Campaign Concept: The Sword that Slays Evil, as Defined by Philosophers

[kieza]

I've just had an idea for a campaign that, frankly, I won't have a chance to run for ages, so I thought I'd share here.

Long ago, a nation beset by demons gathered its best and brightest philosophers, smiths, and enchanters to forge a singular weapon: a sword dedicated to destroying evil and delivering them from this grave threat. It worked, and the Sword of Evil's Bane was used to slay countless demons and end the threat. It was then held in trust, and was passed down to later heroes whenever a similar threat arose. Over the years, its wielders started to report that its magic was fading, as it didn't seem to be as powerful or as reliable for them as the previous accounts would have it. Eventually, one of its wielders fell in battle, and it was widely agreed that its powerful magic must have finally dimmed. There were reports, several times after that, of the sword showing up briefly in the hands of new wielders, but at this point the world was much safer, and as there was no real need for an evil-slaying sword, nobody seriously followed up on it.

Now, after centuries or millennia of peace, an upstart warlord threatens to summon demons back into the world. Coincidentally, a group of adventurers have just stumbled across the Sword that Slays Evil...

That's the premise. The twist, however...

Is that the ancient creators of the sword got more than they bargained for. The sword doesn't magically recognize evil: it's sentient, and actually really dang smart, and while it has an ironclad dedication to protecting good people and preventing evil people from causing harm, it lacks the internalized biases that enable mortals to easily justify killing, like "orcs are evil because they're ugly and they don't like us settling on their land." In short, it is as close to a perfectly moral being as it is possible for mortals to create...which means that rarely lets its wielder unleash its full "cleave iron like butter and kill with a touch" magic. Against demons, the embodiment of death and destruction, it's the ultimate weapon. Against virtually anything else, it defaults to being a moderately powerful magic weapon when used in self-defense or defense of others, and a sharp piece of steel if there's any doubt at all whether the target deserves to possibly die (because no, the sword doesn't have a non-lethal setting), only unleashing its full potential if you can actually convince it that killing something is a morally correct action...and it takes a lot of convincing.

So if you want to save the world from the purely mortal villain...who it turns out has some pretty solid motivations, while a lot of the people on your side aren't exactly paragons of virtue...you're going to need to study your moral philosophy.

Tl;dr: The party finds an Infinity + 1 Sword with the mind and personality of Chidi Anagonye.

[Beelzebub1111]

Seems like an okay concept for a sword, but for a plot point:

Maybe it was stolen by demons and perhaps a clever demon lord has claimed it and convinced it that demons are a necessary part of an ecosystem and that the net good that demons cause by creating a centralized threat for all races to unite against will save more lives in long term. The demon is lying of course, but the sword, being impartial, hasn't been shown anything beyond the math in centuries.

[Vyke]

I've just had an idea for a campaign that, frankly, I won't have a chance to run for ages, so I thought I'd share here.

Long ago, a nation beset by demons gathered its best and brightest philosophers, smiths, and enchanters to forge a singular weapon: a sword dedicated to destroying evil and delivering them from this grave threat. It worked, and the Sword of Evil's Bane was used to slay countless demons and end the threat. It was then held in trust, and was passed down to later heroes whenever a similar threat arose. Over the years, its wielders started to report that its magic was fading, as it didn't seem to be as powerful or as reliable for them as the previous accounts would have it. Eventually, one of its wielders fell in battle, and it was widely agreed that its powerful magic must have finally dimmed. There were reports, several times after that, of the sword showing up briefly in the hands of new wielders, but at this point the world was much safer, and as there was no real need for an evil-slaying sword, nobody seriously followed up on it.

Now, after centuries or millennia of peace, an upstart warlord threatens to summon demons back into the world. Coincidentally, a group of adventurers have just stumbled across the Sword that Slays Evil...

That's the premise. The twist, however...

Is that the ancient creators of the sword got more than they bargained for. The sword doesn't magically recognize evil: it's sentient, and actually really dang smart, and while it has an ironclad dedication to protecting good people and preventing evil people from causing harm, it lacks the internalized biases that enable mortals to easily justify killing, like "orcs are evil because they're ugly and they don't like us settling on their land." In short, it is as close to a perfectly moral being as it is possible for mortals to create...which means that rarely lets its wielder unleash its full "cleave iron like butter and kill with a touch" magic. Against demons, the embodiment of death and destruction, it's the ultimate weapon. Against virtually anything else, it defaults to being a moderately powerful magic weapon when used in self-defense or defense of others, and a sharp piece of steel if there's any doubt at all whether the target deserves to possibly die (because no, the sword doesn't have a non-lethal setting), only unleashing its full potential if you can actually convince it that killing something is a morally correct action...and it takes a lot of convincing.

So if you want to save the world from the purely mortal villain...who it turns out has some pretty solid motivations, while a lot of the people on your side aren't exactly paragons of virtue...you're going to need to study your moral philosophy.

Tl;dr: The party finds an Infinity + 1 Sword with the mind and personality of Chidi Anagonye.

Going to remain vague to avoid spoilers but have a look at the Brandon Sanderson character, Nightblood. Should be easy to google.

[Anymage]

Turning it into a whole campaign does have to deal with the question of what you'll do if the players get annoyed with the Chidi-blade and chuck it.

It would make for an interesting "cursed" magic item that's extra strong against fiends, undead, and possibly aberrations who are inmical hostile to normal life, while being average strong against nonsentient creatures/sentients who attack first (which can include protecting innocents who have been attacked), and detrimental when attacking humanoids or similar creatures without having tried to reach a peaceful solution first. Purpose defined magic items are cool. But making any NPC too central (and sentient items are very much NPCs) runs too many risks of players feeling overshadowed or like they're just being taken along on the DM's ride.

[King of Nowhere]

Depends a lot on your players. With some groups, it would work most times.
The premise is interesting, good luck statting everything without letting the players know how the sword works

[KorvinStarmast]

Turning it into a whole campaign does have to deal with the question of what you'll do if the players get annoyed with the Chidi-blade and chuck it. Which they may well do.

It would make for an interesting "cursed" magic item that's extra strong against fiends, undead, and possibly aberrations who are inmical hostile to normal life, while being average strong against nonsentient creatures/sentients who attack first (which can include protecting innocents who have been attacked), and detrimental when attacking humanoids or similar creatures without having tried to reach a peaceful solution first. Purpose defined magic items are cool. But making any NPC too central (and sentient items are very much NPCs) runs too many risks of players feeling overshadowed or like they're just being taken along on the DM's ride. That was my thought; the bolded part.

