PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Bamboozling inevitables (Baldur's Gate campaign)



Braininthejar2
2018-06-30, 04:43 PM
As you know, I've been DMing a campaign based on Baldur's Gate for some years now.

We ended the last game on a cliffhanger that might kill the player just before the final confrontation. But if she survives, she'll try to implement an interesting idea, and I'd like your advice on whether it would work or not.

The player is a Bhallspawn, a half-divine child of the previous god of murder, who left a spark of power in each of his children, to fuel his eventual rebirth. When they die, their souls are sent to his realm and put together in a swirling vortex of energy - too bad the high priestess betrayed him, and wants to splice all those souls into her own to become a goddess in his stead. The party is going to invade her realm and hopefully kill her before she's done with the absorbtion process.

During a previous adventure the party made contact with a varakhut inevitable, a being tasked with preventing any changes in a pantheon, defending existing gods from potential usurpers. She wants to visit the inevitable stronghold on Mechanus, and get a bunch of them to aid her in the final battle (one CR19 inevitabe might not make enough of a difference).

Now, this part is simple, but here comes the next step. For the allied attack, the player wants to make a formal contract with the inevitables (she'll get a modron to draft it according to Mechanus legal standards, and a kolyarut inevitable to oversee the signing). She, as a potential candidate to godhood, will vow to reject her power, and make sure it stays dead, and the inevitables will vow to aid her in her task, and enforce the contract should she falter in her resolve.

Now, the trick is, the contract will identify her by her soul and divine power, rather than by name. The idea is to act as a failsafe. If the party suffers a TPK, the player's soul will be sent into the vortex, and absorbed along with the others, ceding her contractual obligations on the high priestess.

Now, normally, a varakhut stops attacking an usurper who actualy ascends to godhood - they are now a part of the order he's supposed to protect. But what if it is bind to a contract stipulating otherwise?

1 Would he notice the implications before signing? (part of the reason to use a Mechanus lawyer to draft the contract is to make it adhere to local standards : there might be similar clauses in use, to prevent parties in big contracts from escaping obligation by altering their nature)

2 Would that create a conflict between the varakhut's stated purpose, and his obligations as a purely lawful being? If so, would he choose one over the other, (which one?) or would he glitch?

2a - and if he doesn't fulfil the contract, would the kolyarut overseeing the signing be then compelled to fulfill it in his stead? Would the two come into conflict, or would the varakhut simply pull rank on him?

WindStruck
2018-07-01, 12:28 PM
I'm just a little confused already, because if the god is dead and gone, how is it the inevitables are still defending him as an "existing" god?

Are your players trying to cause a weird system error of conflicting laws with them, or are they just genuinely curious?

I would suggest working out all the potential kinks in the plan beforehand.

Braininthejar2
2018-07-01, 01:05 PM
I'm just a little confused already, because if the god is dead and gone, how is it the inevitables are still defending him as an "existing" god?

Are your players trying to cause a weird system error of conflicting laws with them, or are they just genuinely curious?

I would suggest working out all the potential kinks in the plan beforehand.

The dead god is dead - but whoever claims his power might ascend in his place.

The inevitables would attack those trying to do it (technically efending Ciric, who is the current god of murder) but once he or she succeeds, it's out of their jurisdiction: two competing gods of murder is not something for them to resolve, and normally they would also prevent mortals from interfering in the conflict.

The player is not trying to cause a glitch - she's trying to make it so that if she dies and the villain becomes a goddess, she will have a group of CR19 wish-a-day constructs disrupting her plans from day one.

WindStruck
2018-07-01, 01:19 PM
Well now that you explained it a little better, seems you have answered it for yourself now. If she attains godhood, then it should be "out of their jurisdiction".

I would think a lot of these construct lawyers and overlords are smart, so they aren't just going to be making contracts for no reason. They'd probably want to know why the characters are doing this, for one thing. So they should be able to foresee the problem there, and I think at most, help prevent her from ascending to godhood, but once that happens, they will not do anything else.

If the problem with this person becoming the new god of murder is that she starts destroying reality and stuff, well... I would think that is an issue for the other gods to take up arms against.

TheStranger
2018-07-01, 03:02 PM
I have to say, I can't see any reason the inevitables would sign this contract to begin with. The first question any good contract lawyer will ask is, "what happens if one of the parties doesn't follow through?" Since your player's obligation is to refuse godhood, the inevitables must believe that they can enforce that. So, either the player is automagically bound to refuse godhood, or the inevitables have a way to successfully come after her if she breaches her contract - anything else is just foolish on their part. In this case, successfully enforcing the contract means forcing the player to abdicate her godhood, which may or may not be fatal. I cannot imagine a Mechanus lawyer neglecting to include an enforcement mechanism. (I am a lawyer, btw.)

Since the contract already exists, however, there's a rule of contract law that specific trumps general. In this case, you have a general rule that inevitables don't oppose gods once they've ascended. You have a specific agreement to oppose the new Lord of Murder. That doesn't cause a glitch. They have agreed that, in this case, they won't follow their regular procedure.

However, I would expect that the inevitables would oppose the player if she ascends, but not the villain - they have a contract with the player, not the villain. Here's how I would expect an impartial arbiter (like, say, an inevitable) to handle this:
- The inevitables will aid the player in opposing the villain, in whatever way the contract provides for.
- The contract *must* provide an enforcement mechanism for the player not to claim godhood if she wins.
- If the villain ascends, the inevitables will follow their regular procedure and back off.

Braininthejar2
2018-07-01, 04:49 PM
Well now that you explained it a little better, seems you have answered it for yourself now. If she attains godhood, then it should be "out of their jurisdiction".

