Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Archangel 05-01-05, 12:10 PM	It's like this: Couple of my players are under Quest spell by the Evil temple (at that time they didn't have any choice because they needed 2 of their fellows to come back from the dead) to kill or run out of the city the priestess of a good religion and her church. It is a merchant city that is led by corrupted people. While they will not kill someone or order just like that for someone to be killed they will for enough money close one eye to the events as long as they happen in the shadow and out of the citizents sight. Corruption runs all the way to the Mayor. Slavery and brutal public executions are not a part of the city's business but the higher class can get away even with murder their influence is high enough (and their purses). But the town elects the new mayor every 6 years by a democratic vote (made this way by the founder of the city a long time ago) and the priestess is ranking very highly in the people's eyes. If she wins she will eradicate corruption and try to get rid of two criminal organizations that are pretty powerfull within the city. Now since players don't won't to kill the priestess and at the moment don't have any way to make her leave they are trying to fullfill their Quest by making her lose the election. But now one player asked me after I said I don't won't to be DM in evil campains (made of evil players doing evil things) how did I explain myself that this is not an evil thing. So my thinking by that moment was that if they don't kill her but somehow make her leave or make her lose the election and by that deal don't let the good people run the city they are doing a Neutral action. But my players thinks that is Evil not Neutral and I am not sure anymore about my resoning. So I could use some advice and would like some of your thoughts about all of this? Players are all neutral except for 1 CG elf.
OneSidedDice 05-01-05, 12:28 PM	I'd call it an evil action. Why do they need to seek spells to restore their dead companions from the evil temple? Is there no one else in the city capable of doing so? It seems like the priestess in question should be powerful enough to cast at least raise dead if she's that popular. Basically your PCs are putting their own desires (getting their companions raised) ahead of the desires of the priestess (staying in town and trying to remove corruption) as well as the needs of the town (having an actual honest elected official that will clean up the city). This should be especially abhorrent to your CG PC, since he's being shanghaied into essentially removing the free will of another thinking being. I think perhaps a reasonable thing to do would be to somehow encourage the PCs to bring the situation to the priestess. It seems likely they can work out some underhanded way to get their companions returned from the dead as well as aid the priestess. For example, it doesn't seem likely the caster of the Quest spell put a condition on how long the priestess must be driven away for; the PCs may be able to just ask her to leave while the evil temple raises their dead in exchange for assistance rendered to the priestess in the future.
Lxarth 05-01-05, 12:28 PM	Holy crap that is hard to read. If your players feel it is evil, then thats all you need to know...your players are not enjoying the fact that you are railroading them into doing evil things but saying that they are just neutral. You should sit back and think of another way for your players to do stuff within the city that they don't feel is evil.
MasterRookie 05-01-05, 01:09 PM	Its too late for that. Archangle needs a way to solve the problem not proof that it is a problem. I say go with the last suggestion encourage your PCs to find a loop hole.
Crossover-Chronicler 05-01-05, 01:25 PM	I'd call it evil: they are, at the bidding of an evil agency, directly opposing a good cause for no moral purpose ("I made a deal with the devil" is not a "good" motivation) in order to further tha power of that evil agency, and are actively working to protect a corrupt institution from reform. Were they to choose not to be involved, that would be neutral. Were they to oppose the priestess because they felt that her approach would do more harm than good, that would be good. Were they coerced into serving the evil priesthood, it would be neutral (the "good" act in such a case would probably be to resist 'til the end). From the wording of your post, I assume they consented to having the Quest cast on them. That being said, there could be ways to weasel out of this. For example, if they were to "run the priestess out of town," they'd have fulfilled the letter of their arrangement even if she were to return the next day. Do they have to threaten or coerce her to "run her out," or can they lure her away somehow? If so, there's always the trick of placing her in command of the entire region (technically, she's out of the city). Also, are they quested to ensure that she loses the election or that she doesn't win the election? In the latter case, they could just stop the election. They could create a scandal about ballot-stuffing, vote-buying or the like (or attempts at assassination of other candidates) and possibly halt the entire voting process for some time.
