Dissapointing Reaction to end of Campaign

[Talakeal]

I was hoping someone could shed some light on the actions of some of my players.

On Sunday I just concluded a campaign which I have been running for over six years now.

The campaign takes place in a post apocalyptic world, and over the course of the campaign the party paladin discovered that she was descended from the royal family of the empire that ruled the world before the apocalypse, and took it upon herself to defeat the evil warlords that currently ruled the world and restore the old empire.

The last portion of the campaign was an epic level adventure in which the player's became involved in the affairs of the immortals, killing several gods and each player taking on the powers of the gods they slew. At the climax of the campaign each of the other PCs chose to give up their powers and return them to the gods.

The paladin, however, chose to keep her powers as it was the only way for her to resurrect her lover that had been slain years before. She then continued her crusade, now with godly abilities.

In the epilogue I said that she was able to drive evil from the land and reestablish her empire as a utopia free of disease and poverty. To which the other player's reacted extremely violently.

They claimed that the paladin was now a tyrant and had removed free will from the world. When I asked how they said that power corrupts, and that a monarch is innately evil. People would never obey a monarch willingly, no matter how good, charismatic, and wise they are. Several of the player's said they refused to live in a world without evil, and without evil there can be no good, and therefore no free will.

I tried telling them this was nonsense, but they refused to listen. Two of the players said the world was now so horrible (at the start of the campaign it was literally a wasteland ruled by demon worshippers and genocidal warlords) that they refused to live in it. They said they wanted to attack and kill the party paladin. I told them that not only was it not feasible while the paladin had godly powers and they didn't, but it was extremely out of character as they were long time friends and allies where both of good alignment.

Their response was to kill themselves.

I am blown away by this. I can see disagreeing with the paladin philosophically, but to actually be so opposed to living in a LG utopia that they would rather die? They couldn't give any other explanation other than
"I have no free will" and the above mentioned clichés about power corrupting and there being no good without evil, and as far as a can tell they are just jealous that one of the other characters kept divine power while they didn't and are acting out in a childish manner as a response.

I am hoping this is not the case, as I am extremely offended and hurt by this, as after running the same characters in the same campaign for over six years and almost 200 adventures they have no more attachment to the world or their characters, and to just kill themselves for no good reason.

So anyone got any ideas on why they might feel this way or what I can do to correct the situation? I told everyone (including the paladin) that they could change their mind and I would change the epilogue if it would make them happier, but so far no one will budge.

Thanks for reading and any input you may have. I tried to keep the summary of the game and the player's brief, but I will answer any questions anyone may have.

[Crow]

WOW.

There has to be some part of this story we're missing, because...wow.

[Tvtyrant]

: (

I can't express how weird of a read that was... Instead of planar traveling somewhere else or asking for pieces of land to make their own nations in based on what they want, they committed suicide? Weird...

[Sir_Chivalry]

Well, the paladin is indeed a dictator, for power lies solely with her. Whether the society is a utopia is also subject to her omniscience tempered by her altruism.

Were these character's less than savoury types? Warlocks or rogues or demons who might suffer under the pally's regime?

I think they jumped the gun. They are right that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but to kill themselves immediately is rather hasty. The paladin might fall to decadence and evil, but is not assured to.

[DeltaEmil]

Forget it. These players already ruined the epilogue, and nothing will ever wash away the bad feeling from that prior evening.

Sometimes, it just happens, and we are absolutely powerless to change this...

[rubycona]

Agreed.

I'm not thinking that you're holding stuff back from us... I'm thinking you yourself are missing something, hence don't know to include it.

They're upset about something, for sure, but what, exactly, I don't know.

My guess?

They wanted the world to become the "balanced" world of peace... some danger, some good, some evil, people can "choose" to do evil things, and so crime is an issue that must be addressed, though it's being addressed well... and it feels like a "happily ever after" ending to a "real" world. Makes them feel like you've cheapened the world, a world they've invested so much of themselves into, by making it into some cliche fairy tale.

They want it to make sense, to be the "real" world they've been living in, in their own way, for so many years, and to them, a happily ever after fairy tale just doesn't fit. Arbitrarily redesigning a custom-made "happily ever after" would be more upsetting. Since it doesn't fit, they want to Make it fit, by force, by declaring the pally evil, and make the world fit their own paradigm.

