Was a jerk for denying my players a Good ending?

[heavyfuel]

So, my current campaign just ended. Giving a super quick summary, the players lived in this city with a Mythal that protected it from evil demons/devils outside of its walls. The Mythal was actually an Epic item in the form of a crystal that was kept hidden in the middle of the city.

After about a year of play, phe players then killed the city's king/BBEG only to discover he was a Lich in disguise pretending to be alive. So, time to destroy the phylactery, right? Wrong. Turns out the phylactery was the Mythal crystal, so destroying the Lich meant destrying the only protection the city had against the Outsiders.

My players decided to keep the Lich alive, but were super disappointed with me that I didn't allow for them to have a 100% good end and actually forced a difficult decision upon them. Seriously, they were discussing this for over 1 hour IRL.

Plenty of morally ambiguous choices were presented to them throught the campaign. No character was straight up Evil or straight up Good (though 2 of the players certainly tried to be). I thought it was a fitting ending for such a campaign, but maybe a fitting ending isn't necessarily the most fun one.

What do you guys think? For future referece, should I try to give the players what they want, or should I try to stay faithful to the world I built?

[AmeVulpes]

Well, to answer your thread title, as a player, I don't think (from what you have said) I would consider you a jerk for this.

I would probably feel ambivalent at worse, if not appreciate the effort put into the twist.

Players, readers, viewers, etc all usually like a good ending, though. I've never seen it as mandatory. The most important thing is fun, though, so if your players aren't having fun, then maybe you should try giving them more straightforward good ends.

But then, that might not be fun.

P.S. don't pay too much mind to my opinion, campaigns I run tend to have a 60+% mortality rate, and my players are fine with that.

[Vizzerdrix]

Not every ending can or should be sunshine and roses. That said, maybe the next adventure strts with a plucky group of fresh adventurers being hired by the former party now turned city counsel to find a way to either turn back the outsiders or free the gem from its curse.

[icefractal]

So first off, it doesn't really matter what some people on a message board think about your ending, it matters what your players think about it. That aside -

I don't see this as a "moral ambiguity" thing. Nothing you've said indicates that the Lich was less than fully evil, merely that destroying it would be the worse option.

The main issue, IMO, is it sounds like the ending may have made all the PCs' actions through the campaign pointless. If the whole campaign revolved around "overthrow the evil king", and then the ending is "you can't unless you want to make things much worse, so you may as well not have bothered" ... most people aren't going to like that.

If that's not the case then disregard; I'm just going off the OP.

[Hackulator]

So first off, it doesn't really matter what some people on a message board think about your ending, it matters what your players think about it. That aside -

I don't see this as a "moral ambiguity" thing. Nothing you've said indicates that the Lich was less than fully evil, merely that destroying it would be the worse option.

The main issue, IMO, is it sounds like the ending may have made all the PCs' actions through the campaign pointless. If the whole campaign revolved around "overthrow the evil king", and then the ending is "you can't unless you want to make things much worse, so you may as well not have bothered" ... most people aren't going to like that.

If that's not the case then disregard; I'm just going off the OP.

Yeah what this guy said with some additions. When you say "keep the lich alive" did they have to like, let him go free or were they able to trap or imprison him in some way? If the former, I can understand them being annoyed because as the above guy said, why did they bother? If the latter then it seems fine and is a cool setup for one day in the future running another campaign with these character's grandkids fighting someone who wants to free the lich.

[Crake]

I mean, come on, the solution is easy: As the lich is reforming, slap a pair of antimagic shackles on him, boom, lich is now basically helpless. No gear, no spells, no supernatural abilities, imprison him in a lead tomb, bound and gagged, no scrying magic can now find him, and he can't use magic to escape, then in the meantime, hire a bunch of artificers to siphon out the magical energy of the lich's phylactery from the mythal.

Alternatively, dispel the mythal for 1d4 rounds while the lich is dead, that's long enough for his soul to be set free from the phylactery, which in essence kills the lich. When the magic comes back, it's still a phylactery, but it's an empty one, no lich soul inside.