Bloodtide_the_Red 05-01-05, 01:34 PM	If you want to avoid having your PC's do Evil, you might not want to be a Evil DM. Having them go to the evil clerics and get a Quest to get rid of the good clerics, is just asking for trouble. If this type of complcated alignment stuyff brings problems, you might want to stick to the standard good vs. evil plots. Now, if the characters are True Neutral, they don't realy care if good or evil rules the city. They don't take sides. A neutral person is free to kill evil or good folks without alignment problems....unless they start to kill only one type. Now, to be True Neutral, they would realy want more of a balance. Half of the city good, half bad. So let them get rid of the good cleric. They can always bring in another one later to blance it out. As they work to keep the evil clerics from getting too much power. They could even kill her, hide the body, and get her raised later. Also, I hope you wrote down exactly what the caster of the Quest said...it's important. Did he say 'Get rid of her OR kill her'? That's two ways to end the quest. And it was 'her and her church'? If this chruch has more then, say ten members, this would count as an 'open ended impossible task'..so it would only last one day a level. you can't realy expect 3rd level characters to kill a cleric and her church that is more then twice thier level(granted We don't know the levels, by the players sound low level) Of course, they can always go to the good cleric and explain things and ask for a Remove curse(or such). BT
Shaken, not Stunned 05-01-05, 01:40 PM	Its too late for that. Archangle needs a way to solve the problem not proof that it is a problem. I say go with the last suggestion encourage your PCs to find a loop hole. I second that. For good guys in a corrupt political intrigue deal, nothing is more satisfying than screwing the bad-guy over at his own game.
Ut-Napishtim 05-01-05, 02:23 PM	Wow, your PC's must really like each other. I remember one game I was playing in where a player said: Well you guys could take me back and get me raised. So I said: Sure, how much money do you have? So he replied: About 450 gold. So I told him: Sorry man, I'd do it if you could pay for it, but I ain't spotting your CN butt 5,000 gp's. I was sitting on about 15k myself at the time, but I'd been saving most of my loot since the begining for my stronghold. I sure as heck wouldn't let someone cast Quest on me to bring back another character, especially at the lower levels. I'm guessing you're at the lower levels since by 5th you should be able to sell their gear and get enough to get a good church to raise them. Then the other two could spot them 500 gp for basic kit until they can do enough adventuring to get their equipment back up to snuff. If they're at the higher levels then they're just being cheap, I mean letting someone cast Quest on you is like giving them power of attorney or something - very stupid to do. Their best bet would be to find a high level Wizard to cast Remove Curse for them to free them from the evil Cleric's Quest. A 20th level one (if there is one in the city) would do it for 800 gp/each at NPC spellcasting prices. Then they're free to do whatever they want.
Archangel 05-01-05, 04:45 PM	Well I guess I didn't explain the situation enough. OK they were in Underdark trying to get out. To do that they allied themselves with the Shar's monastery so they could defeat the Evil Conjurer that was making trouble for the monastery and blocking their path to surface. So 2 of the player characters died during that task. Well since the main priestess of the monastery had no real reason to raise the dead players she decided they could accomplish the task for them in exchange. Since she was not stupid she decided to cast Quest on 2 live player's characters before raising their fellows and she didn't tell them the mission until the last minute of the casting. So they realy had no choice. Also they weren't sure they would get out of the monastery alive if they refused. So after the rasing Quest was also casted on the 2 now alive members of the group. Their mission was to go to the surface to that city and either kill the Selune priestess or make her permanently leave the city along with her temple. And in exchange they gave them some magic items and a guide to the surface. Players were lvl 8-9 then and are lvl 9-11 now. Well in the City they found a contact (also a player, a lvl 9 priest of Kelemvor) that is a member of a Thieves Guild that wants also to get rid of the priestess. They found out that the Priestess is an formidable opponent and decided not to go the violance way (and the CG elf doesn't want to do that anyway). They found out that the election is soon and that that is the real reason that the Shar's temple wanted to get rid of her. They decided to try to make her lose it becasue they see it as less evil thing to do.