There were some blades in the original game, and in AD&D, which had better bonuses versus some kinds of creatures than others. (Flaming sword did more damage to undead, for example). This kind of thing can work, and for that matter being an annoying sentient item has a reasonably long history in D&D, but it's a matter of taste.

[gbaji]

That's a pretty neat idea. I do agree with some concerns that this can be about what the GM considers "good/evil", which could create issues with the players. But honestly, I think that this can generally be pulled off in a "things out to detroy the world" it's going to be really powerful against, with it kinda scaling down to "enemies of my King" having it pretty much function like a normal sword. And I think most players should be able to handle that.

Items like this are actually a pretty good idea from a game balance perspective. It allows you to introduce a really powerful item that can be used to stop the super evil bad guys, but don't create huge problems later on when the same party is maybe involved in a more political intrique kind of scenario. But yeah, be prepared for the potential of players trying to argue that whatever criminal activity some opponent is engaged in is "the worst thing you could do", and therefore the sword should be activated at a higher power level or something. That's usually when I just give the player "the look", that says "Really? You think you need the god-killing sword to take out this local crime bosses minions?". Usually works.

I did do something semi-similar in a game setting. It was more of a society wide thing though. Created a semi-eastern themed culture, with strong ancestor worship (and a little bit of a Samurai element, along with others in there too). They basically had weapons that were imbued with the power of their ancestors, but tied to some form of honor/duty. So the weapons became more powerful the higher level they were fighting for. When fighting for oneself, it was only a slight bonus. When fighthing for one's family/lands, it was higher. When fighting for the Empire itself, it was the highest level. Which allowed for the idea that those weilding these weapons were super tough if you were attacking them in their lands, or if you really really pissed off their entire empire somehow, but one random guy wandering around on an adventure wasn't any more powerful than any other person with a modest magic weapon.

In this case, it allowed me to rationalize why these people were not to be trifled with in their own lands, but weren't out curb stomping everyone else around them either. I tend to try to create some kind of balance point for stuff like this in my games. Obviously, this is specific to items or powers that kinda fall outside the normal range of stuff that characters should be expected to obtain as they gain experience/levels/whatever.

[Crake]

Canonically, people dont think orcs are evil “because theyre ugly, and dont like us settling on their lands”, that is such a sheltered noble’s take, its because they have a savage culture built upon the worship of their EVIL god gruumsh, who believes in the subjugation and domination of all other races under the foot of orc-kind.

That said, seems like this sword just needs detect evil at will. If you want to be cosmically unbiased, just detect their cosmic alignment, right?

Now, of course, if you want to change things up in your game, by all means, but don’t patronise your players for the very sensible biases they may have formed against the intrinsically evil culture that orcs adhere to. If you’re going to change the fundamental nature of how many races work, make sure thats clearly defined as a part of your campaign setting beforehand.

[stoutstien]

A kant- ana ?

[King of Nowhere]

Canonically, people dont think orcs are evil “because theyre ugly, and dont like us settling on their lands”, that is such a sheltered noble’s take, its because they have a savage culture built upon the worship of their EVIL god gruumsh, who believes in the subjugation and domination of all other races under the foot of orc-kind.

That said, seems like this sword just needs detect evil at will

I think we can safely say that each and every table will have a different take on orc culture, and how evil they are exactly, and how much they can be reasoned exactly. Each group also has its own unique brand of murderhoboing and heroism. every table also has different interpretations of what exactly it means to pinging evil to a detection spells, and what would be an appropriate reaction to that, and generally what conditions justify the use of lethal force.
and I can totally see the sword saying something like "well, there's enough of a gray area there, I'm not working at full power"

[Crake]

I think we can safely say that each and every table will have a different take on orc culture, and how evil they are exactly, and how much they can be reasoned exactly. Each group also has its own unique brand of murderhoboing and heroism. every table also has different interpretations of what exactly it means to pinging evil to a detection spells, and what would be an appropriate reaction to that, and generally what conditions justify the use of lethal force.
and I can totally see the sword saying something like "well, there's enough of a gray area there, I'm not working at full power"

Right, not arguing against that at all, but to go from “savage tribal culture literally created by an evil deity” to “we dont like them cause they’re ugly and they dont like it when we settle on their lands” is a MASSIVE jump from the norm that should be very clearly communicated as part of the campaign setting.

[Prime32]

If you wanted something in-between, you could go with "Orcs absorb the power of things through exposure to their blood, they start out non-sapient until they kill a sapient creature and bathe in its blood".

Think about the consequences of this, and how it would impact their perspective

Traditionally, elderly orcs give up their lives to pass down their wisdom to the new generation; this is considered a great honour and cause for celebration. However, from the outside it looks horrifying.
There's only so many elders to go around, so not all the children get to be elder-blooded; orcs of lesser status need to kill humans for this. Not very pleasant for humans.
Orcs prefer absorbing the blood of humans they respect, since it offers them a form of immortality. This can make them come across like psychopaths.
Since everyone needs to kill, their society probably has less association between violence and masculinity; likewise protecting the mother of your children becomes less important when you can also become a parent of sorts through blooding. So they will likely send more women to the battlefield than humans, i.e. "the cruel orc men are sending their women to die".
Becoming "blood brothers" is an incredibly big deal which amounts to trading parts of your soul. Meaning that orc weddings probably look like duels. Such a violent, savage race...
Combine a few of the above and orcs probably look like rapists as well.
"We tried raising an orc as a human and it just kept trying to kill us with a starving look in its eyes, this proves they're all monsters"
The humans most likely to reach out to orcs are the ones who believe killing is never justified. But to orcs, killing is a fundamental right and depriving them of it is effectively lobotomising them.

It's unlikely that a sword crafted by humans would know anything about orc culture, get invited to their weddings, etc. An orc seizing the sword and arguing for its right to kill a human "to preserve their memory" would make an interesting conversation. At worst, if the sword allows orcs to kill humans but not vice versa then people might think that the reason the sword's power has faded is because it's been corrupted to evil.

[Vahnavoi]

That said, seems like this sword just needs detect evil at will. If you want to be cosmically unbiased, just detect their cosmic alignment, right?

That would be against the premise of a sword that makes its decision on who to cut via reasoning, instead of magic.