[heavyfuel]

Well, to answer your thread title, as a player, I don't think (from what you have said) I would consider you a jerk for this.

I would probably feel ambivalent at worse, if not appreciate the effort put into the twist.

Players, readers, viewers, etc all usually like a good ending, though. I've never seen it as mandatory. The most important thing is fun, though, so if your players aren't having fun, then maybe you should try giving them more straightforward good ends.

But then, that might not be fun.

P.S. don't pay too much mind to my opinion, campaigns I run tend to have a 60+% mortality rate, and my players are fine with that.

Yeah, I wish my players were a bit more enthusiastic about it too lol


Not every ending can or should be sunshine and roses. That said, maybe the next adventure strts with a plucky group of fresh adventurers being hired by the former party now turned city counsel to find a way to either turn back the outsiders or free the gem from its curse.

That's what I thought too...

Ha! A plucky group of fresh adventurers isn't going to be going to be doing anything nearly as epic for a long time! And personally I'm a bit drained from DMing, especially DMing this campaign. This is pretty much out of the question because I already have plans for something entirely different after I take a break.


So first off, it doesn't really matter what some people on a message board think about your ending, it matters what your players think about it. That aside -

I don't see this as a "moral ambiguity" thing. Nothing you've said indicates that the Lich was less than fully evil, merely that destroying it would be the worse option.

The main issue, IMO, is it sounds like the ending may have made all the PCs' actions through the campaign pointless. If the whole campaign revolved around "overthrow the evil king", and then the ending is "you can't unless you want to make things much worse, so you may as well not have bothered" ... most people aren't going to like that.

If that's not the case then disregard; I'm just going off the OP.

Fair point

The Lich, like most other relevant NPCs, was of grey morality. Definitely Evil in alignment, but he trully did what he thought was best for his people (remember he was king). A "the end justify the means" kind of guyundead abomination.

The whole campaign didn't revolve on that. It's impossible to summarize a year's worth of gaming in a couple of paragraphs, but the players' intentions were always to protect and try to improve their city. They did succeed on a number of levels, they just didn't overthrow the king. A king whom, btw, they fought to defend not once but twice during the campaign, even knowning he wasn't the best person (though they didn't have knowledge of him being undead at those points). Like I said in the OP, no NPC was super good or super evil. They were characters with motivations and goals. A king with 20+ on each mental stat surely could've come up with a safeguard to protect himself. "Kill me and everyone you love will die" is a pretty good safeguard lol.

[heavyfuel]

I mean, come on, the solution is easy: As the lich is reforming, slap a pair of antimagic shackles on him, boom, lich is now basically helpless. No gear, no spells, no supernatural abilities, imprison him in a lead tomb, bound and gagged, no scrying magic can now find him, and he can't use magic to escape, then in the meantime, hire a bunch of artificers to siphon out the magical energy of the lich's phylactery from the mythal.

Alternatively, dispel the mythal for 1d4 rounds while the lich is dead, that's long enough for his soul to be set free from the phylactery, which in essence kills the lich. When the magic comes back, it's still a phylactery, but it's an empty one, no lich soul inside.

The players were mid level. They struck the lich at a very vulnerable time after most of his high level spells were spent.

No access to this kind of magic without extennsive preparation, which they wouldn't have had the time to do because the King still had powerful allies.

[Yogibear41]

If the lich was a wizard, just burn his spellbooks and then imprison him when he comes back, no spells no problem. Now he is a caged commoner with the lich template.

[Hackulator]

The players were mid level. They struck the lich at a very vulnerable time after most of his high level spells were spent.

No access to this kind of magic without extennsive preparation, which they wouldn't have had the time to do because the King still had powerful allies.

Ok yeah, it's kind of lame to end the campaign on the note of "you fought the big bad evil guy and won but he is going to come back, there is nothing you can do about it, and to be honest he should probably just murder you when he gets back".

[heavyfuel]

If the lich was a wizard, just burn his spellbooks and then imprison him when he comes back, no spells no problem.

The Lich was a Cleric 🤷. Also had high level allies that would be able to kill the PCs in the seven days it would take him to return.


