Not trying to start a flamefest here but I've been wondering this for a while. I've talked to a lot of people who play LFR and read a fair number of threads here and elsewhere and the conclusion I've gotten is that the core assumption of LFR is that your character is a simple mercenary and will take whatever job (i.e. the module you're currently playing) regardless of what it is.
My original LFR character concept was a traveling cleric of Amaunator, basically like a Judge (as in Dredd) but I'm rethinking that whole thing because I can see situations cropping up where I wouldn't go on a quest, or choose a course of action that would ruin everyone else's chances at finishing a mod. I don't want to be the cause of someone failing a module, but even worse to me is the idea of literally metagaming my character's motivations and going along with something on the principle that I'm playing a game with other people.
I'm not that experienced with LFR yet; I've only played one module and luckily it was one that fit my character perfectly (Black Knight of Arabel), but not all of them are going to do that. I'm now considering making a new character that is a Han Solo type mercenary so I can experience the most out of what LFR has to offer.
Any thoughts or conflicting evidence on this opinion? I can have fun with any concept, so I don't want it to look like this is a reluctant choice (in fact I think I'd have more fun with a more mercenary character than a truly "heroic" one in LFR), but this is the general feel that I've gotten from skimming the synopses of several LFR adventures and in discussions with others.
Not trying to start a flamefest here but I've been wondering this for a while. I've talked to a lot of people who play LFR and read a fair number of threads here and elsewhere and the conclusion I've gotten is that the core assumption of LFR is that your character is a simple mercenary and will take whatever job (i.e. the module you're currently playing) regardless of what it is.
My original LFR character concept was a traveling cleric of Amaunator, basically like a Judge (as in Dredd) but I'm rethinking that whole thing because I can see situations cropping up where I wouldn't go on a quest, or choose a course of action that would ruin everyone else's chances at finishing a mod. I don't want to be the cause of someone failing a module, but even worse to me is the idea of literally metagaming my character's motivations and going along with something on the principle that I'm playing a game with other people.
I'm not that experienced with LFR yet; I've only played one module and luckily it was one that fit my character perfectly (Black Knight of Arabel), but not all of them are going to do that. I'm now considering making a new character that is a Han Solo type mercenary so I can experience the most out of what LFR has to offer.
Any thoughts or conflicting evidence on this opinion? I can have fun with any concept, so I don't want it to look like this is a reluctant choice (in fact I think I'd have more fun with a more mercenary character than a truly "heroic" one in LFR), but this is the general feel that I've gotten from skimming the synopses of several LFR adventures and in discussions with others.
Just being a mercenary doesn't work. You'll have to be some mix of not only a mercenary, but a do-gooder as well, for those "charity" mods where you don't know if you're getting paid.
I've played LFR since it started and personally I cant fault you for thinking that everyone is basically a mercenary character in many ways. Since that's what we are for the most part. The only really stopping it in anyway is the fact that LFR won't allow evil characters.
Most quests are in the standard realm of cliche and stereotype with a few really interesting adventures mixed in. There are a few adventures though where the idea of right and wrong come into it but seldom would a single character ruin the mod for everyone. More likely you would simply end up with a different story award than the others in the group.
The group I'm in is basically good, little kid in trouble we save the child, city being over run with gnolls kill the gnolls, find out our employer is really the bad guy then screw him over instead. At the same time though there is a strong since of how much you paying and when do we get paid. We still grumble over one adventure where we weren't allowed to sleep for 3 days and only made 3 gold.
I say play the character you want to play but depending on the concept you might want to allow some flexibility in their personality.
My primary character in Living Greyhawk was a paladin of Heironeous, who eventually became a member of his country's law-enforcement organization. If I were strictly playing that character, I would guess that about 20% of his adventures were ones on which he shouldn't have gone, simply because the mission, or the random assortment of 5 other PCs he was with, weren't good fits with what he was about. But, I realized that, in order to play in the campaign, I needed to be more flexible in how I approached the character.
As I see it, even playing a "random mercenary" will eventually be problematic, too, once you run into an adventure in which you're not being promised any reward.
IMO, in order to play in a shared campaign like LFR, you need to either (a) be flexible enough with your character that you can "take" a variety of plot hooks, or (b) recognize ahead of time that there are going to be some adventures that your character simply wouldn't participate in -- and, even then, that can be problematic, because it won't always be obvious from the blurb that the adventure doesn't "fit" your PC, and walking away from a table a half-hour in because "my character wouldn't take this mission" will make you less than popular.
Generally speaking, I think that relatively extreme character concepts and motivations don't work particularly well in Living campaigns. If you envision a character concept that simply "wouldn't take" certain kinds of missions, that may be a concept which you should save for a home campaign.
The best way to make a character playable in most/all LFR adventures, if metagaming your motivations is troubling to you, is this:
1) In general, you are willing to do good deeds to help people who need it, in return for little reward other than their thanks.
2) You are willing to take on paid jobs (such as caravan guard or "find the Macguffin") that aren't obviously morally ambiguous. A guy has to make ends meet after all.
3) You are not tied very strongly to any particular part of the world - you have the urge to wander.
The fact is that the campaign management does not know the characters at the table, and hence are stuck with generic plot-hooks. The campaign does assume the PCs are heroes, although, heroes that do not mind the occassional mercenary job (an adventurer has to earn a living somehow). I really do not understand those people who claim otherwise. More often then not unaligned mercenaries actually have a harder time accepting the hook since even if money is offered the urge to do good really helps.
Assuming you play at public games with a random selection of players it also helps if your PC is a bit lenient when it comes to fellow adventurers. A bit of friction between PCs can be a great boon for roleplaying, but in the end you likely want to finish the adventure and so have to work together.