That's my guess. Hope it helps.

[snoopy13a]

If they don't have free will then they can't decide to kill themselves

Honestly, it sounds like one player got an extreme Disney-esque ending by taking "happily ever after" to the next level while the other players got "meh". Maybe they didn't want to be "gods" because they wanted the campaign to continue and it suddenly ended on an odd note?

[Ragitsu]

{Scrubbed}

[Crow]

I think it's a combination of rubycona and snoopy13a's reasons.

Could it be, OP?

[Yahzi]

Several of the player's said they refused to live in a world without evil,

Simple solution: inform them that their characters have been kidnapped by orcs and are now helpless slaves who are constantly tortured and abused. They are particularly abused, since the orcs can't have any other slaves because everyone else is protected from evil.

It's cool, though, because at least they can keep on living.

It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves;

[Zeofar]

Really though, the ending seems to be a fairly logical conclusion of the existence of a living, present god who cleared the land from suffering and oppression. To suggest that anyone and everyone in the world would flatly refuse to follow this person is so incredibly cynical that I can't really see any strong arguments for it without modifying it pretty significantly.

How about this: tell them that you're changing the epilogue and there's nothing they can do about it now. The Utopia IS indeed established, and most every citizen is a loyal follower. The once great friends of the ruler-god, however, begin sowing seeds of revolution and decide to destroy the unjust rule established by the paladin. Like in their other battles against gods, they succeed, and the nation falls into chaos, power being constantly shifted between several different fractious states that rise and fall with the wind. Fast forward a century, and give the players the exact same description you gave to them when you introduced them to the campaign, but include one more bad deed, one more element of barbarity, savagery, and cruelty, just so they all know that their actions made the world just that teensy bit worse. Fin.

Oooor, if they don't like either, tell them that they can discuss this like grown-ups and figure out what the ideal ending is, considering that such close allies will likely make some impact on the inevitable rule established by the paladin. Maybe he creates a round-table type situation, where worthy men of all alignments (including the other players) advise him and play a role in the rule. Life is not always perfect, but no single view may eclipse all others.

[Cespenar]

Heh. It may be that the group have watched one too many movies and may have automatically associated the word "utopia" with the side dish of tyranny that it doesn't actually need to be associated with.

Also, did you tell them that a LG utopia wouldn't really remove free will? A LE one would probably have, but it's Lawful Good, people. Good means you value other people as not to completely erase their free will, etc.

[Gabe the Bard]

In this case, I don't know if there is much you can do to get your players to change their minds, since the campaign has ended and they won't be returning to this world again (unless you make it the setting for a future campaign).

I also don't think it's a bad thing to have opposing views about the story and the campaign world, as long as you can come to a compromise. In this case, if the two players who killed their characters are hard set on their decisions, maybe you can incorporate their actions into the story when you create the epilogue.

Perhaps the divine essence that they returned to the gods became corrupted by their actions, reviving the spirits of poverty and disease that were wiped from the world. Maybe that is the kind of world some of your players are looking for.

To have their actions make a lasting impact on the world would be more fair than ignoring their actions completely, and make for a more realistic ending since they were epic-level characters who had touched divinity.

[DeltaEmil]

They were however being obnoxius and disruptive, and did almost literally take a dump on a happy ending story that others liked.

So no, it's really better to not talk about it anymore. Anything else will only aggravate the problem, and the feeling of the epilogue is already ruined forever.

[Gnaritas]

Sounds to me like things didn't go as they planned or hoped. They dropped their godly powers, but the palladin did not and now he got the ending he wanted and he got to keep his powers.
Their reaction was pretty childish.