This said, AD&D alignment by 1st editition rules does not bypass philosophical discussion, it necessitates it. Simply put, if the sword has detect evil but other characters don't, the characters still have to understand the philosophy behind alignment system to make predictions on who the sword can hurt or why. Also, played straight and serious, 1st edition alignment is a cosmic horror story waiting to happen, because it disagrees with how many modern people think of morality. It also allows for six non-evil alignments, including two mutually incompatible views of good, so there's plenty of room for antagonists with moral reasons backing their actions. For example, by the book, a cabal of druids performing human sacrifice to secure a harvest or stave off natural disaster? True neutral. Not evil. A sword of evil's bane would not hurt the druids. Nor would it hurt various dragons or magical beasts who might have very good reasons to kill humans encroaching on their territory.

A lot depends on the starting position of player characters and whether they even know their own alignment. A lot of people forget this, but by original, 1st edition rules, player-chosen alignment is just a pledge, a statement of what kind of character a player will play. Actual alignment is trackes by a game master based on how the player actually plays their character, and a game master doesn't even have to directly tell a character's alignment to a player if a player does not use some in-game means, such as detect evil, to check it.

So, characters attacking orcs (or whatever else) because the characters find the orcs ugly and stupid and threatening, and using such excuses to argue the orcs are evil? Totally plausible. Even if the orcs (etc.) are genuinely evil, it does not follow the characters are therefore good; it's entirely possible the characters themselves are neutral or even evil because their intentions and methods for attacking do not stand up to scrutiny.

[Crake]

That would be against the premise of a sword that makes its decision on who to cut via reasoning, instead of magic.

While this seems interesting in theory, if the weapon purely works through reasoning, then it would almost never function, because it has no way to know the backstory of each enemy it is swung against, and all a demon would need to do to avoid being stung by it's wrath is just disguise itself. Even then, there are exceptions to the all demons are evil statement, how would the sword be able to reason that this demon is 100% undeniably evil within only a few moments of having met them?


This said, AD&D alignment by 1st editition rules does not bypass philosophical discussion, it necessitates it.

That's definitely true... out of character. The players and the DM can discuss for days about the moral implications of x and y, and how it might affect a creature's alignment in game, and ultimately, as the one running the campaign, the DM has final say on what the objective morality of their campaign setting is (though the players always have the right to vote with their feet if the DM's adjudication is egregiously off). This is not, however, a moral discussion that happens in game between sword and wielder in the midst of a battle for each and every enemy.


Simply put, if the sword has detect evil but other characters don't, the characters still have to understand the philosophy behind alignment system to make predictions on who the sword can hurt or why.

The characters don't, any more than the average person needs an understanding of quantum mechanics to accept that gravity works. But they could also themselves just cast said detect alignment spells.


Also, played straight and serious, 1st edition alignment is a cosmic horror story waiting to happen, because it disagrees with how many modern people think of morality. It also allows for six non-evil alignments, including two mutually incompatible views of good, so there's plenty of room for antagonists with moral reasons backing their actions.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Chaotic and lawful good aren't mutually incompatible, they work together all the time, because they both agree on the outcome, they just disagree on the path to getting there. And yes, it's totally possible to have distinctly non-evil antagonists, as long as their actions actually back that up. As soon as they start taking steps into the pragmatic "by any means necessary" or "for the greater good" stances, you're hitting a "road to hell is paved with good intentions" situation, where they might not realise it, but they've crossed the line into evil.


For example, by the book, a cabal of druids performing human sacrifice to secure a harvest or stave off natural disaster? True neutral. Not evil. A sword of evil's bane would not hurt the druids. Nor would it hurt various dragons or magical beasts who might have very good reasons to kill humans encroaching on their territory.

I mean, if it was a self-sacrifice, possibly, but an unwilling sacrifice? No way, you just 100% went into the pit of evil. Good and evil actions aren't like matter and antimatter that just cancel each other out. You may have performed all the good in the world, but the stain of evil remains. See above about the road to hell.


A lot depends on the starting position of player characters and whether they even know their own alignment. A lot of people forget this, but by original, 1st edition rules, player-chosen alignment is just a pledge, a statement of what kind of character a player will play. Actual alignment is trackes by a game master based on how the player actually plays their character, and a game master doesn't even have to directly tell a character's alignment to a player if a player does not use some in-game means, such as detect evil, to check it.

Yup, completely correct, another thing people forget is that alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is a reflection of your actions, it does not dictate them. "I'm good because I did X" as opposed to "I'm good, therefore I must do X".


So, characters attacking orcs (or whatever else) because the characters find the orcs ugly and stupid and threatening, and using such excuses to argue the orcs are evil? Totally plausible. Even if the orcs (etc.) are genuinely evil, it does not follow the characters are therefore good; it's entirely possible the characters themselves are neutral or even evil because their intentions and methods for attacking do not stand up to scrutiny.

Killing in and of itself is almost never a good act. At best it is neutral, so the alignment of the orcs is honestly largely irrelevant to the alignment of the act. What matters is the motivation and the circumstance. A disciple of Bhaal murdering orcs in their sleep to revel in the bloodshed is just as evil had their victim been an innocent family of four. Meanwhile, a paladin killing a marauding band of orcs to defend the lives of a village would not register their kills as evil anymore than if the band had been starving bandits who just needed food to survive the next winter, because it was in defense of the innocent, regardless of the circumstances of the agressor.

That being said, to circle this back to the topic of the sword and how it percieves evil, if this sword specifically does not function through magic, but instead rationalism, then it would basically only be useful as an executioner's weapon, as it essentially needs it's victim to stand trial and be convicted of having done heinous, irredeemable evil for it to decide to actually function. And in a world where angels can fall, and demons can rise above their nature, it would literally be incapable of making a judgement call without a full trial of an enemy's backstory.

Now, I guess you could do something like, each time the sword strikes an enemy, they need to save vs the sword being able to see the entirety of their history in a flash, and, if it deems them unworthy, it will unleash it's might upon them, that could work, but it seems more like the DM wants the players to have philosophical discussions to convince the sword to be useful, which to me sounds like a recipie for having the sword be stuffed into their bag of holding until they get to a place that's willing to buy this legendary, ancient relic for the incredible sum of money that it would surely be worth.

[Vahnavoi]

While this seems interesting in theory, if the weapon purely works through reasoning, then it would almost never function, because it has no way to know the backstory of each enemy it is swung against, and all a demon would need to do to avoid being stung by it's wrath is just disguise itself. Even then, there are exceptions to the all demons are evil statement, how would the sword be able to reason that this demon is 100% undeniably evil within only a few moments of having met them?

