward the goal, maybe setting up the next party with a method to get to the goal without having to die in the attempt.

[Tanarii]

*There is no penalty if the characters choose not to sacrifice themselves.*
Thats a key point. Per has been choosing to cast it as 'not sacrifice = next campaign worse'. As opposed to 'any not sacrifice PC choice = next campaign status quo for thing' vs 'sacrifice PC choice = next campaign thing removed'.

Of course, any real murderhobo is going to choose not to sacrifice themselves. :smallamused: A herohobo on the other hand ...

[JackPhoenix]

When the DM is saying kill your character or else, that's not a choice. That's a threat.

But that's not that the OP said.

1) The problem already exists. Choosing not to sacrifice the character won't lead to the next campaign being in worse state, it will lead to it being in the same state as this one. Thus...
2) It's not "kill your character or else", it's "kill your character to make the world a better place". You wouldn't be punished for not sacrificing the character, but you would be rewarded for doing so... unless you'd considered playing in the world where the problem exists punishment in the first place, in which case, why are you playing the game in the first place?
3) Sacrificing the character is not the only solution. Yes, it is the solution for "best" ending (at least for the world), but it is apparently also possibly to solve the problem partially without the sacrifice. But it would take more games to resolve the situation entirely, while the problem persist.
4) Speaking of Kobayashi Maru scenario, you could do the same thing Kirk did when presented with two bad choices: cheat. Look for a third (or fourth, fifth, ...) option. Why is the sacrifice needed, and how does it solve the problem? If the character doesn't feel like making the Ultimate SacrificeTM, can s/he find a way to stay alive? We have Clone, Simulacrum. Hell, if the character stands in the southern end of alignment spectrum, perhaps s/he'll find a way to sacrifice some random schmuck instead. Now, I feel this last point is the most important one: I agree that if you're present with two choices and any attempt to come up with a creative third choice is shot down (even though it should work given the parameters of the choices) for no other reason that "sorry, that's not what I want you to do", then that's railroading.

edit: aaand my first two points got shadow monk'd

[Armored Walrus]

Of course, any real murderhobo is going to choose not to sacrifice themselves. :smallamused: A herohobo on the other hand ...

Although it's an option for the murderhobo to pull a Han Solo, and end up being remembered as a messiah.

[Armored Walrus]

I agree that if you're present with two choices and any attempt to come up with a creative third choice is shot down (even though it should work given the parameters of the choices) for no other reason that "sorry, that's not what I want you to do", then that's railroading.

Yep, this is the situation I'm trying to avoid, and why I was hoping Pex, specifically, would visit this thread and give feedback. (so lay off him, folks) From what I've read, he (she?, sorry) is among the most "player-centric" of the posters on this forum. I figured if there was any way that my players would end up not appreciating this the way I do from my point of view, Pex could point it out. And he did, for which I'm grateful. I'll try to avoid the pitfalls pointed out by Pex and others, but the thread has convinced me it's possible to make this an optional ending.

Thanks folks ;)

[Tanarii]

4) Speaking of Kobayashi Maru scenario, you could do the same thing Kirk did when presented with two bad choices: cheat. Look for a third (or fourth, fifth, ...) option. Why is the sacrifice needed, and how does it solve the problem? If the character doesn't feel like making the Ultimate SacrificeTM, can s/he find a way to stay alive? We have Clone, Simulacrum. Hell, if the character stands in the southern end of alignment spectrum, perhaps s/he'll find a way to sacrifice some random schmuck instead. Now, I feel this last point is the most important one: I agree that if you're present with two choices and any attempt to come up with a creative third choice is shot down (even though it should work given the parameters of the choices) for no other reason that "sorry, that's not what I want you to do", then that's railroading.

edit: aaand my first two points got shadow monk'd
But this one sure didn't, and it's an important thing to making player agency really be player agency. Adding the OPTION to sacrafice the character to remove/fix a campaign 'problem' right now this second, shouldn't mean if the players can truly come up with an innovative way to do it on their own without self-sacrifice, it absolutely can't be done. Not saying it should be handed to them because clever thinking. Saying if clever thinking should logically result in it, the DM shouldn't deny it because not self-sacrifice.

Of course, for something like Dark Sun's defiled ecology, finding their own solution without DM-added options is going to be hard. Despite Pex's incorrect view that not sacrificing = things get worse, he does have a point if the ONLY possible solution is self-sacrifice, that's going to be so unpalatable to some players (like him) that it will feel like railroading.

[Laserlight]

As for how the players will respond: I gave my players a Save the World situation. They decided that one PC would sacrifice himself to become the new Sun...and three of them were willing to do it.

(When the barbarian ascended to become the new Sun, I gave him a bowlful of beads and said ”So, you're a god now. And gods can grant spells. Each bead is a spell level, divvy them up as you like. Nobody gets Wish, otherwise have fun”. There was much gleeful rummaging through PHBs, and then the poor Night Serpent Who Devours the Sun got nuked...)

[furby076]

I played in a 10 year campaign (published on en world story hour...dm was shilsen). After killing the final bbeg, we could sacrifice between 1 and 20 levels. 20 permenantly killing the character. The points (levels) were added and could be used to restore various things, but not all things. For example...restore the silver flame, perm close gateway to xoriat, restore the mournland, allow war forged to make mews ones and more). Those that sacrificed had special story things happen: our warforged became the patron saint of war forged....appearing in visions. Our orc barbarian, who loved to cook food from parts of aberrations, had a chain of high end restaurants opened in his name. My paladin and fellow players druid went down to level 1 and continued as npcs,

Maybe this is an option for your game? Either way, the characters are npcs at the dms control