Ok yeah, it's kind of lame to end the campaign on the note of "you fought the big bad evil guy and won but he is going to come back, there is nothing you can do about it, and to be honest he should probably just murder you when he gets back".

There was something they could do about it. They just decided that it was best to strike a deal with the Lich. His unlife and the status quo in exchenge for their own lives and the lives of people in the city. The Lich did kind of owe them one and had no reason to kill them as long as they kept secret about the whole thing, which they promissed they would.

[Crake]

The players were mid level. They struck the lich at a very vulnerable time after most of his high level spells were spent.

No access to this kind of magic without extennsive preparation, which they wouldn't have had the time to do because the King still had powerful allies.

Well, they can still imprison the lich while he's reforming, a lead coffin shouldn't be too hard to commission, manacles and an iron bit will stop verbal and somatic components while he's locked away, so unless he has still/silent spell, and spell mastery to be able to prepare spells without his spellbook, he's still basically unable to escape. Then they have plenty of time to figure out how to drain the phylactery's magic from the mythal, before going back to the helpless lich and killing him for good.

[heavyfuel]

Well, they can still imprison the lich while he's reforming, a lead coffin shouldn't be too hard to commission, manacles and an iron bit will stop verbal and somatic components while he's locked away, so unless he has still/silent spell, and spell mastery to be able to prepare spells without his spellbook, he's still basically unable to escape. Then they have plenty of time to figure out how to drain the phylactery's magic from the mythal, before going back to the helpless lich and killing him for good.

You're completely missing the point. The series of choices that led the players to that moment made it impossible for them to go out and prepare in way shape or form. The players had to make the decision then and there. No commissioning of lead coffins. If they chose to destroy the Lich, they had an hour tops while in a dimmensionally locked complex. More than that and they'd be dead since they also had most of their resources drained during the fight. Destroying the phylactery and escaping was one such choice, but definitely not waiting a couple of days for the lich to reform.

[Crake]

You're completely missing the point. The series of choices that led the players to that moment made it impossible for them to go out and prepare in way shape or form. The players had to make the decision then and there. No commissioning of lead coffins. If they chose to destroy the Lich, they had an hour tops while in a dimmensionally locked complex. More than that and they'd be dead since they also had most of their resources drained during the fight. Destroying the phylactery and escaping was one such choice, but definitely not waiting a couple of days for the lich to reform.

I mean, now that you say that, I'm aware, I didn't realise that before. Him being a cleric also complicates things, not having a spellbook and all. A question though, how did they actually learn that the mythal was the lich's phylactery?

[Jack_Simth]

I mean, now that you say that, I'm aware, I didn't realise that before. Him being a cleric also complicates things, not having a spellbook and all. A question though, how did they actually learn that the mythal was the lich's phylactery?

Probably seeing the mythral directly. I recall a skill check for ID'ing one... can't remember the DC or type at the moment, though.

[Karl Aegis]

The solution is to have one of his "powerful allies" resurrect him. If he doesn't want to come back his "powerful allies" have to deal with someone coming back.... without wanting to.

[Hackulator]

There was something they could do about it. They just decided that it was best to strike a deal with the Lich. His unlife and the status quo in exchenge for their own lives and the lives of people in the city. The Lich did kind of owe them one and had no reason to kill them as long as they kept secret about the whole thing, which they promissed they would.

What could they have done about it?

[Crake]

Probably seeing the mythral directly. I recall a skill check for ID'ing one... can't remember the DC or type at the moment, though.

No, no, that's not what I meant, I figure they could recognize the mythal all fine, how did they know that it was the phylactery though. Did someone tell them, or what?

[Arcanist]

I am unsure why this Lich Cleric would actually do something stupid like tether their phylactery to a thing that entities are actively gunning after to destroy (i.e. the Outsiders this Mythal denies). Furthermore, what does he do for the community, besides being the King and all? Does he just lord over everyone like a putz, or does he actively ensure that his phylactery remains safe and sound away from all of the Outsiders that want to see it destroyed, and the populous of the city enslaved, eaten or dragged into a nightmare realm? Because honestly? If the players are just gunning at him because he's a Lich/the King despite him ensuring the city is safe, well? They're kinda jerks.