How? The answer is: the same as anybody else, through investigation and evidence. Things such as reasonable doubt, burden of proof, what counts as evidence, so on and so forth, are all also domain of philosophy. It is possible to build the whole moral conflict between the sword and the player characters on different standards of justice, and build gameplay on collecting and presenting information to the sword to invoke its power. It doesn't have to be an impossible task, anymore than it is in real life.


That's definitely true... out of character. The players and the DM can discuss for days about the moral implications of x and y, and how it might affect a creature's alignment in game, and ultimately, as the one running the campaign, the DM has final say on what the objective morality of their campaign setting is (though the players always have the right to vote with their feet if the DM's adjudication is egregiously off). This is not, however, a moral discussion that happens in game between sword and wielder in the midst of a battle for each and every enemy.

Nothing stops having the discussion in character between the sword and its wielder. It doesn't have to happen in the middle of the battle, and it doesn't have to happen with every enemy, because the player can talk to their sword between battles and doesn't have to use it in every situation.


The characters don't, any more than the average person needs an understanding of quantum mechanics to accept that gravity works. But they could also themselves just cast said detect alignment spells.

Your analogy is grossly off. You basically picked the one real case with severely mismatching world models, neglecting closer analogies, such as, for contrast, that the average person does need a working understanding of Newtonian mechanics to reliably predict and understand common gravity-based mechanisms, and that some such mechanisms are horribly unintuitive to people who lack such understanding. The characters being able to cast detection spells themselves does not change this, whether that is even an option depends on which classes and spells they opt to use. At best, characters using such spells can confirm that the sword's judgement aligns (heh) with sources outside itself, but this still doesn't allow characters (or players for that matter) to predict anything if they have no idea why the spells give the results they do. For a simple example, knowing that the sword and the detect evil spell both agree on an orc being evil does not in itself tell why that orc is evil or whether orcs that haven't had detect evil cast upon them are evil. Spells are also fallible, so there isn't a compulsion to agree with a spell, even for good-aligned characters!


I don't think that's necessarily the case. Chaotic and lawful good aren't mutually incompatible, they work together all the time, because they both agree on the outcome, they just disagree on the path to getting there. And yes, it's totally possible to have distinctly non-evil antagonists, as long as their actions actually back that up. As soon as they start taking steps into the pragmatic "by any means necessary" or "for the greater good" stances, you're hitting a "road to hell is paved with good intentions" situation, where they might not realise it, but they've crossed the line into evil.

Long-term compatibility between Law and Chaos is not plausible; the former stands for large organized groups and the latter for the individual, AKA collectivism versus individualism, or, to add the middle ground of neutral in there, eusocial versus social versus solitary. These all imply different outcomes when generalized, the ideal society for Lawful Good people is not the same as that for Chaotic Good or even Neutral Good people.

Also, since you mentioned, 1st Edition AD&D Lawful Good alignment, by the book, is greatest good for the greatest number of thinking good creatures, and least worst for everyone else - that is, following in tradition of classic utilitarianism. It is also explicitly non-pacifist, which why a Paladin, a champion of Lawful Good, can go about fighting Evil with lethal violence and do such things as legally execute repentant criminals. For a non-utilitarian modern player, this might cross all sorts of lines, but for purposes of the game, such a character is unfailingly good.


I mean, if it was a self-sacrifice, possibly, but an unwilling sacrifice? No way, you just 100% went into the pit of evil. Good and evil actions aren't like matter and antimatter that just cancel each other out. You may have performed all the good in the world, but the stain of evil remains. See above about the road to hell.

Druids performing human sacrifice for the given reasons is by-the-book example of druid activities, and druids are explicitly True Neutral. In the 1st edition framework, Good and Evil do balance out exactly in the way you say they don't. Of course druids are horrible people from the viewpoint of both Lawful Good and Chaotic Good characters, but that is a matter of their relative positions on the alignment chart. That is, Lawful Good and Chaotic Good characters don't believe in balance between Good and Evil (or between Law and Chaos, for that matter), which is a reason for them to argue against druids, but not a reason to consider them Evil in an absolute sense.

On other points, we are largely in agreement or they're already covered by the above.

[Reversefigure4]

That said, seems like this sword just needs detect evil at will. If you want to be cosmically unbiased, just detect their cosmic alignment, right?

Although if you want to work around this, most versions of Detect Evil have degrees of evil - light, normal, overwhelming, etc, which is some a combination of the Evil Targets levels and what type of thing they are. Undead and Demons are generally considered to have effectively more Evil levels, so Level 4 Demons are much More Evil than a Level 8 Cannibal Human. So even with Detect Evil, there's Evil and there's EVIL. (Indeed, 5e DnD merely detects Creatures of Certain Types, rather than their actual intent or morality).


Now, I guess you could do something like, each time the sword strikes an enemy, they need to save vs the sword being able to see the entirety of their history in a flash, and, if it deems them unworthy, it will unleash it's might upon them, that could work, but it seems more like the DM wants the players to have philosophical discussions to convince the sword to be useful, which to me sounds like a recipie for having the sword be stuffed into their bag of holding until they get to a place that's willing to buy this legendary, ancient relic for the incredible sum of money that it would surely be worth.

Yeah, I'm not sure there's enough of a game concept here. If the Sword of Instant Death only reliably kills demons, your average PC party probably stuffs in in a Bag of Holding and only pulls it out against demons, sticking with their +2 Mace against normal encounters. It's like giving a party in a normal campaign a +8 Ghostbane Holy Sword that can only be wielded against Ghosts. PCs will either sell it, because they don't encounter enough ghosts and they're better off trading it for more broadly useful weapons; or they might keep it on the meta-assumption the GM has some high-end Ghosts in mind (particularly if they're unable to sell it because the GM Says So), at which point into the Bag of Holding it goes, a vaguely interesting CR-breaking item that gets used occasionally.

On the other side of this equation, you have the Sword of Truth from Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth fantasy series, which works on perception of evil on the wielder's part, and functionally punishes the wielder with mental damage by making them see the possible good in the person they've killed. The more justified you can make your action to yourself as the wielder, the better you are. Slaying the Tyrant who drew a sword on you? You're fine (even if, in truth, the tyrant is actually a good king who you've been told lots of lies about, and has merely drawn his sword because you broke into his throne room like a madman). Trying to cut down a tree to impress a local farmgirl with your strength? You know damn well the tree is innocent, so it's going to hurt. It's an interesting concept, but even that falls away as the series goes on, because there's only so much story about the Sword That Doesn't Work, and I think you'd find the same with this hypothetical moral philosophy campaign.