Ut-Napishtim 05-01-05, 05:47 PM	Well since the main priestess of the monastery had no real reason to raise the dead players... Whoah, I'd have stopped her right there and said: These two died completing your first task, and now you want us to perform a second for you to bring them back? Forget that, lady! I'm through being you garbage boy. We can compensate you for the material components, but you owe us a reach-around and better deliver. Then if she still refused I'd attack her. Seriously, I can think of three good reasons: 1. They died performing her first task, 2. The players (should) have enough wealth to compensate her, and 3. They were railroaded into fighting the guy in the first place as he was blocking the only exit for whatever reason. Although I guess it's partly their fault for not having their own Cleric in the group, not every group always does. Yeah, right about now I'd be looking for a high-level Wizard looking to trade three seconds (1 standard action) of his time for 800 gp. :ahem:
Archangel 05-01-05, 06:04 PM	Whoah, I'd have stopped her right there and said: These two died completing your first task, and now you want us to perform a second for you to bring them back? Forget that, lady! I'm through being you garbage boy. We can compensate you for the material components, but you owe us a reach-around and better deliver. Then if she still refused I'd attack her. Seriously, I can think of three good reasons: 1. They died performing her first task, 2. The players (should) have enough wealth to compensate her, and 3. They were railroaded into fighting the guy in the first place as he was blocking the only exit for whatever reason. Although I guess it's partly their fault for not having their own Cleric in the group, not every group always does. Yeah, right about now I'd be looking for a high-level Wizard looking to trade three seconds (1 standard action) of his time for 800 gp. Because that wasn't a part of the deal. Since they went through some really rough times trying to get out of Underdark they got very protective of each other and were willing to do this kind of thing for each other. And wealth wasn't the thing that monastery needed and if they attacked they would have had a very low chance of survival and they knew that because they have seen the priestess and her monk brother in combat (and they were both Shades). And they knew they got used but anybody they met in Underdark did that to them (mostly Drow).
J.B. 05-01-05, 06:45 PM	Here's an idea; Why don't they quietly approach this formidable priestess of Selune (possibly a very high level Cleric) and make her an offer/ultimatum: Obviously the odds of you winning this election are already stacked against you. With most of the city officials and us working against you as well as the (insert monastery name here) backing us, you are certain to lose. However, we disdain this monestary and our forced servitude to them. Help us to remove this curse (Quest), and our services are your's, don't help us, and this election is lost to you. How, does this sound.
celtredleg 05-01-05, 09:17 PM	In answer to the OQ, yes you are making them do an evil thing. Good story, but still evil.
Mirikon 05-01-05, 09:41 PM	Yeah, it is evil what you're making them do. That said, your players should try and twist their way out of this situation. Unless I'm mistaken, the players are under no obligation to not be nice to the good cleric, right? So they could go and explain their situation to the cleric, and then ask her to join them in a footrace out of the city to get rid of the Quest obligation. The actual wording of the Quest would be helpful.