What is their reasoning for wanting to kill the Lich/King?

ALSO! I wouldn't view a campaign where I am supposed to get a status quo with someone I don't like as a resolution: I view it as a justification for a training montage! :elan:

New Quest: Learn how to replace a mythal!

[creakyaccordion]

There's a way to make this kind of ambivalent ending while still giving the players something satisfying, you've basically given them a "gotcha" where the only decision that really makes sense for players who don't want to destroy an entire city of people. Their only decision is just to...let the lich live which I think I would be unsatisfied with too, it's pretty anticlimactic. I like the idea of putting the players in a situation *like* this, but I think ending your campaign at this juncture is what made you a "jerk". So the lich's phylactery is the thing that protects the city: don't just give them a dead end, let them figure it out! Either make a tough moral decision or they could put in a lot of work to make an easier moral decision. Let them lead a resistance to overthrow the lich that will simultaneously create new defenses, have them find a way to bind the lich without fully killing him. If you keep the campaign going in a way where the players reach a tough situation and through their own hard work get out of it, everyone at the table will be really happy.

[King of Nowhere]

They don't need to overthrow this lich. Maybe the lich really is a competent, if harsh, governor. Maybe they could become his advisors and be a good influence on him.
I agree that while I myself find a certain amount of moral greyness to be desirable (too much black and white looks too much like a child tale, and loses believability), but the players should at least be able to do something about it

[heavyfuel]

The solution is to have one of his "powerful allies" resurrect him. If he doesn't want to come back his "powerful allies" have to deal with someone coming back.... without wanting to.

Pretty sure the Lich is beyond resurrection since he would be long dead of old age. Don't really know how this interaction works by RAW, but that's how I'd rule it.


What could they have done about it?

At that point, they could've destroyed the phylactery. If this sounds like a limited choice, consider they had burned every bridge that could've allowed them a different option.

Like I said, truly Good/Evil characters were almost non-existent and anyone who offered a different solution had their own agenda to further, which the super good players didn't like.

So they would've had more options if they had been more flexible from a moral standpoint.

They did end up convincing the lich to take a vacation (yes, really) for a hundred or so years while they themselves ruled the city for a while. The Lich agreed under the promise that they wouldn't be allowed access to the Mythal and that he wouldn't be exposed. But even this kind of good end wasn't enough for them to think I wasn't being a jerk


No, no, that's not what I meant, I figure they could recognize the mythal all fine, how did they know that it was the phylactery though. Did someone tell them, or what?

Someone told them. Before any wild speculation appears, this was a person was right and had no reason to lie to the pcs. The PCs believed him because they had no reason not to.


I am unsure why this Lich Cleric would actually do something stupid like tether their phylactery to a thing that entities are actively gunning after to destroy (i.e. the Outsiders this Mythal denies). Furthermore, what does he do for the community, besides being the King and all? Does he just lord over everyone like a putz, or does he actively ensure that his phylactery remains safe and sound away from all of the Outsiders that want to see it destroyed, and the populous of the city enslaved, eaten or dragged into a nightmare realm? Because honestly? If the players are just gunning at him because he's a Lich/the King despite him ensuring the city is safe, well? They're kinda jerks.

What is their reasoning for wanting to kill the Lich/King?

ALSO! I wouldn't view a campaign where I am supposed to get a status quo with someone I don't like as a resolution: I view it as a justification for a training montage! :elan:

New Quest: Learn how to replace a mythal!

To answer the first question: because he couldn't give 2 craps to the outsiders themselves. He was perfectly safe from direct intervention from them inside the Mythal. The only possible intervention would be in the form of a non-charmed/dominated humanoid deciding to kill everyone to help a bunch of demons outside of the city. Not saying this couldn't happen, but the king liked his odds, especially considering the array of protections surrounding the Mythal.

For the second question: We play with the house rule that spells die with their caster. Anything not Instantaneous is instantly gone the second the caster dies. There were a bunch of permanent (not instantaneous) spells the King had cast around the city to help the population. The king also acted as intermediary between a few strong factions that serviced the city in ways he could not.