That's the conflict. A varakhut's stated purpose is defending the gods from anything that would disrupt the status quo. But at the same time, inevitables never go back on their word. They're not honorable, they're not obsessive-compulsive. They are, by human standards, completely insane in their pursuit of law and order.

There is an example of an inevitable antagonist from one of the splat books. Thousand of years ago, a cabal of mages created a god-slaying abomination, and tasked it to destroy the gods for them. Once they realised they overdid it, they split the thing apart and sealed it in the planes. There is a kolyarut inevitable that is trying to find and release it, because since the mages wrote the monster's instruction to kill the gods into it's very being, and then prevented it from performing its task, they are in breach of contract.


I have to say, I can't see any reason the inevitables would sign this contract to begin with. The first question any good contract lawyer will ask is, "what happens if one of the parties doesn't follow through?" Since your player's obligation is to refuse godhood, the inevitables must believe that they can enforce that. So, either the player is automagically bound to refuse godhood, or the inevitables have a way to successfully come after her if she breaches her contract - anything else is just foolish on their part. In this case, successfully enforcing the contract means forcing the player to abdicate her godhood, which may or may not be fatal. I cannot imagine a Mechanus lawyer neglecting to include an enforcement mechanism. (I am a lawyer, btw.)

From the perspective of Mechanus inhabitants, non-natives are considered fickle. Creatures like modrons create a lot of bureaucracy when interacting with humans, just to make sure they get the desired results. It seems logical that inevitables would share the sentiment.

As for making the contract magically binding... A varakhut gets wish as a once per day spelllike. With a willing participant, that should be sufficient to act as a custom, high level geas effect.

Keltest
2018-07-01, 05:39 PM
From the perspective of Mechanus inhabitants, non-natives are considered fickle. Creatures like modrons create a lot of bureaucracy when interacting with humans, just to make sure they get the desired results. It seems logical that inevitables would share the sentiment.

As for making the contract magically binding... A varakhut gets wish as a once per day spelllike. With a willing participant, that should be sufficient to act as a custom, high level geas effect.

I think the point is more along the lines of "whats in it for them?" A single mortal's help? Both potential signatories are already set on stopping this from going down without a contract, so even if that is a resource theyre interested in for whatever reason, they don't exactly need to bargain for it.

TheStranger
2018-07-01, 05:49 PM
I think the point is more along the lines of "whats in it for them?" A single mortal's help? Both potential signatories are already set on stopping this from going down without a contract, so even if that is a resource theyre interested in for whatever reason, they don't exactly need to bargain for it.

Actually, my thought was more along the lines of "this is an unenforceable mess that no being of pure Law would be a party to" Then I started working details out as I wrote, but didn't go back and clarify the first sentence. In any case, I think a geas-like Wish would solve the problem nicely. And I think there's enough value to the inevitables in preventing the player from claiming the portfolio that they'd be willing to bargain for that. However, I still doubt the inevitables would obligate themselves to oppose the new Lord of Murder if the villain ascends - at that point, the conflict is over and there's a new status quo for them to defend.

Braininthejar2
2018-07-01, 05:58 PM
"My party's plans should not require an opinion from an actual lawyer to straighten out." :smalleek:

Braininthejar2
2018-07-01, 06:01 PM
However, I still doubt the inevitables would obligate themselves to oppose the new Lord of Murder if the villain ascends - at that point, the conflict is over and there's a new status quo for them to defend.

So, if the plan does not work as the player imagines, how to change it to make it work? The player is going to consult some NPCs she considers smarter than herself, and it would be good if I had something to tell her.

TheStranger
2018-07-01, 06:20 PM
"My party's plans should not require an opinion from an actual lawyer to straighten out." :smalleek:
Heh.


So, if the plan does not work as the player imagines, how to change it to make it work? The player is going to consult some NPCs she considers smarter than herself, and it would be good if I had something to tell her.
Honestly, it probably shouldn't work. It takes all the stakes out of the conflict. Instead of the conflict being "defeat the villain, or the end times are upon us," the conflict becomes "defeat the villain, or these NPCs will take care of it for you." Your player is, quite reasonably, trying to fix things so that there's a backup plan and the fate of the world doesn't depend on her. But the fate of the world is *supposed* to depend on the PCs. So it's a testament to your work as a DM that she's immersed in the setting and looking for a solution, but that doesn't mean she should be able to circumvent the final battle.

IMO, the inevitables should tell her (and NPCs should confirm), "We will aid you in your fight because the villain threatens the stability of the planes, and if you fall in battle we will try to prevent the villain from carrying out her plan, but if we fail at that, then we cannot oppose an ascended god. To do so would bring about even greater chaos." So your player gets the benefit of having the inevitables aid her in the fight, but it's ultimately still up to her to save the world. Which is all as it should be, I think.

Braininthejar2
2018-07-02, 02:52 AM
I wish to at least reward the player for creativity.

Satinavian
2018-07-02, 03:09 AM
Maybe allow the Inevitables to somehow capture the PCs soul after death so that her soul stays true to the promise of not ascending ? Thus weakening the new ascended god ?

Cespenar
2018-07-02, 06:29 AM
I wish to at least reward the player for creativity.

This is the way to go. Most DMs, me as well in some cases, fall in the "don't get played" mentality too often, thinking that everything in a RPG should be won by battles or skill checks if they were to be "fair". That's a fallacy. Simulate the event as logically as you can, and if the shenanigan looks like it can work, let it work.

Braininthejar2
2018-07-02, 11:30 AM
Maybe allow the Inevitables to somehow capture the PCs soul after death so that her soul stays true to the promise of not ascending ? Thus weakening the new ascended god ?

She used a miracle for a preemptive soul bind like this last time - a great idea too: the BBEG's "bosses brought back from the grave" team will be one short.