[gbaji]

Yeah, I'm not sure there's enough of a game concept here. If the Sword of Instant Death only reliably kills demons, your average PC party probably stuffs in in a Bag of Holding and only pulls it out against demons, sticking with their +2 Mace against normal encounters. It's like giving a party in a normal campaign a +8 Ghostbane Holy Sword that can only be wielded against Ghosts. PCs will either sell it, because they don't encounter enough ghosts and they're better off trading it for more broadly useful weapons; or they might keep it on the meta-assumption the GM has some high-end Ghosts in mind (particularly if they're unable to sell it because the GM Says So), at which point into the Bag of Holding it goes, a vaguely interesting CR-breaking item that gets used occasionally.

Isn't that pretty much the norm in most games though? We have a common joke at my table about certain highly experienced characters carrying around a "golf bag" of weapons. You go on enough adventures, and you find a variety of different weapons, some of which may be more or less useful in different situations. The "super powerful against one specific type of enemy" type weapons maybe not super common here, but it does happen on occasion. I have one character who has a short sword that specifically only does damage to spirits (but does a lot). Another character has a blade that does literal magic damage. No strength bonus or normal damage enhancments work, but it does damage that simply ignores normal armor or parries (but can be blocked by spell defenses). When in a situation where those weapons are really useful, you'll use them. But when not, you still need a "normal" weapon. And "normal" for powerful characters can still include enchanted, with extra damage, bonuse to hit, etc.

Our game also makes some significant distinctions between different fighting conditions. So while rarish, it's not out of the realm of possiblity for a highly skilled warrior to have a two handed weapon for when wanting to maximize damage against highly armored opponents (or, you know, dragons), and a medium weapon and shield combo for most normal fights, and maybe another weapon for offhand if they want to dual wield, and a short blade for up close moments (or when you're in town and they wont allow you to walk around carrying large weapons and shields). And that's before we get into thrown weapons and missile weapons of various types.

It can all add up!

[Reversefigure4]

Isn't that pretty much the norm in most games though? We have a common joke at my table about certain highly experienced characters carrying around a "golf bag" of weapons.

I'm a great lover of the golf bag of weapons - I think it adds interesting tactical options - but it's not a good fit for campaigns set around This One Weapon.

The second flaw is that only one PC gets to wield the Ultimate Sword at a time, which can make the rest of the party feel a bit superfluous.

[Vahnavoi]

In practice it works out to some player character wielding the sword all the time. Don't think of the ornery sword as simple property, think of it as a Hot Potato that gets tossed around when it's not agreeing with whoever had it last.

Give the sword sufficient agency, and now it's more like a retainer than an inanimate object; try to stuff it in a bag of holding or otherwise get rid of it / not listen to it when it has a good reason to disobey (and it always has a good reason :smallamused:), and you'll quickly find your enemy wielding it against you!

[Ionathus]

If you're going to make the sword a focal point of the campaign (or at least a major factor in the ongoing demon-fighting), I agree that you need to find a way to keep it from grating on the players. Ultimately if every player at the table isn't interested in ethics debates, your campaign premise is in jeopardy of turning into a RP-slog for those players. A good determiner for this might be "has everyone at my table watched and enjoyed The Good Place?" :smallbiggrin:

It's not fun as a PC to have the NPCs constantly criticizing and passing outward judgment on your actions. Because the DM is voicing those characters, unless there's a very clear demarcation, it can quickly start to sound like the DM themselves criticizing your approach to playing the game. So my advice for roleplaying the sword is for it to be confident and helpful, never too aggressive towards the players unless they go FULL murderhobo. I would have it voice enthusiastic agreement to killing demons et al., but then have it be uncertain rather than immediately judgmental whenever the PCs go for less-evil targets. "Guys, I don't know about this one" is going to open up a lot more roleplaying opportunities than "how dare you kill the wrong thing (in my opinion)?!? You are all filth and do not deserve my perfect ethical judgment!!" The debate over what's ethical and isn't sounds like a core feature of this campaign, so do your best to encourage, not shut down, those conversations.

Mechanically, I think you should have a stronger penalty for obviously non-evil targets. I don't know about 3.5e D&D but 5e's sentient magic items can come into "conflict" with their owners if the owner takes an action that's against the item's core purpose. This can result in the wielder having to make saving throws to avoid negative effects. For a sword that's so purely ethical, I don't think it would just play the neutrality card if it felt you were using it to commit a moral crime -- it would actively resist you. I might break it down as follows:

Beings of Pure Evil (Demons, devils, etc) - The most powerful bonuses available in the system you're playing - Sword vocally supports your actions and shouts excited battle cries
Visibly evil mortal foes (slavers, murderers, sadistic torturers, etc) - Significant bonuses - Sword vocally calls for them to "Repent!" and acknowledges their mortal essence, is willing to kill them but tries to convince you to spare any vanquished foes
Regular evildoers (muggers, bandits, etc) - minor magical properties, defense-focused rather than offense-focused bonuses -- Sword tries to tell you to slow down and talk it out. Shouts threats/intimidation rather than battle cries
Neutral foes (enemy soldiers, unaligned monsters/beasts, elementals, etc) - no bonuses, functions as magical source of damage but nothing else - Sword complains that its talents are squandered here and is killing every obstacle REALLY the best approach?
Clearly non-evil creatures (civilians, Good clergy, noncombatants, etc) - Wielder experiences impairments, negative modifiers to attack, maybe even a Stun or Paralysis effect if the sword gets truly mad - Sword outwardly criticizes your actions, gets mad, tries to stop you


I don't see the same potential for full DMPC as others here do, because at the end of the day this thing is still a sword and its actions (beyond philosophical debate) are still subject to your PCs' choices. But I still think it'd be best to keep the focus on the PC's choices, and don't have the sword's decisions, desires, or personal "growth" be the focal point. NPCs should be there to act as foils for the PCs, and although sometimes a story arc can involve incidental NPC character growth that your players find rewarding, that should never be the starting point - it should only be the natural consequence of players getting invested in that NPC and choosing to interact with them frequently.


A kant- ana ?