However, the king was also in the dead center of a conspiracy that had killed hundreds of innocent people in a Watchmen-like move of "killing hundreds to save hundreds of thousands". Basically, the players thought Adrian Veidt did do something wrong.


There's a way to make this kind of ambivalent ending while still giving the players something satisfying, you've basically given them a "gotcha" where the only decision that really makes sense for players who don't want to destroy an entire city of people. Their only decision is just to...let the lich live which I think I would be unsatisfied with too, it's pretty anticlimactic. I like the idea of putting the players in a situation *like* this, but I think ending your campaign at this juncture is what made you a "jerk". So the lich's phylactery is the thing that protects the city: don't just give them a dead end, let them figure it out! Either make a tough moral decision or they could put in a lot of work to make an easier moral decision. Let them lead a resistance to overthrow the lich that will simultaneously create new defenses, have them find a way to bind the lich without fully killing him. If you keep the campaign going in a way where the players reach a tough situation and through their own hard work get out of it, everyone at the table will be really happy.

My intention wasn't really a gotcha moment, even though that is what happened. Any resistance would be easily crushed because they had burned bridges with pretty much anyone worth resorting to, and they alone wouldn't be able to to overthrow anybody. Read what I replied to Hackulator above for more details


They don't need to overthrow this lich. Maybe the lich really is a competent, if harsh, governor. Maybe they could become his advisors and be a good influence on him.
I agree that while I myself find a certain amount of moral greyness to be desirable (too much black and white looks too much like a child tale, and loses believability), but the players should at least be able to do something about it

They ended up convincing the lich to take a vacation (yes, really) for a hundred or so years while they themselves ruled the city for a while. The Lich agreed under the promise that they wouldn't be allowed access to the Mythal and that he wouldn't be exposed. But even this kind of good end wasn't enough for them to think I wasn't being a jerk

[King of Nowhere]

They ended up convincing the lich to take a vacation (yes, really) for a hundred or so years while they themselves ruled the city for a while. The Lich agreed under the promise that they wouldn't be allowed access to the Mythal and that he wouldn't be exposed. But even this kind of good end wasn't enough for them to think I wasn't being a jerk

in this case, it seems like the players are excessively spoiled/pampered and want everything to go their way.

[The Kool]

All this chat of alternative solutions misses the heart of the problem: The way players feel about your DMing. Were you a jerk for creating a campaign with a morally ambiguous ending, or for allowing the actions of the players to corner them into one? No, not at all. Were you a jerk for doing such with this particular group? Maybe.

It comes down to communication. Some players love stories like this. Some hate stories like this. You have a group that apparently hates endings like this. Did you know that? Did you talk to them about it, or check in with them that the story might not have a Good ending? If so, were they okay with it? When you (seemingly) repeatedly set the tone throughout the campaign, did they jive with these moments, or did they chafe? It's possible for a player to struggle with a decision but enjoy the struggle, and sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference between that and a player actually unhappy with having to make that call. Checking in with your players is important; at the end of a session you can ask "Hey did you guys have fun today? Is the tone of the game enjoyable? Do you have any comments or concerns?" At the end of the campaign if you checked in with them throughout, the tone of the game was consistent, and they aren't being railroaded into the decision, then no you're not a jerk. If you didn't make sure they were enjoying the tone, or the tone shifted right at the end, then yeah you're a jerk.

Speaking specifically to the case of the tone shifting right at the end, or to the case of the players not enjoying the tone and you wanting to lighten things up and provide a happy ending to an unhappy campaign, then you look to alternative solutions. Find one, or make one. Remember that the world is in your hands and there's much the players don't know, you can change a fact you know but they don't to make a happy ending possible. If you decide to go this route then go nuts with the alternative ideas and different ways it could have been done, but don't forget the real question at hand: Communication.

