I may be an intelligent sword, but I'm also a philosopher.

[J-H]

Campaign log context (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624426-Against-the-Idol-of-the-Sun-A-5e-high-level-campaign-log) (very long).

Teador the (LG) Vengeance Paladin (half-elf) has Ssword (LE). There’s a side plot option where Ssword can be persuaded to be less of a yuan-ti supremacist tyrant in his attitude, which will carry over

When he turns out to be a shard of the dead yuan-ti god Sseth. Right now Ssword is just an assassin short sword that drains power from enemy altars and is optimized for killing enemy priests and the avatar that the campaign is sort of named after. You know where this is going.


I made the comment to Teador’s player that his character could tell their their ethics and values were not aligned. He said he didn’t think he’d be able to do very well role-playing out persuasive conversations and arguments. I respect that, and so instead we’re going to do a series of opposed Persuasion checks for various aspects of Ssword’s morality. Ssword is just an intelligent sword right now, so he can be persuaded to change at least some of his views.

However, he’s arguing morality in his dreams with a reasonably strong entity with mental scores equal to or greater than his (vs. Ssword, his Cha is greater, his Int is substantially lower, his Wis is slightly lower). I’d like to make it not just a one-sided thing. I am currently planning to do a "best 2 out of 3 rolls" resolution mechanic for the arguments, probably opposed Persuasion checks, although other skills (Religion, History, Insight) could be substituted in.

If he crit-fails (lose by more than 10) on both of his losing rolls on an argument, then TEADOR converts to Ssword’s views on a topic. Does this sound fair, and bring a reasonable amount of risk to the discussion, without leaving a player character excessively likely to lose substantial agency?

Aspects up for debate, as currently written:
1) Yuan-ti supremacy: Ssword/Sseth should advance the yuan-ti primarily, who are better and worth more than other beings. (evil)
2) Tyranny: Rule with an iron fist and conquest is the best form of government. Those who don’t fall in line should be crushed. (evil + law)
3) No redemption: Enemies must be wiped out. The Aaracokra who served Huitzopochitl must all be killed. Deliberately phrased to avoid tripping on “vengeance paladin”. (Evil or Law or both?)
4) The ends justify the means: Any action is okay if it leads to victory. (Evil; possibly chaotic)
5) Utility: Altruism is foolish and not worthwhile. Only help those who are useful. (Evil)
6) Order: An orderly people with firm laws and codes is stronger than one with more “freedom.” A few people may be harmed by this, but it’s worth it. (Law)

There are a few other priority/character aspects that Ssword has, but I don't think the players are going to argue with "Kill the BBEG" or "Help the yuan-ti who are opposed to the BBEG."

I may change these up a bit as I think about how to write/handle them better. The player would get a short list, and then would pick one topic to address per dream over long rests/between sessions via Discord.


Does this sound good, fair, and fun?

[Kane0]

Best-of-three check challenge sounds fine, especially if you're only tackling one topic at a time.

You could do some tug-of-war style tracking between the topics to show overall progress between the two interlocutors too.

[Twelvetrees]

Ssword is just an intelligent sword right now, so he can be persuaded to change at least some of his views.

However, he’s arguing morality in his dreams with a reasonably strong entity with mental scores equal to or greater than his (vs. Ssword, his Cha is greater, his Int is substantially lower, his Wis is slightly lower). I’d like to make it not just a one-sided thing. I am currently planning to do a "best 2 out of 3 rolls" resolution mechanic for the arguments, probably opposed Persuasion checks, although other skills (Religion, History, Insight) could be substituted in.

If he crit-fails (lose by more than 10) on both of his losing rolls on an argument, then TEADOR converts to Ssword’s views on a topic. Does this sound fair, and bring a reasonable amount of risk to the discussion, without leaving a player character excessively likely to lose substantial agency?

Does Teador's player know about the risk of being converted to Ssword's views? If not, I'd suggest making sure they do. That wouldn't be particularly fun to be blindsided by.

Your resolution system looks good to me otherwise!

[Dalinar]

I'm mostly curious how Teador would roleplay being a yuan-ti supremacist half-elf, not gonna lie.

Perhaps a crit-fail wouldn't convince Teador outright, but would leave him shaken in his convictions in some other way, maybe eating spell slots or something idk.

[Sigreid]

Sounds reasonable enough, but this is exactly why I don't do intelligent weapons on my characters.

[J-H]

Does Teador's player know about the risk of being converted to Ssword's views? If not, I'd suggest making sure they do. That wouldn't be particularly fun to be blindsided by.

Your resolution system looks good to me otherwise!
Yeah, I'll go through that with him. I wouldn't mess with player agency in that way without prior agreement.


I'm mostly curious how Teador would roleplay being a yuan-ti supremacist half-elf, not gonna lie.

Perhaps a crit-fail wouldn't convince Teador outright, but would leave him shaken in his convictions in some other way, maybe eating spell slots or something idk.
Ssword already offered to turn him into a yuan-ti and he turned it down. If he fails on that argument, Ssword will make the offer again.
He would keep all the benefits of being a half-elf, he'd also acquire the +cha, +int, magic resistance, poison resistance, and Poison Spray over the next few weeks.



Sounds reasonable enough, but this is exactly why I don't do intelligent weapons on my characters.
The only other intelligent weapon I plan to run is Lilarcor when I run BG2. Lilarcor offers advice like: "Let's get rich! How do we do that. I know! We find someone rich, and kill them! Then we find someone richer, and kill them too!"