Aurotuli 05-02-05, 12:25 AM	From what you wrote there doesn't seem to be a time limit on the request. If the guide is no longer present, I would set up a war of attrition. Do petty things to discourage her from winning the election - not enough to prevent it, but enough to cause at least a few to change thier minds. After she wins (which seems likely if they don't kill or run her out, based on what you wrote) they begin looking for another cause that needs her attention. Once she's made a few strides towards cleaning up the town - and set up another temple (after all, the Quest - by the letter - was to remove the temple (singular) in the town, not the entire religion) - start a campaign / movement to get her interested in dealing with another crisis / corruption problem elsewhere. Hmm, to keep from going borderline with the Quest penalties, it would be best to focus on destroying the original temple, not a later built one. After she's left arrange a problem that requires evacuation of the temple and burn it down. Perhaps work on building up the new temple - little by little more is moved there until the former temple is little more than a momento of the past. Once little of worth is in it, set up a fire / etc - slow moving enough to force those within to leave but swift / potent enough to raze the temple to the ground after they are out. Problem solved (although it'll likely take a few game years to set up): the over priestess has left town (to deal with a (now) greater issue elsewhere), and the temple she served no longer exists. The only main problems are: (1) convincing her to leave before her 6 years are up (or your party will be there a /long/ time), (2) convincing her (or others) to build a new - greater - temple rather than just embellish the current one (perhaps you will need to destroy it before she leaves), (3) destroying the current temple (difficult with a high level cleric present - worse if the deity takes notice and decides the party has desecrated it), and (4) staying alive for several years despite the Quest and the assassins the might eventually be sent by the Shar monestary after the priestess wins the election. Oh, and maybe (5) keeping healthy while under the Quest for several years and occasionally doing things that might come border-line to disobeying it (encouring her to put up a new temple might do this - especially if the old one has yet to burn down or otherwise be destroyed). Hmm, on second thought - wouldn't it be likely that after she's won the race she (and all but a few [lower level] others, perhaps) might be out of the temple for a while (parade, formal ceremony in the town hall to confir leadership, whatever). Destroy the temple then. Now the temple is destroyed and all that is left is to get her out of town. Don't help in constructing the new temple (might be bad for your health), but instead begin working to gain her trust in other ways (perhaps after the new temple is built?). Once her term is almost up, begin pointing out how much good she has done, how much better and less corrupted the town is. Then point out a town / city with a similar corruption problem that also happens to have a temple to her deity. Surely they would welcome one that could aid them, one who has experience in dealing successfully with corruption. It might work, but as I already said, consider yourself bound to the town she is in for the next several (game) years. Or you could just accept that you are now running an evil or borderline evil (since one PC is good) game and encourage the PCs to change to better fit the game (killing the priestess, using the corruption to their advantage and perhaps encouraging it, maybe converting to Shar, etc).
Ut-Napishtim 05-02-05, 01:48 AM	And wealth wasn't the thing that monastery needed and if they attacked they would have had a very low chance of survival and they knew that because they have seen the priestess and her monk brother in combat (and they were both Shades). And they knew they got used but anybody they met in Underdark did that to them (mostly Drow). Are Shades that race from Races of Faerun that have like a +5 LA? I really hate that when DM's make uberNPC's to bully you into adventures. If they were so darn tough they could've taken the Conjurer out on their own without the party's help, if not then the PC's should be able to take them on. Used and abused, eh? Sounds like a really fun game. Dude, you should probably kiss your players or something because I'd have walked out on your crooked railway long ago if I were one of them. :crazy:
Archangel 05-02-05, 02:50 AM	Too much to quote These are all good advices but to a player in that campain, not the DM (me). I have made several possible scenarios and rutes for the players to take (in addition to any they might just improvise) and made this quest so they would need to make some moral decisions. But from the beggining I have thought of this as a borderline Neutral quest if they don't choose the "kill the priestess part of the Quest". And all I am interested is this scenario borderline Neutral or not (considering the circumstances the players are in; as I remember a charmed paladin that does Evil can be atoned without a special quest)? Are Shades that race from Races of Faerun that have like a +5 LA? I really hate that when DM's make uberNPC's to bully you into adventures. If they were so darn tough they could've taken the Conjurer out on their own without the party's help, if not then the PC's should be able to take them on. Used and abused, eh? Sounds like a really fun game. Dude, you should probably kiss your players or something because I'd have walked out on your crooked railway long ago if I were one of them. Actually Shades are CR+2 not LA+5 (and it is +4 and that is only for PCs). Next they fit the theme of the Shar's monastery, especially with the return of the Shade City. They couldn't take out the Conjurerer because they tried it. They needed the PCs help. And if the PCs died in the process it was same to them (they are Evil you know?). Not everything PCs encounter in the world is killable by them, that would be totally unrealistic and boring game.