And if the players did irrevocably drive themselves into a corner, and you made this clear while repeatedly trying to get them out of it and they repeatedly drove themselves back into this corner... Well there's not much you can do about that, it happens sometimes. There does come a point where any more DM intervention is just deus ex machina, and if you hit that point where there is literally no way forward without people being unhappy with the game... Consider stopping, narrating a conclusion to that story, and starting up fresh. Oftentimes this will take the form of the old PCs becoming villains or martyrs, and a new party forming in the shadow of the events that happened. Whatever you decide, work it out with the players. They have many hours invested in these characters, you can't just rip that away from them without upsetting somebody.

[Hackulator]

I don't know whether you're a jerk per se, but you did fail at giving your campaign an ending that was enjoyable for your players. Having the campaign end with a fight with a BBEG who you realistically cannot defeat is an anticlimatic ending that understandably people might not like. The choice to destroy the Mythal is clearly a false choice, not a real option. As for them "burning bridges" with people who could have helped, this again needs more clarification. Are you saying they did so many overtly stupid things over the course of the campaign that you think it's reasonable to end in a way where they feel like they failed, or are you saying that they roleplayed to their alignments well and refused to compromise with evil? If the former that's unfortunate, if the latter it sounds like you are training them not to RP their alignments in the future.

[Pex]

So first off, it doesn't really matter what some people on a message board think about your ending, it matters what your players think about it. That aside -

I don't see this as a "moral ambiguity" thing. Nothing you've said indicates that the Lich was less than fully evil, merely that destroying it would be the worse option.

The main issue, IMO, is it sounds like the ending may have made all the PCs' actions through the campaign pointless. If the whole campaign revolved around "overthrow the evil king", and then the ending is "you can't unless you want to make things much worse, so you may as well not have bothered" ... most people aren't going to like that.

If that's not the case then disregard; I'm just going off the OP.

This.

Basically the whole campaign became a Lose-Lose. It's disappointing to have tried but failed yet still be fun. When there never was a chance to succeed at all then it's a waste of time.

Possible solution: Don't end the campaign. Continue for one more adventure arc where the PCs need to find another Mythal they can take without more bad consequences of it being moved they can use to replace the Cursed Mythal before the Lich reforms then destroy the phylactery. If they take too long they just have to fight the Lich again who knows more about what they can do.

[The Kool]

This.

Basically the whole campaign became a Lose-Lose. It's disappointing to have tried but failed yet still be fun. When there never was a chance to succeed at all then it's a waste of time.

Possible solution: Don't end the campaign. Continue for one more adventure arc where the PCs need to find another Mythal they can take without more bad consequences of it being moved they can use to replace the Cursed Mythal before the Lich reforms then destroy the phylactery. If they take too long they just have to fight the Lich again who knows more about what they can do.

Expounding on something I missed on my first read, This. You mentioned that the players are very, very invested in protecting the city. This means that to destroy the Mythal is to screw over the plans they've made central to their entire character motivations. In order for them to feel like they've even succeeded, they need to both eliminate the threat that takes the form of the Lich, and either maintain or replace the Mythal. Maybe instead of finding a new Mythal, they need to find a way to cleanse the Lich from the one they have. This would even lead to a final confrontation where a more informed Lich is back to take them on again, and they can win for real this time. Maybe they could damage the Mythal, leaving it partly intact but destroying the Lich. There's a lot of paths you could take if you have the time for a follow-up.

[Crake]

Someone told them. Before any wild speculation appears, this was a person was right and had no reason to lie to the pcs. The PCs believed him because they had no reason not to.

How long in advance were they told? If they were told a decent time ago, they should have had time to make preparations, in which case, it was entirely their fault for going in unprepared.

[Eldariel]

Impossible to say without knowing the full story. And that's a bit much to ask of you. Talk with your players more instead: talk through the campaign, everything that had lead to this point, the reasons they failed to create other endings, etc. Map their preferences and go from there. I don't think you have any duty to cater to your players' preferences, but I do think you all should be on the same page regarding things like "actions have consequences", "you reap what you sow", etc.

That said, the best movies and books often evoke emotions other than fun/happiness most of the time. No reason TTRPG couldn't be art too. Nothing makes fun superior to the other emotions the game can evoke and you can certainly get more depth out of many other ones.

[unclimainfame]

I thought the twist was really cool.