[PhantomSoul]

Ssword already offered to turn him into a yuan-ti and he turned it down. If he fails on that argument, Ssword will make the offer again.
He would keep all the benefits of being a half-elf, he'd also acquire the +cha, +int, magic resistance, poison resistance, and Poison Spray over the next few weeks.

Sounds like losing the argument is a big win, unless there's unmentioned teeth to the transformation!

[J-H]

His response was "I'd rather be ME!"

The only unintended consequence is demographic. The yuan-ti in this setting have a fertility problem where only ~10% of successful births are male, so they are matriarchal and polygamist by necessity. As a male, and unrelated to anyone, and longer-lived, and carrying the hope of rebirth of their god around, and being high level and very successful at killing their enemies, he would be the focus of a LOT of attention.

It'll all be pretty abstracted out, as I don't think any of us want to RP beyond the level of "You have about two dozen women following you around when you're in the village" and "there are actual fights going on outside about who gets to be in the same room as you."
I want to keep it at funny/amusing only.

Although if he wants to exploit it, some mid-level assassins and scouts would probably like to come with the party just to have a shot at him. He could pick up a few sidekicks to run in combat and keep alive, and who knows what could happen? I'd keep it to "as you're traveling, X Y and Z discussions happen" or something like that.

[Kol Korran]

All and all, sounds reasonable. I've ran similar "debates/ counter argument/ discussion" scenes in the past, and I came up with a sort of a system, which is mostly similar to yours, but with a few tweaks it may enhance/ add choices/ make it more interesting.

Some ideas:
1- This usually works best, if the two sides try to appeal/ persuade a third party. Similar to two debaters trying to persuade an audience, or two lawyers trying to persuade a jury. But how to do this in your case? I'm thinking of two options:
# Sssword is but a remant/ fragment of the divine entity it once was... A powerful emotional memory, but not the whole... Upon awakening Sssword, stirring it into action, the dormant god slowly awakens/ rises anew, albeit slowly. Yet it's mind is not as it was... A long time has passed, a long sleep, and much of what it was is... Lost, forgotten... Sssword and Teador are debating and trying to persuade the becoming mind of the god, and the prize? The paladin's soul. And trying to change Teador to a Yuan Ti? It's not just a physical change, but rather make him a suitable vessel, a suitable body, for the becoming god! (Though this may be a bit too much?k

# The third party IS Teador's soul! Having contacted the powerful artifact, Sssword started to infiltrate/ corrupt Teador. (While the party may wish to try and get rid of Sssword, make it apparent that doing this without winning the argument will cause irreparable harm). But the two sides are a bit different in this case- Not Sssword vs. Teador, but rather Sssword vs The Party! (I'll touch on that shortly).

2- Involving the party- It's fin for everyone!
Teador's player may not be that great a talker/ debater, but others might be! And they can help, coming with arguments, counter arguments, and the debate. I have 3 ideas for this:
# Each Issue takes at least two nights, possibly 3 or more:

The first night Sssword brings up the issue and it's main arguments for it. The paladin may answer, or may withhold.

Comes morning, he can tell the party, and they can discuss possible counter arguments, or even act in certain ways, make certain choices, (Treat people equally, show the faults of Yuan Ti, and such) that can be used for the arguments. At night, Teador raises the party's arguments. Basically- he is the spokesmen for the "commity" of part members. This makes it a real joint effort, but still keep him as a focal point.

This can end here, or you can add the third night, where Sssword makes a counter argument (You can check common debate rules. This is usually the common standard). If you wish, you can add more nights, but I suggest to make a hard limit.

As a variant of this suggestion, if you are using the "persuade a third party" suggestion above, the third entity may raise the issue, and each issue Either Sssword or the party answer first.

# The ENTIRE party enters the dream discussion. (Or possibly just one more memeber, but the companion must change each time). This eases the "spokesman" onus on Teador, which may be good, or bad, depending on the player and focus you wish to use.

# If you are using the second idea for "persuade the 3rd party" where it is actually Teador's soul who is the one to persuade/ judge, then Teador himself isn't even making the arguments, but the other party members vs. Sssword. In this case, the arguments don't need to be confined to night/ dream sequences, but can occur at intervals during play.

3- So how do the arguments work, mechanically?
The long debate on what matters most... The roll or the role... Should the character/s attributes, skills and capabilites matter more than the actual argument, or vice versa? Player skill or character skill?

Wellz why not both? This is what I use, but it works with the "persuade a third entity" most:
# For each issue, include 3-5 major points, that touch upon main motives/ ideals/ beliefs/ fears/ weaknesses and such, of the third party.
This points are hidden from the party! (And from Sssword in play). If the debater touches on a major point succesfully on their argument, they gain a modifier to the roll. I suggest a +/-5, which is significant, but not making the character stats irrelevent. Touching well on such a point adds the modifier, while touching badly reduces it.

A few points can be addresed at a single argument, if the debater is craft enough.

The 3rd party may hint/ give some clues to it's major issues by it's questions, reactions, and so forth. The party might try to digure those out through lnsight/ knowlede/ other social skills, or simple roleplay.

I suggest building Sssword arguments, in a way to at times touch possitively, at times negatively, and at times miss the major points, according to what you think is appropriate, but do it in advance.

---------------------
I hope this helps.
If you want a really detailed example (Including the "behind the scenes" DM comments and design explanations) you can check my long sig below, check the "Wrath of The Rightous" campaign log, and use the session links to jump to the last session. The party debated vs. major demon addverseries trying to persuade a 3rd party demon lord (in her home plane palace), to help/ stay out of the war effort. The prize by the way? The fate of the known world...

It was a loooong session, without a single combat, and one of the most intense, suspenseful, powerful and memorable experiences we had!