Our last campaign in short:
An evil necromancer riding a dragon has threatened the world to an extend that he has practically won. The great mages of the world gather in a last effort, they send back a party in time to stop the necromancer before he gets as powerfull.
So, we aren't really sure but we think we are getting close to the end of the campaign, two of the party recently died and they both (seperately) decided to play a Necromancer/PaleMaster and a Necromancer-Cleric. When we get to the place we needed to go, it turns out to be a temple of some deity of Death, anyway, it is the deity of the Cleric and the Palemaster can kind of relate to their ideas too, which at that point weren't truely truely evil. Due to a series of events thereafter they kind of betrayed the party. The decease that was killing the arm of the palemaster (he would be able to get the bone-arm-thingy next level and was preparing for it in-game) was removed (together with his arm) by the cleric. The temple started to investigate the arm. At this point the DM ended the campaign, he tells us how the arm was the source of the evil that would over the years have it's influence on this temple. The cleric will become the necromancer that in 400 years will start to take over the world.
Sure, it wasn't what we expected, but still, we liked the ending ;)

[Aotrs Commander]

One has to ask the age and maturity of the dissenting players. Because that is despicably childish, frankly, and if my players did that, they'd be out of the group so fast, their dust wouldn't even have time to finish falling.

[Ormur]

Sure the fairy tale ending you provided is unrealistic but you didn't describe it in a way that suggests it's out of bounds for an idealistic fantasy world.

The reaction of the players as you portray them suggests they themselves have some rather unrealistic preconceptions about the world. You can argue that monarchy is innately evil but only because humans are fallible creature and historically many people have considered even monarchies headed by mere humans as the best form of government. They also seem to have some preconceptions about how this utopia is run, maybe a more thorough descriptions would show that it's not terrorized by mindraping paladins.

Perhaps they wanted an imperfect and democratic world, or maybe they didn't want to block the possibility of further adventuring.

[BobVosh]

Sure the fairy tale ending you provided is unrealistic but you didn't describe it in a way that suggest it's out of bounds for an idealistic fantasy world.

Actually I question it being unrealistic for a epic level paladin-god after cleansing the pantheon of the evil deities. Should stay pretty good for quite a while. Especially since it is only one kingdom.

That said seems like the reactions are...lets go with a little, out of place.

[molten_dragon]

A couple observances here.

It sounds like it might be simple jealousy that's spurring this. The epilogue of the campaign essentially revolves around the paladin and the paladin only. He got to go on and found a perfect utopian kingdom while the other players simply fade away into the background. It may also be the fact that they all fought so hard to make things better (and it sounds like it was to little effect) then the paladin did it all by himself in the epilogue.

However, perhaps you can salvage something out of this. If they're so sure that the paladin will become a corrupt dictator, have it happen. Maybe in a century or two, the paladin actually has grown corrupt with his power and the country has become a brutal dictatorship. You then have the start of a new campaign, where the new PCs are members (or the founders) of a resistance against the now-fallen paladin.

[Psyx]

{Scrubbed}

[Gnaritas]

I can imagine their rage after reading/seeing LotR.

Those halflings risked their lives only to see Sauron replaced by evil Arachorn.

[Tyndmyr]

I tried telling them this was nonsense, but they refused to listen. Two of the players said the world was now so horrible (at the start of the campaign it was literally a wasteland ruled by demon worshippers and genocidal warlords) that they refused to live in it. They said they wanted to attack and kill the party paladin. I told them that not only was it not feasible while the paladin had godly powers and they didn't, but it was extremely out of character as they were long time friends and allies where both of good alignment.

Their response was to kill themselves.

I am blown away by this. I can see disagreeing with the paladin philosophically, but to actually be so opposed to living in a LG utopia that they would rather die? They couldn't give any other explanation other than
"I have no free will" and the above mentioned clichés about power corrupting and there being no good without evil, and as far as a can tell they are just jealous that one of the other characters kept divine power while they didn't and are acting out in a childish manner as a response.

You, and probably the paladin are focusing on the good/evil spectrum. Your players are focusing on law/chaos.

Is a lawful good society "better" than one in which exists freedom, but horrible evils? Dunno. Different people will give you different answers. It's a values question, not one with an objective answer. Therefore, none of your players are wrong, they merely seek different things.

For what it's worth, a completely lawful good society sounds incredibly boring and painful to actually live in. Sure, you'd be safe, and there'd be a lack of evil, but coming from the perspective of adventurers....almost certainly not that interesting of a place. Calling it bad is not much of a stretch.