I noticed someone was talking about not having the great battle and all as an ending which, I mean, it's something you can still do. Which you did, they did battle the Lich, only to discover they couldn't kill him.
Which is some really cool storytelling!

What's the issue? Are they pissed they couldn't say AHAH WE KILLED HIM? I don't get it.

[satorian]

I don't think it makes you a bad person. I will say, though, that this would have left me feeling empty and unsatisfied, and a little sad. That's not really how I want to feel at the end of a game.

This is why I never finish most Fallout games, even though I love playing them. The final choices all seem artificially lose-lose.

[Pex]

I thought the twist was really cool.

I noticed someone was talking about not having the great battle and all as an ending which, I mean, it's something you can still do. Which you did, they did battle the Lich, only to discover they couldn't kill him.
Which is some really cool storytelling!

What's the issue? Are they pissed they couldn't say AHAH WE KILLED HIM? I don't get it.

For the same reason achieving victory is not fun when there's no risk of loss, so too does achieving loss have no fun in the play when there's no chance of victory.

[unclimainfame]

For the same reason achieving victory is not fun when there's no risk of loss, so too does achieving loss have no fun in the play when there's no chance of victory.

It's called life, you can't always win.
But then again, they did win. There are two alternatives, they either get killed by the Lich King, and thus the campaign ends, or they do beat him, only to discover they cannot kill him and have to find an alternative to it. In the end, they were indeed fighting for something, they fought for the King in previous battles so why did they suddenly go after him? There had to be something they wanted to change, and they could change it indeed, so, in a sense, they did win.
I mean, either this or they just wanted to kill the King, in which case, well, they can still do it.

I would continue this, though.
Let's say the players govern the city for a decade or so, then they decide to destroy the phylactery using this old inscriptions that should theoretically allow them to split it from the magic keeping the city shielded, only to discover that the inscriptions are false, it was all a Lich King ruse. They try to fight the apocalypse back but it's all for nothing, and the city falls, with only a few survivors out in the world now completely dominated by these creatures. A few hundreds years pass and the names are all forgotten, civilization is slowly being rebuilt in the ruins, and the players ready their new characters in this settings without knowing the background of the world. Then they start this new campaign where they have to find a mystical city rumored to be safe from the beasts to go live there with their village. At the end they discover that the mystical city is the ruin where they live, they are the descendants of their own characters of the previous campaign, and the mastermind behind the destruction of their world is the same Lich King they didn't kill, that they can now kill in order to gain the miracolous artifact they need to put the shield up once again, and save humanity.

[NichG]

So, my current campaign just ended. Giving a super quick summary, the players lived in this city with a Mythal that protected it from evil demons/devils outside of its walls. The Mythal was actually an Epic item in the form of a crystal that was kept hidden in the middle of the city.

After about a year of play, phe players then killed the city's king/BBEG only to discover he was a Lich in disguise pretending to be alive. So, time to destroy the phylactery, right? Wrong. Turns out the phylactery was the Mythal crystal, so destroying the Lich meant destrying the only protection the city had against the Outsiders.

My players decided to keep the Lich alive, but were super disappointed with me that I didn't allow for them to have a 100% good end and actually forced a difficult decision upon them. Seriously, they were discussing this for over 1 hour IRL.

Plenty of morally ambiguous choices were presented to them throught the campaign. No character was straight up Evil or straight up Good (though 2 of the players certainly tried to be). I thought it was a fitting ending for such a campaign, but maybe a fitting ending isn't necessarily the most fun one.

What do you guys think? For future referece, should I try to give the players what they want, or should I try to stay faithful to the world I built?

If I felt that you forced the ending, I'd be upset. If on the other hand you just presented a difficult scenario, then if I can't get a better ending that's on me. For example, in this situation I could propose something like imprisoning lich by embedding it in the setting's closest equivalent to concrete (Stone to Mud followed by Mud to Stone?) and placing it in an antimagic field somewhere, or Soul Trap it, or various other things. If I could have come up with something, but its simply that I didn't manage to come up with a perfect answer, then having an imperfect outcome is fair. Or to put it another way, the challenge isn't over even when the Lich is defeated at our feet - its over when we've resolved the things that need to be resolved.