Ut-Napishtim 05-02-05, 03:38 AM	Not everything PCs encounter in the world is killable by them, that would be totally unrealistic and boring game. Sure it would, but at the same time making every week a session of "Let's see how I can screw over the PC's with tweaked-out NPC's" isn't any fun either. The PC's can't win 'em all, but if they're 0 for 6 then what's the point? I actually played in a game like that before. Each week the DM would take great delight in railroading us into impossible situations and throw out setback after setback until after a few sessions we were further away from our goal then we were when we started. Anyway I was playing a LN Fighter type that was trying to restore his family's honor by completing this mission (each PC had their own motivations.) So after about the sixth or seventh session of this my character, realizing there was no chance of restoring his family's honor, hung himself. The DM was completely shocked. After all, players are supposed to focus on their feats and magic items and then toss in a little roleplaying. Looking at it from the perspective of the character I didn't really see any reason for him to go on. The whole game fell apart not long after that - apparently I wasn't the only one getting frustrated. Fortunately it seems your players are probably focused enough on their powers and abilities to not be phased much by getting defecated on every week, so you could probably get away with making them do evil stuff and all that. I'm pretty sure applying a different LA to PC's than NPC's is bogus as well - if those NPC's have levels in a PC class they should get the full +4 LA. "They are Evil you know? Well duh, but that doesn't make them immune to retribution. If they're too powerful then that's even worse. You created a uberrailroad the likes of which I've never seen before. Two powerful NPC's with fudged LA's forcibly bullying the PC's into an encounter they can't avoid anyway, then forcing them into a Quest... why don't you just ask your peeps to bring their own straight jacket to the game? Either that or just stay home. I mean, it's not like their participation can change the outcome of your script so why bother? Dude, I'd have atacked that :censored: regardless of how powerful her and her brother are. Not every player is automatically cowed by the prospect of dying. If :censored: is :censored: up then I don't care - I'll make a new character, but that :censored: is going down! :rant:
Archangel 05-02-05, 07:00 AM	Sure it would, but at the same time making every week a session of "Let's see how I can screw over the PC's with tweaked-out NPC's" isn't any fun either. The PC's can't win 'em all, but if they're 0 for 6 then what's the point? The point is they needed to get out of Underdark and if you know your FR that is a very hostile place that kill even high level adventurers that don't know what they are doing. Anybody that survives there on the day-by-day basis is very powerful or has very powerful allies. And my Campain is not screw players every weak. They defeated Lolth's priestess and her underlings some time before. That is the reason why the monastery leader tricked them to come to the monastery so they could help them with the Conjurer. They had free will until they steped inside the monastery walls. After that moment they screwed themselves and could either cooperate or try to fight the whole monastery and then the Conjurer themselves. Or after they defeated the Conjurer (actually they didn't defeat him themselves) just the two of them could have tried to fight the monastery themselves and probably joined 2 of their already departed comrades. "They are Evil you know? Well duh, but that doesn't make them immune to retribution. If they're too powerful then that's even worse. You created a uberrailroad the likes of which I've never seen before. Two powerful NPC's with fudged LA's forcibly bullying the PC's into an encounter they can't avoid anyway, then forcing them into a Quest... why don't you just ask your peeps to bring their own straight jacket to the game? Either that or just stay home. I mean, it's not like their participation can change the outcome of your script so why bother? Dude, I'd have atacked that regardless of how powerful her and her brother are. Not every player is automatically cowed by the prospect of dying. If is up then I don't care - I'll make a new character, but that is going down! By your sentence I see you actually expect the DM to please your every whim. If you just decide to attack someone you should automatically win? Although you don't care for the life of your PC other players in this world care (and know there are penalties of thinking "Oh I can always make a new character"). As I see it you are a "player". I asked for the advice of DM's as this is "What's a DM to Do?" part of the forum. Also you show that you don't understand the difference between LA and CR. So please first go ask somebody to explain the difference and then come here and bash me for "fudged LA's"
b6 05-02-05, 09:31 AM	to jump into the discussion for a bit here, i must ask what the exact words of the Quest were. this is one of the situations where being able to strictly adhere (or interpret) the words are crucial. if the Quest says, as was mentioned above somewhere, that they have to "kill the priestess or permanently drive her from the city," then the PCs are in a bit of a pickle. what is to keep the priestess from winning the election without being in the city though? similarly, if the wording is to "drive" her somewhere, that is simple enough as well ;) it just needs to get very precise on what was said, as that will determine how the PCs can solve the Quest. the reason i am placing so much importance on this is that i can easily see it as an Evil action. they are bound by the Quest, yes, but as someone else mentioned earlier, being bound by honor to work for the Devil himself doesnt make what youd do less Evil. it just means youre trying to justify it... hope some of this helps, though it is mostly just rehashing.