[Yahzi]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

It's not that stupid.

Morality requires accountability; if you are not accountable to anyone, then you are not capable of being moral. So a supreme ruler/godlike being will inevitably fall into evil, simply because they don't have any feedback (i.e. accountability) to guide them.

On the other hand a Paladin by definition is accountable to someone else, so... ya. Kinda stupid.

Just not too stupid for words.

[Comet]

The idea itself is not bad, even if the players went about it in an immature way, apparently.

They wanted to save the world, but they were themselves adventurers, who have lived a life of wandering around the wasteland, killing and destroying evil in the name of a better world.

Now that the better world has finally come about, it turns out that the adventurers themselves have no place in it. They are marked by their past exploits, unable to escape the fact that they, themselves, represent everything that the people of this new world hate with a passion. They are killers, even if that killing was for a good purpose.

And as such they are seen as different, an uncomfortable reminder of darker times. The people of this utopia cannot accept them, nor would they want to be accepted. Their blood still yearns for excitement and danger, even if they cannot admit it.

After living like this for years and year, seeing the world turn to a paradise that they can never belong to, the adventurers just can't take it anymore. They gather together one evening, far out in the little untamed wildnerness there is left, and plunge their god-killing swords through their own stomachs. They already saved the world, so no regrets, but they have no reason to continue living in the world they have saved. They fulfilled their purpose.

It's a pretty classic bittersweet, heroic ending.
If the players are just immature jerks, though, the reason for their actions is probably because one player got to be a god while the others didn't. Some people are just like that, go figure.

[Aotrs Commander]

For what it's worth, a completely lawful good society sounds incredibly boring and painful to actually live in. Sure, you'd be safe, and there'd be a lack of evil, but coming from the perspective of adventurers....almost certainly not that interesting of a place. Calling it bad is not much of a stretch.

Really? A society that has minimal to no crime and is full of nice people would eb such a terrible thing, would it? I mean, come on, dude, you'd really even consider choosing something akin to THIS reality over a hopeful and peaceful future? I find that hard to believe. (Hck, even I'd prefer too live in a society like that and I'm Evil! 'Cos it'd be much less hassle to do my stuff, and I prefer to contrast with the rest of everything anyway...)

Yes, it's a terrible place to have an adventure (well, unless you consider it to be something like, I dunno Star Trek), but kind of the point, I gathered, was that that party's adventures were OVER. They were retired, done, finished, their story had concluded, it's done and dusted, the credits roll. They wouldn't be using the characters again anyway, so that's kind of a moot arguement.

Even if they were so cynical they can't imagine a happy ever after (and couldn't y'know, leave the Empire the paladin was ruling - the OP didn't say it was the whole world), to ruin it for everyone in a temper tantrum - especially after SIX YEARS was really, really, REALLY childish. If I was the OP, I'd be absolutely furious with them on a personal level, and they'd be damn lucky (assuming I, for some inexplicable reason, hadn't Maximised Disintegrated them out of hand) if I ever let them play with me again. Seriously. There's no call for that sort of behavior, in any sort of environment. EVER.

[Tyndmyr]

Really? A society that has minimal to no crime and is full of nice people would eb such a terrible thing, would it? I mean, come on, dude, you'd really even consider choosing something akin to THIS reality over a hopeful and peaceful future? I find that hard to believe. (Hck, even I'd prefer too live in a society like that and I'm Evil! 'Cos it'd be much less hassle to do my stuff, and I prefer to contrast with the rest of everything anyway...)

Yup. Personally, I'd leave such a place, then work to end it. The law/chaos alignment has always been one I consider to be primary. Safety without freedom is...pointless. Safety is great, but I view that as merely something you want so you can better enjoy your freedoms, not as an end goal in itself. And an extremely lawful good society directly controlled by a lawful good paladin monarch isn't really going to offer much in the way of freedom. I would consider that a horrible dystopia.

Not everyone would, sure. For a lot of people, it'd be great. But neither viewpoint is inherently wrong, because you arrive at them depending on what you value more.