[Quertus]

The devil's in the details. If, in 300 years, a PC combines Quertus-level research skills with a desire to do something, and circumvents the "death of the caster" with custom spells, or creating their own defenses, or just straight-up dominates (Rebukes) the Lich, things will probably be fine.

If, 100 years from now, the Lich has collected a party of allied PCs, that your players play, it might be fine.

If, 0 years from now, your players play out the city management game... apparently, that won't be enough.

Your players burned bridges and rejected options... Ask them, if they had known the ending, if they would have done anything differently. And, if they had done those different things, if they would have considered it a better story. And, if so, if there was any reasonable way that their characters could have known to aim for that story.

EDIT: I think NichG said what I was trying to get at best:

If I felt that you forced the ending, I'd be upset. If on the other hand you just presented a difficult scenario, then if I can't get a better ending that's on me.

In other words, is it's clear that the players have the option to make of your material what they will, and had the realistic capability to make of it something that they would have liked to have made, then it's fine. But if it looks like they were forced to a specific conclusion (whether they were or not), it will leave a bad taste in their mouths.

[the_david]

What do you guys think? For future reference, should I try to give the players what they want, or should I try to stay faithful to the world I built?I think it's good that you ask this question. The goal of the game is to have fun. Your idea of fun might clash with that of the players and vice versa. It happens. I don't think this is as bad as "player wants to backstab the other characters because that's what his character would do" but it might be kinda similar. You might also see it as a DM abusing the rules to "win the game", except it wasn't a planned TPK. You didn't take out player autonomy completely, but you left them with no good endings.

I've been wondering if I could pull off a similar campaign. One in which the entire universe ends, followed by the PCs using an artifact to become gods and create a new universe. I'd take away all autonomy from the players at the end, in exchange for a great reward. I did something similar in a one shot once, but that's not exactly the same as the players wouldn't be as invested in their characters as much, and one shots are often used as excuses to do wonky stuff in the first place.

In the end I think you created a wonderful plot twist. I don't think every story should have a happy ending. The lich stayed true to character and used every means at his disposal to win. I'd rather see that than a villain who's incompetent. More than that, I want a challenge rather than an easy victory.
I don't think the story should have ended where it did though. Temporal Stasis or Imprison would have put an end to the Lich as well. At this point it would be about outsmarting the Lich instead of destroying his phylactery.

[Hackulator]

I think it's good that you ask this question. The goal of the game is to have fun. Your idea of fun might clash with that of the players and vice versa. It happens. I don't think this is as bad as "player wants to backstab the other characters because that's what his character would do" but it might be kinda similar. You might also see it as a DM abusing the rules to "win the game", except it wasn't a planned TPK. You didn't take out player autonomy completely, but you left them with no good endings.

I've been wondering if I could pull off a similar campaign. One in which the entire universe ends, followed by the PCs using an artifact to become gods and create a new universe. I'd take away all autonomy from the players at the end, in exchange for a great reward. I did something similar in a one shot once, but that's not exactly the same as the players wouldn't be as invested in their characters as much, and one shots are often used as excuses to do wonky stuff in the first place.

In the end I think you created a wonderful plot twist. I don't think every story should have a happy ending. The lich stayed true to character and used every means at his disposal to win. I'd rather see that than a villain who's incompetent. More than that, I want a challenge rather than an easy victory.
I don't think the story should have ended where it did though. Temporal Stasis or Imprison would have put an end to the Lich as well. At this point it would be about outsmarting the Lich instead of destroying his phylactery.

As to your game, to make it feel like you didn't take their autonomy just make sure they have to do a bunch of **** to get that artifact so it's through their own actions that they are able to recreate the world, or create an entirely new one.

As to this game, he's already said they didn't really have the ability to do anything to stop the Lich when they found out.

[noob]

A simple solution is step 1: become immortal(ex: become a lich)
step 2: kill the lich each time it reforms near the crystal before it can prepare spells or regain them(depending on its type of casting).
Step 3: once the mythal crystal is no longer needed just destroy it and the lich is dead forever.