Ut-Napishtim 05-02-05, 09:46 AM	By your sentence I see you actually expect the DM to please your every whim. If you just decide to attack someone you should automatically win? Although you don't care for the life of your PC other players in this world care (and know there are penalties of thinking "Oh I can always make a new character"). As I see it you are a "player". I asked for the advice of DM's as this is "What's a DM to Do?" part of the forum. Also you show that you don't understand the difference between LA and CR. So please first go ask somebody to explain the difference and then come here and bash me for "fudged LA's" Actually you'd be incorrect in that assumption, although I understand why you might make that inference. I actually DM about 75% of the time, and have been for 17 years. My wife's in the military so we move around a lot, and over the years I've DM'd over 100 different players easily from ages thirteen to the fifty-something I've got in my group now who started playing before I was even in school. During that time I've also played with a couple dozen other DM's, and throughout that I've only ever encountered two or three I'd consider "good" at it. You know, ones that run a game where you just can't wait each week to play in it. Of course there was a lot of trial and error over the years, some of my games were great, while others tanked badly. I started looking at the way different games I played in were run as well. I've found that the key to success is taking into account what your players want, and dealing with them fairly by the rules. You see when I make an NPC I use the same races, templates, and ability score generation methods I allowed the players to use. Sure, for a combat encounter they might only have +2 CR, but CR is based on a four-PC party, and LA is added to determine the character's ECL. Making NPC's that tell the party what to do, but are too powerful for the party to have any say in the matter is bullying and railroading plain and simple. I don't want a DM that caters to my every whim, but at the same time I do want one that will give the party some options and a voice in the game. Many DM's get caught up in the trap of "my campaign" and forget that the story is actually about the characters. Your players had two options: 1. Do what I say, or 2. Die. Even though they selected neutral and good alignments you continue to try and drive the game into the evil end of the spectrum by having them consort with Drow and other nefarious sorts - even forcing them to perform evil acts by means of magical compulsion. Then when they use their voice and say: We don't want to do all this evil stuff, man. You tell them it's not evil and then even start a thread to fish for comments that support your thesis: My players are crazy and I'm right. There's a difference between "every whim" and what's supported in the rules. In my games the players have a right to the expectations outlined in the core rulebooks. According to the core rulebooks there are standards for what kind of reimbursement spellcasters expect for their services. Now that doesn't mean those prices aren't adjustable for supply and demand or other factors, or that those services will be available everywhere the PC's go. Many DM's like to add little quests and such on to things like Raise Dead, as if the PC's money wasn't good enough for the temple or something. In your case though the PC's had already performed a task for this :censored: , and sould have had enough wealth to get what they needed. Instead you arbitrarily decided: Well she's evil - she wants more, so that you could use it to force your PC's into doing evil acts and pursuing an evil agenda they otherwise would've had no interest in - and they voiced twice that they had no interest in. Like I said, as a player I'd be going: Nuh-uh, listen here you little :censored: You owe us as much to let us pay you for raising our fallen comrades who died completing your task and if you don't deliver I'm going to wring your neck until your feet stop kicking. Of course you realize that if a player did that and beat her on the Intimidation roll that you'd be denying them their rights by the rules if she continued to say no. Personally over the years I've shifted my attitude from: I'm the DM, that's why when I was thirteen years old, to one that realizes the players have a right to be treated fairly and have things they read in the PHB actually work that way when they show up to the table. I certainly don't give my players everything they want, I had my third PC death in my game last week and I seriously doubt players want their PC's to die. The thing of it is though I operate with complete transparency, without a DM screen, all dice rolls in the open, and afterwards the player was free to look in my notebook and see the 100' spiked pit trap he fell down so that he knows I didn't just throw it in there arbitrarily because he ticked me off that night or something. This was actually the first time the players had enough treasure to actually consider raising a PC, and when they decided to the option was available without them having to lube-up and grab their ankles for it. :bored:
Marcus Majarra 05-02-05, 11:31 AM	I actually think your Sharrans did quite well in using that Quest spell. It's forcing the PCs into a lose-lose situation that bodes quite well with what Shar encourages from her followers. The PCs will either commit actions they will regret (and possibly seek to forget, which makes the Sharrans happy) in order to survive, or they will suffer and possibly die as a result of opposing the Quest spell while in a very dangerous environment. Yes, what the Sharrans are exacting of the PCs is evil, but that's something the PCs will have to deal with.