:smallsigh: Beautiful

[Satinavian]

How? The answer is: the same as anybody else, through investigation and evidence. Things such as reasonable doubt, burden of proof, what counts as evidence, so on and so forth, are all also domain of philosophy. It is possible to build the whole moral conflict between the sword and the player characters on different standards of justice, and build gameplay on collecting and presenting information to the sword to invoke its power. It doesn't have to be an impossible task, anymore than it is in real life.You simply don't have time and ability to do that for all the nameless henchmen you fight when you storm the enemies' castle. You don't even know their name or where they come from and they are not peacefully talking to you.

So it simply won't happen. That kind of effort might be done for the campaign villain, but certainly not for the many many other enemies one fights over a D&D campaign. If that is the requirement to use the sword properly, you will see it in at most one fight per campaign while people resort to regular weapons at all other times.


The PCs generally have reasons to fight the people they are fighting. And those reasons don't change based on how evil the sword thinks the enemies are. So the sword preferrence is not actually changing what fights happen, it is only changing whether it is used in a fight or not. And the more difficult it is to get the sword to agree that your enemies are evil and should be killed, the less it gets used.


Canonically, people dont think orcs are evil “because theyre ugly, and dont like us settling on their lands”, that is such a sheltered noble’s take, its because they have a savage culture built upon the worship of their EVIL god gruumsh, who believes in the subjugation and domination of all other races under the foot of orc-kind.There is very little standard. Eberron is as much an official D&D setting as FR. And that is without going into the weirdness that orcs are in the imported MTG settings like Strixhaven. All of that is official and before a table applies their own interpretation.



Now, I guess you could do something like, each time the sword strikes an enemy, they need to save vs the sword being able to see the entirety of their history in a flash, and, if it deems them unworthy, it will unleash it's might upon them, that could work, but it seems more like the DM wants the players to have philosophical discussions to convince the sword to be useful, which to me sounds like a recipie for having the sword be stuffed into their bag of holding until they get to a place that's willing to buy this legendary, ancient relic for the incredible sum of money that it would surely be worth.Or they could just lie to the sword if it doesn't have supernatural powers to actually find out who is evil or has done something. Far easier than collecting evidence or convince it that its idea of evil is wrong.

[Vahnavoi]

You simply don't have time and ability to do that for all the nameless henchmen you fight when you storm the enemies' castle. You don't even know their name or where they come from and they are not peacefully talking to you.

So either:

1) don't use the sword for that specific situation

OR

2) present this argument to the sword and see if it flies. It probably won't, because it is a weak-ass argument that takes too much for granted about who the player characters need to fight and how much information they can gather from the people they must fight. But that's a separate problem.


So it simply won't happen. That kind of effort might be done for the campaign villain, but certainly not for the many many other enemies one fights over a D&D campaign. If that is the requirement to use the sword properly, you will see it in at most one fight per campaign while people resort to regular weapons at all other times.

If the contrast between using the magic sword when it works is great enough compared to any old weapon, the incentive to do the legwork even for minor adversaries builds itself. And then there's the fact that a campaign can, as a matter of its design, deliberately focus on major enemies with lots of detail, instead of hordes of faceless, nameless mooks. Yes, even in D&D. Stop presuming so much about who the charactera have to fight.


The PCs generally have reasons to fight the people they are fighting. And those reasons don't change based on how evil the sword thinks the enemies are. So the sword preferrence is not actually changing what fights happen, it is only changing whether it is used in a fight or not. And the more difficult it is to get the sword to agree that your enemies are evil and should be killed, the less it gets used.

This is just wrong. The general format of the argument you're trying to make is that the player characters generally have reasons to fight independent of what other characters think. That just doesn't have to be true. It's perfectly plausible for the sword's arguments to have influence of whether players, and hence their characters, even choose to fight in the first place. Because it is a character and as such is capable of both offering new information and casting old information in new light, depending which arguments it makes. This very much includes questioning whether the player characters actually have solid reasons to fight those they've cast as their enemies, because no such reasons needs to be presumed to exist before-the-fact of actual game events.

[Satinavian]

1) don't use the sword for that specific situationIt is nearly all the situation. No matter whether henchmen, bandits, wild animals, strange monsters, foreign soldiers ... you basically never have the time or ability to research each particular individuals past, especially when most fights are against groups and half of them get the jump on the PCs.


If the contrast between using the magic sword when it works is great enough compared to any old weapon, the incentive to do the legwork even for minor adversaries builds itself. And then there's the fact that a campaign can, as a matter of its design, deliberately focus on major enemies with lots of detail, instead of hordes of faceless, nameless mooks. Yes, even in D&D. Stop presuming so much about who the charactera have to fight.Yes, you could build a whole camapign about only potential adversaries that are to be researched to get evidence to convince the sword to fight against them or discover there are not worthy targets and not fight against them. Of course it would be an extremely railroady campaign.


This is just wrong. The general format of the argument you're trying to make is that the player characters generally have reasons to fight independent of what other characters think. That just doesn't have to be true.When was the last time your players fought without a good reason ? I can't remember an occasion.



It's perfectly plausible for the sword's arguments to have influence of whether players, and hence their characters, even choose to fight in the first place. Because it is a character and as such is capable of both offering new information and casting old information in new light, depending which arguments it makes. This very much includes questioning whether the player characters actually have solid reasons to fight those they've cast as their enemies, because no such reasons needs to be presumed to exist before-the-fact of actual game events.It can't really offer new information. It doesn't have mystical information gathering abilities. It is mostly restricted to the stuff its owners or people around it talk about. It can only have a different opinion about it.

It can give its opinion about the morality of an action, but... why would the PCs care ? They are (in nearly every case) not fighting "for good" or "against evil". They are fighting for individual reasons like "for king/country/family/liege" or "for loot/power (to give some evil example) " or "for revenge" or "to defend". An NPC, whether sword or not won't move them unless they are already unsure/reluctant.

[Crake]

There is very little standard. Eberron is as much an official D&D setting as FR. And that is without going into the weirdness that orcs are in the imported MTG settings like Strixhaven. All of that is official and before a table applies their own interpretation.

I mean, what I posted IS the standard. Just because there are official deviations, doesnt make them any less then that, deviations. And theres nothing WRONG with deviating… as long as your players are aware of it. Most players will go in under the assumption that orcs are evil by default, not because of some bias, but because that is what the lore standard has been since tolkein. If you deviate from that, dont inform the players, then punish them for their moral judgements based on their expectation of the standard orcish lore, then it will just come across as a rug pull.

[icefractal]

I mean, what I posted IS the standard. Just because there are official deviations, doesnt make them any less then that, deviations. What makes that the standard and the others deviations? I don't really buy that a given setting is "more canonical" just by being published earlier.