Even if they were so cynical they can't imagine a happy ever after (and couldn't y'know, leave the Empire the paladin was ruling - the OP didn't say it was the whole world), to ruin it for everyone in a temper tantrum - especially after SIX YEARS was really, really, REALLY childish. If I was the OP, I'd be absolutely furious with them on a personal level, and they'd be damn lucky (assuming I, for some inexplicable reason, hadn't Maximised Disintegrated them out of hand) if I ever let them play with me again. Seriously. There's no call for that sort of behavior, in any sort of environment. EVER.

Seriously? If they honestly view it as a horrible outcome, why would they not be disappointed that after six years of play, everything suddenly changed to something that they really don't want, and have no way to alter? If death was the only way left to them to escape what they saw as a horrible fate, then it's a realistic path.

Personally, I think a chaotic good or neutral afterlife would probably be frigging awesome.

[BridgeCity]

It's not that stupid.

Morality requires accountability; if you are not accountable to anyone, then you are not capable of being moral. So a supreme ruler/godlike being will inevitably fall into evil, simply because they don't have any feedback (i.e. accountability) to guide them.

On the other hand a Paladin by definition is accountable to someone else, so... ya. Kinda stupid.

Just not too stupid for words.

I have to disagree here. Many people hold themselves accountable to themselves, with or without a higher power. I know I do. You are using way too much of an absolute by saying that anyone in top position will always turn evil. The world is way too grey to lump everyone into that catagory.

As for the OP, I'd seriously sit down with them and explain that you put a hell of a lot of effort into this campaign, you gave up your free time to provide them with entertainment, and you are extremely disappointed with their behaviour. It is disrespectful to you and all of your hard work. Tell them that if they had a problem they could have talked to you about it like adults, not bratty children.

[Tyndmyr]

I would suggest that calling them bratty children is not likely a good way to discuss why you found their behavior immature.

[Aotrs Commander]

Yup. Personally, I'd leave such a place, then work to end it. The law/chaos alignment has always been one I consider to be primary. Safety without freedom is...pointless. Safety is great, but I view that as merely something you want so you can better enjoy your freedoms, not as an end goal in itself. And an extremely lawful good society directly controlled by a lawful good paladin monarch isn't really going to offer much in the way of freedom. I would consider that a horrible dystopia.

You'd really, that is you, not your character, you, Tyndmyr, personally, prefer to live in a place where someone is much more likely to murder you, or your family/allies, where little old ladies get knocked down and mugged (which happened on my Nanny's road not two days ago), people get stabbed and shot in the street, than to live in one where this doesn't happen? Where it's safe to walk down the road at night, where children can go play in the street in safetly (well, barring traffic) and where no-one gets ill or goes hungry or poor (the latter of which is specifcally what the OP said about the paladin's utopia)? Honestly? And not only that, you'd actively work to bring about the destruction of such a society? Really really?

If so, why? What freedom is it do you think that you'd be denied that is worth not ending disease and poverty? I ask because I'm genuinely baffled. (And I remind you I'm Evil... I mean, if you're CE, I can sort of see your point and I thus apologise, but I hadn't really pegged you for the CE type...)



Anyway, with uncharacterstic total seriousness, the thing that got me most annoyed about what the OP said was that they were "I am extremely offended and hurt by this" which to me means that WHATEVER the player's line of thought and whatever thier socio-political views are or aren't, that is a TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE THING TO DO TO YOUR FRIENDS over a frackin' GAME. There is NO excuse for that kind of behavior, NONE AT ALL.

[Cerlis]

So a kingdom like our own except that those who commit wrongs are treated justly, intelligently, and likely with no corruption (Corruption being why so many people oppose government and police and law) since the god is probably omniecient? One where you live a happy life? Sounds horrible to me.

-The people saying their reaction was because of jealousy, and feeling like another player and the DM stole their Campaign and story and ending

-that wont stop me from saying they acted horribly immature and out of character

-Further, they are very blind to be stuck in their own views like that. Utopia literally means paradise, and the fact that they think its fake is because every single story in exsistence that has a paradise is fake (its powered by baby tears..or they wont let you leave...or something)

You didnt take away their free will. you took away the right for the citizens of the campaign to murder, steal and hurt one another without becoming badguys.

They watch to many movies.