Quoriil 05-02-05, 01:24 PM	You see when I make an NPC I use the same races, templates, and ability score generation methods I allowed the players to use. Sure, for a combat encounter they might only have +2 CR, but CR is based on a four-PC party, and LA is added to determine the character's ECL. Making NPC's that tell the party what to do, but are too powerful for the party to have any say in the matter is bullying and railroading plain and simple. So, you have a problem with the RAW? I believe that Archangel has a party of four, therefor the CR system works to maintain a manageable rate of xp gain. Giving PCs exp. based on ECL is great fun for players that just want to power-level and tweek out their characters. In the long run (at least in my experience) this monty haul of experience tends to hasten high level play at the expense of story. Perhaps that sort of thing is to your liking but evidently the playtesters and game designers that cooked up this edition disagree. To each their own. That aside, railroading this may be but the players decided to go back to the evil temple and bargain for their friends' lives. They made their bed and now they have to sleep in it, in this case that means that they get stuck in a distasteful side-quest.
Ut-Napishtim 05-02-05, 03:58 PM	I actually think your Sharrans did quite well in using that Quest spell. It's forcing the PCs into a lose-lose situation that bodes quite well with what Shar encourages from her followers. Yes, I'm sure the players appreciate being shafted to stay true to the Forgotten Realms flavor. After all, that's much more improtant than the PC's actually having fun. :bored: So, you have a problem with the RAW? I believe that Archangel has a party of four, therefor the CR system works to maintain a manageable rate of xp gain. Giving PCs exp. based on ECL is great fun for players that just want to power-level and tweek out their characters. In the long run (at least in my experience) this monty haul of experience tends to hasten high level play at the expense of story. Perhaps that sort of thing is to your liking but evidently the playtesters and game designers that cooked up this edition disagree. To each their own. That aside, railroading this may be but the players decided to go back to the evil temple and bargain for their friends' lives. They made their bed and now they have to sleep in it, in this case that means that they get stuck in a distasteful side-quest. Gee Quoriil, where did I say I award xp based on ECL? Please - quote it and show me so I can eat my dirty little powergaming words. Come on, what are you afraid of? Sure Archangel has a party of four PC's, but at a certain encounter with an aforementioned priestess took place with two living PC's by my count, and two tweaked-out NPC's. One-on-one like that I'd say LA definitely becomes something a DM should take into consideration. I'd even bet the NPC's were also easily a couple levels higher than the party members even without the LA. Personally if I were playing in it I wouldn't care 'cause I ain't going out like that. Screw me once - shame on you, screw me twice - shame on me. They didn't make any bed, they were railroaded into it by bully NPC's and a DM who took advantage of their camaraderie and good intentions to give them the shaft. That's got to be the wrongest thing I've seen on these boards in a while. You know - most folks post DM help messages on here about players who refuse to work together, work poorly together, or want to go nuts and play evil characters. Then I read this and you've got a DM who has all these great things, and instead of appreciating the fact that his PC's are RPing enough to question this act, and cohesive enough to try and raise their fallen party members, goes and tries to force a wedge between them and make them go nuts and do evil things and then complains that they don't want to be bad. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole experience sours the players and they end up becoming problem players or rules lawyers to their next DM from the way they got worked over by their last. :nonono:
MasterRookie 05-02-05, 04:54 PM	Ooo I had a great Idea. The players just need to find an even more corrupt town with open elections or other way for the preistes to gain control. Then they can convince her that that city needs her help more then this one. Its worth a try. They wouldn't be doing anything wrong because they're helping someone who needst them more. Also they didn't say that the priestes needed to be killed perminently. Just kill her and bring her back. They can probably talk her into that since they'd be saving a couple lives.