As for "this wouldn't fit typical PC behavior in most campaigns" - well yeah, that's why this is marked as a "campaign concept". Same thing as "detailed trade rules are pointless" ... but not if you're running a campaign about operating a caravan.

[Satinavian]

Honestly, i don't even agree with the part about what typical player expectations are or how that would be an unusual campaign.

[Crake]

well yeah, that's why this is marked as a "campaign concept"

Actually, it was marked as the twist, and twists aren't always telegraphed, and especially the way it was presented, it definitely felt like it was meant to be a bit of a gotcha twist.


What makes that the standard and the others deviations? I don't really buy that a given setting is "more canonical" just by being published earlier.

Buy it or not, earlier works have been around longer and thus been consumed by more people, and thus set more expectations. And really, Eberron is the ONLY exception in official settings as far as I'm aware. MTG isn't a published dnd setting, so its difficult to count that.

[Satinavian]

Actually, it was marked as the twist, and twists aren't always telegraphed, and especially the way it was presented, it definitely felt like it was meant to be a bit of a gotcha twist.I agree with your opinion about twists and gotchas. However i don't think expectations about orcs are strong enough to even allow for a twist in the first place.


Buy it or not, earlier works have been around longer and thus been consumed by more people, and thus set more expectations. And really, Eberron is the ONLY exception in official settings as far as I'm aware. MTG isn't a published dnd setting, so its difficult to count that.Since MTG settings got published D&D setting books like Guildmaster's guide to Ravnica, Strixhaven: Curriculum of Chaos or Mythic Oddysseys of Theros, they are official D&D settings.

But if we are talking about general expectations, not only is Eberron itself already nearly two decades old and was used for the first and longest running D&D MMO, general fantasy expectations of Orcs draw from many many non-D&D sources as well.

[Beelzebub1111]

Buy it or not, earlier works have been around longer and thus been consumed by more people, and thus set more expectations. And really, Eberron is the ONLY exception in official settings as far as I'm aware. MTG isn't a published dnd setting, so its difficult to count that.

"Evil Because they're ugly" is a gross reduction of anything. Show me the module or source that says that. I argue that it has never been that way, ever. I have yet to see a single source that shows it to have ever been.

Orcs in adventures are typically a violent invading force and the primary aggressors. The orcs of the Pomarj are invading the Principality of Ulek because they want access to the fertile ground in the disputed zone, so they try to take it with violence. That's why they are the players are hired to combat them. That's not a hypothetical or recent example (Despite the similarity to current geopolitics). That's world of greyhawk lore. The OG stuff.

The prototypical orcs (Middle Earth) are elves that were literally corrupted to be violent and evil by a deity that is analogous to Satan. They are not evil because ugly, but ugly because evil.

[SimonMoon6]

This thread reminds me of an idea I once had for a magical sword. It is similar only in that it discourages people from killing all the time. But my sword isn't sentient. Instead, if you kill a living being with this Very Powerful sword, you are then forced to (in a single second) experience the victim's entire life. You took this person's life and now you have to see who exactly it is that you've killed. You experience all their highs and lows. You see all of their (now unfulfilled) hopes and dreams. You get to see them as a person, not just an obstacle. You see their life with their family and their friends. And you see what a tragedy it is that this life is now over.

And, so, you have to make sort of will save or something to not be totally overcome mentally, with modifiers based on the sort of life the person lived.

[KorvinStarmast]

This thread reminds me of an idea I once had for a magical sword. It is similar only in that it discourages people from killing all the time. But my sword isn't sentient. Instead, if you kill a living being with this Very Powerful sword, you are then forced to (in a single second) experience the victim's entire life. You took this person's life and now you have to see who exactly it is that you've killed. You experience all their highs and lows. You see all of their (now unfulfilled) hopes and dreams. You get to see them as a person, not just an obstacle. You see their life with their family and their friends. And you see what a tragedy it is that this life is now over.

And, so, you have to make sort of will save or something to not be totally overcome mentally, with modifiers based on the sort of life the person lived. Right. A cursed sword.

[Ionathus]

This sword was forged in the fires of the SunHeart, and tempered by the chill at the heart of the Eternal Snow.

And then Randall Munroe wrote a mod for an evil wizard laid a curse upon it. (https://xkcd.com/873/)

[Vahnavoi]

It is nearly all the situation. No matter whether henchmen, bandits, wild animals, strange monsters, foreign soldiers ... you basically never have the time or ability to research each particular individuals past, especially when most fights are against groups and half of them get the jump on the PCs.

Simply doesn't have to be true, so why are you presuming it is?


Yes, you could build a whole camapign about only potential adversaries that are to be researched to get evidence to convince the sword to fight against them or discover there are not worthy targets and not fight against them. Of course it would be an extremely railroady campaign.

False. The simplest way to make it non-"railroady" is to present more than one possible opponent and have players pick a side - boom, now there's a tangible choice and clear breakpoint where player decision to listen to the sword makes a difference. Sounds like you've tried this never.


When was the last time your players fought without a good reason ? I can't remember an occasion.

Every D&D-like game I've run has had a mix of both good and bad reasons to fight, and mix of good and bad reasons to NOT fight, since nearly all combat encounters in my games optional. I'm a convention game master, so I have a pretty big pool of observations to draw from, and ability to control for game scenario since I usually run the same scenario more than once.

Bad reasons to fight include:

- meta-level expectation that a fight has to happen when it doesn't
- expectation of easy victory when clearly outmatched
- "I worship chaos LOL"
- drunken grudge matches
- not realizing a non-violent solution is available
- just generally not thinking of consequences before acting, you know, the reason why ill-thought fights happen in real life

Bad reason to NOT fight include:

- the clearly aggressive monster trying to eat you is misunderstood and really just wants to be hugged
- inability to realize that if a monster doesn't go down in one attack, you can attack it AGAIN
- meta-level expectation that a fight can't happen when it can
- analysis paralysis; thinking too much of largely imaginary consequences that have no basis for being realized


It can't really offer new information. It doesn't have mystical information gathering abilities. It is mostly restricted to the stuff its owners or people around it talk about. It can only have a different opinion about it.

It can give its opinion about the morality of an action, but... why would the PCs care ? They are (in nearly every case) not fighting "for good" or "against evil". They are fighting for individual reasons like "for king/country/family/liege" or "for loot/power (to give some evil example) " or "for revenge" or "to defend". An NPC, whether sword or not won't move them unless they are already unsure/reluctant

It doesn't have mystic information gathering abilities on morality. Others are still on the table. And it can still make and present deductions of available information that are either more valid than those of the player characters or ones the player characters simply misses.