Quoriil 05-02-05, 05:25 PM	Ut-N, your passion is admirable but before we rain fire on this DMs head, perhaps we should hear from his players? Or at least hear from him how they are enjoying themselves, aside from a concern about alignment issues. Yes, railroading=bad, but bad situations arise in many campaigns. If a PC never has to make a lousy deal, always has the out and can always simply bully past NPCs then a dramatic point has been stripped from the game-play. I'll be the first to say that if players are forced into these rotten situations over and over again, or even once if the forcing is overt and the action heinous enough, then there is a serious problem. If, on the other hand, this is a unique occurance and the DM, seeking to make his players' experience better, seeks help from his peers, then why do you demonize him? Judging by the fact that the players are still trying to creatively escape from the situation they find themselves in they have a decidedly different approach to problem solving than you do... Then if she still refused I'd attack her.
b6 05-02-05, 05:31 PM	Also they didn't say that the priestes needed to be killed perminently. Just kill her and bring her back. They can probably talk her into that since they'd be saving a couple lives. see, and this is the type of thing i was talking about. if the Quest really just said they only had to kill the priestess, there is no problem with killing her just to rez her later. in fact, talk it over with her, explain the circumstances, and then the party might even have gained an even more powerful (and non-Evil) ally!
Crossover-Chronicler 05-03-05, 01:56 PM	I'd like to address this:As I see it you are a "player". I asked for the advice of DM's as this is "What's a DM to Do?" part of the forum.This is simply not reasonable. The "What's a DM to do?" board is a place for advice for DMs; the beauty of the internet is that you need no qualifications to give advice. If you wanted only advice from experienced DMs, you should have said as much in your original post. Okay, back on topic now...
Sargon 05-03-05, 02:14 PM	I rather enjoy making players puppets *unknowingly* to my grand evil schemes as the DM. But i have had some people on the boards all me a .... Mutant Idiot... for making my players face hell or a necromancer who is fully capable of making the players unatural indetured serveants. (sorry about the spelling, pretty please don't cruxify me, that would suck.)
Marcus Majarra 05-03-05, 02:21 PM	Yes, I'm sure the players appreciate being shafted to stay true to the Forgotten Realms flavor. After all, that's much more improtant than the PC's actually having fun. :bored: Oh, give me a break. You have a group of non-evil PCs bargaining with Sharrans to get their companions raised from the dead, and you expect them not to stick you in a lose-lose situation in which you're bound to do some things you'll want to forget? Not everything goes exactly like the PCs plan at all times. Sometimes, you win some. And sometimes, you make the mistake of bargaining with Sharrans. They got shafted of their own free will, and it's up to them to determine how they deal with things from then on. Not placing the PCs in a lose-lose situation is like expecting an Ancient Red Dragon to let escape an adventuring party that was bent on stealing its hoard after the group realized they truly were no match for the dragon. It just doesn't make any sense.
Archangel 05-04-05, 09:40 AM	I am a little happy that some people understood why I have put the Quest on the players. But that is not the issue here. Neither is if I am railroading my players or not. Neither is if what can players do to get out of this situation. So I will explain it again: When I first started the campain I have forbiden Evil alignment for players characters. Then as the campain went on they ended up in Underdark and there I put them in all kinds of situations where moral decisions had to be made. And as those this last mission (under Quest spell) was envisioned so it wouldn't be an easy moral desicion. But when making it up I have in my head decided that if they just make the priestess leave it wasn't Evil so that is the option that I left then in the wording of the Quest spell (also the Sharans knew they where not like them and put that there so the PCs wouldn't just go and find someone to get the Quest dispelled). I was sure I was right until a new player let me know his way of seing their situation (OOC not ingame, his character has no big problem with making the priestess leave). At that moment I wan't sure it wasn't an Evil thing and so I came here to see if the circumstances still made it border line Neutral-Evil or just plain Evil.