So the sword CAN, per above examples, point out that the player characters DON'T have to fight an opponent they have selected, that they CAN fight another opponent that they have ignored, that they AREN'T fated or equipped to win against a particular foe, that they REALLY SHOULDN'T commit to a fight when drunk out of their wits (and maybe not get so drunk to begin with), that their chosen mode of behaviour is self-destructive, so on and so forth. All of these can tie to both the motives you listed AND morality, since those aren't some completely separate concerns; each case I listed and every motive you listed have a moral component to them under any consequentialist moral system, for example.

So, the reason for players and their characters to care can be self-evident from the argumeny made, in the circumstance it is made, and you are simply presuming before the fact that this doesn't happen. Your remark about players having to already be uncertain underlines this: player certainty is neither binary nor constant, you have before-the-fact dismissed the very common event of a player's certainty being shaken by something another player says. That is the mechanic through which all of this works.

[Satinavian]

Simply doesn't have to be true, so why are you presuming it is?Experience.



Bad reasons to fight include:

- meta-level expectation that a fight has to happen when it doesn't -> theoretically possible. Can't remember the last time that happened. Also easy to fix by an OG comment, don't need an NPC for metadiscussions
- expectation of easy victory when clearly outmatched -> Happens. But is not a reason to fight. PCs generally don't attack something solelly because it looks weak.
- "I worship chaos LOL" -> Can't remember such an event.
- drunken grudge matches -> I don't think i have ever seen that in hundreds of sessions.
- not realizing a non-violent solution is available -> Sure, that is something that could happen and where an NPC could give a hint. Still pretty rare.
- just generally not thinking of consequences before acting, you know, the reason why ill-thought fights happen in real life -> Rare but not unheard of. But for such cases there is no time to consult NPCs anyway.

Comments in green.


It doesn't have mystic information gathering abilities on morality. Others are still on the table.Which others ? It can't exactly walk away and gather information. It is always around its bearer, if it is not in storage and everything it hears and sees does the bearer as well.

But it it were to have some abilities to gather information, a group would likely happily use that information but still make their own decisions. That is not an ability that would make the sword a moral authority for the group.

And it can still make and present deductions of available information that are either more valid than those of the player characters or ones the player characters simply misses.Sure, you could do that. But then you have an NPC accompaning the group and telling the players how to interpret the events of the adventure. That is very much not a good idea. And the idea that you needan NPC to warn the group everytime they are about to do something stupid soes not speak of a lot of respect towards players.

[icefractal]

I don't see how this is any worse or more railroady than any other "useful but not always aligned with the party's desires" NPC.

I mean, I've seen lots of those in games. For example:
* An assassin who was extremely skilled but would only work for pay and not against anything extraplanar.
* A wizard who could read all languages and cyphers, and figure out almost any magical device, but would teleport away at any sign of real danger.
* A group of knights who'd assist the party for free, but only against foes which were plausibly threats to the kingdom they served.

You get help from the NPCs when your goals are aligned, and don't when they aren't, simple as that. Same deal with the sword, it's not like it prevents them from using other weapons when they want to fight a morally-unknown opponent.

[Satinavian]

You get help from the NPCs when your goals are aligned, and don't when they aren't, simple as that. Same deal with the sword, it's not like it prevents them from using other weapons when they want to fight a morally-unknown opponent.Well, that is what most answers said the PCs would do and that this is not enough for a campaign.

But some people seem offended by the idea of leaving the sword behind/in storage occassionally or not listening to it. There also have been suggestions to make the sword so powerful (and presumably the enemies as well) that this is not really an option. Even that the sword should join the enemeies, when ignored (where the only-fights-evil suddenly doesn't seem to matter)

So we don't only have useful but not always aligned NPC. We have the NPC that is not aligned with the PCs goals, but needed per plot device to do the adventure, pressed by the GM to acccompany the group whether the players want or not and, if that was not bad enough, has a habit about soapboxing and bringing the DMs philosophical rantings into the group.

Do you think that sounds fun ? And not for a one shot, as a whole campaign concept.

[gbaji]

Bad reason to NOT fight include:

- the clearly aggressive monster trying to eat you is misunderstood and really just wants to be hugged
- inability to realize that if a monster doesn't go down in one attack, you can attack it AGAIN
- meta-level expectation that a fight can't happen when it can
- analysis paralysis; thinking too much of largely imaginary consequences that have no basis for being realized

Missed one (from a tourney perspective):

- mistaken belief that character survival relates to "winning" and/or "going to the next round".

This is less about encounter decision situations (cause if the PCs can figure out a way to win while minimizing combat, that's not a bad thing), but does occasionally result in folks trying to avoid encounters they actually do have to fight (which, again, is not a bad impulse, but if you've been told that the key to the vault you need to get into is located in the "demon's heart" or whatever, that's probably not actually a metaphor. Well... unless it is!). No. I've usually seen this on the individual character basis where they'll hang back in combat to increase their odds of survival, while letting others die. Which... yeah. Doesn't at all increase their odds of advancement (character background and personality/goals dependent, of course!).


Well, that is what most answers said the PCs would do and that this is not enough for a campaign.

But some people seem offended by the idea of leaving the sword behind/in storage occassionally or not listening to it. There also have been suggestions to make the sword so powerful (and presumably the enemies as well) that this is not really an option. Even that the sword should join the enemeies, when ignored (where the only-fights-evil suddenly doesn't seem to matter)

So we don't only have useful but not always aligned NPC. We have the NPC that is not aligned with the PCs goals, but needed per plot device to do the adventure, pressed by the GM to acccompany the group whether the players want or not and, if that was not bad enough, has a habit about soapboxing and bringing the DMs philosophical rantings into the group.

Do you think that sounds fun ? And not for a one shot, as a whole campaign concept.

Yeah. If actually run that way, it's going to basically be a GM railroad tool. Which is probalby not a great idea.

As a GM, you have to ask yourself this question: Are you implementing this to act as a bonus to the PCs when they find themselves fighting specific types of bad guys, or are you implementing this as a means to "encourage" the PCs to fight specific types of bad guys?

If your vision for this is that it will act as a guide for the characters to follow, rewarding them when they follow it, but punishing them when the don't, then you might be just installing rails in your campaign.