Assuming you play at public games with a random selection of players it also helps if your PC is a bit lenient when it comes to fellow adventurers. A bit of friction between PCs can be a great boon for roleplaying, but in the end you likely want to finish the adventure and so have to work together.
You mean, like, maybe, a Cleric of Kelemvor and a Revenant (feated non-living) PC?
Here's the conundrum we face:
--Many players are going to make PCs who are of the "really good" hero mold. They will turn down payment for missions that further their moral/ethical beliefs, but if those beliefs do not mesh with the goal of the mission, the players grumble that the hook is bad/stupid.
--Many players are going to make PCs who are simply mercenaries. They will do anything, as long as their is payment involved. As soon as you have a hook that asks them to risk their lives without the prospect of reward, the players grumble that the the hook is bad/stupid.
--The only solution adventure designers have is to make sure that every adventure has the hook catering to both types of PCs. Then when you do this, players complain that all the hooks are cliche and boring.
Add to all of these issues the fact that you can have undead PCs and Amaunator-worshipping PCs at the same table, you can have spellscarred PCs and PCs dedicated to fighting the effects of the spellplague at the same table, etc.
The moment you, as an adventure designer, try to do something unique, you are opening yourself up to the ire of the calm and understanding lunatic fringe of the Internet-dwelling LFR crowd. And unfortunately, it is those people who are most vocal, so people who have played only one adventure in the campaign already have a preconception about it. 
Play the games with an open mind, be willing to make changes as a DM to make the game work for the players, and everything should be fine.
Thanks!
Here's the conundrum we face:
--Many players are going to make PCs who are of the "really good" hero mold. They will turn down payment for missions that further their moral/ethical beliefs, but if those beliefs do not mesh with the goal of the mission, the players grumble that the hook is bad/stupid.
--Many players are going to make PCs who are simply mercenaries. They will do anything, as long as their is payment involved. As soon as you have a hook that asks them to risk their lives without the prospect of reward, the players grumble that the the hook is bad/stupid.
--The only solution adventure designers have is to make sure that every adventure has the hook catering to both types of PCs. Then when you do this, players complain that all the hooks are cliche and boring.
Add to all of these issues the fact that you can have undead PCs and Amaunator-worshipping PCs at the same table, you can have spellscarred PCs and PCs dedicated to fighting the effects of the spellplague at the same table, etc.
The moment you, as an adventure designer, try to do something unique, you are opening yourself up to the ire of the calm and understanding lunatic fringe of the Internet-dwelling LFR crowd. And unfortunately, it is those people who are most vocal, so people who have played only one adventure in the campaign already have a preconception about it.
Play the games with an open mind, be willing to make changes as a DM to make the game work for the players, and everything should be fine.
Thanks!
Really well put, Shawn!
I agree - it is impossible to please everyone with generic plot hooks. People should try to keep an open mind and find a way to fit their PCs into an adventure. I generally approach each module with an attitude of "I'm an adventurer and this is yet another chance for adventure." I'm rarely (if not never) disappointed with the plot hook for an adventurer. I am, however, often disappointed with the adventure itself... but that's a different conversation.
You mean, like, maybe, a Cleric of Kelemvor and a Revenant (feated non-living) PC?
Nooo! Don't cast raise dead ont hat horse! besides, we already had someone get word from the... ahem... horse's mouth (Messiuer Greenwood) that Kelemvor wouldn't have his usual anti-undead zeal for Revenants and would actually try to help them return to the peace of the grave by assisting them in completing whatever task would lead to that end. His followers may not have a good taste in their mouth about it, but so sayeth kelemvor! (by way of Ed) 
Basically, yes, in my experience.
Slightly more detailed answer: the majority of Divine PCs I play with will take any adventure that involves helping someone. If they get paid, that's a nice bonus. They're likely to be the ones having an issue with morally dubious hooks.
The vast, vast majority of other PCs I play with are basically played as, as you say, morally ambiguous mercenaries who wouldn't lift a finger to rescue their own grandmother if there wasn't some promise of payment (whether explicit or implicit - she's being held in a ruined castle with monsters, therefore there will be treasure).
It gets a bit tiresome sometimes.
Essentially, though, it's up to the DM to assess character motivations and try to provide a plot hook credible to all characters.
Sometimes I have had to give up as DM when players have been bickering about their character's motivations and say 'You have two choices. You can either bite on the thinly veiled plot hook which will take you to the rest of the adventure, or I can allocate your XP now.'
Essentially, though, it's up to the DM to assess character motivations and try to provide a plot hook credible to all characters.
This is really the core of what "DME" is all about.
To take it one step further, one could offer "individual" plot hooks.
• The guildmaster of your Adventuring Company has requested that you complete the mission / assess the other PCs abilities / has a hidden agenda / etc.
• A priest/cleric/worshiper/follower of your deity asks you to join these other adventurers to complete the mission because the NPC hiring the adventurers is a personal friend/relative/owes a debt.
• Streetwise/History/Knowledge checks indicate that gaining the favor/debt/recognition of NPC X could further your own personal agenda/result in greater rewards down the road/etc.
Most players recognize the beast for what it is, and take the "generic hook" to play the game. Others may need more convincing, but as players, just need an opportunity to "suspend disbelief" long enough to enjoy 4 hours of play-time around a table.
For the example given earlier in this thread . . .
"Cleric of Kelemvor, you have been contacted by your superiors. They have identified a Revenant who is suspected to have powerful ties to a much greater threat. You have been tasked with studying this individual and attempting to earn his trust. Find out what you can and report."
To the original poster . . .
I really like your character concept, and you should definitely play him if you will enjoy that character! Work with your DM to modify character hooks (as needed) if that will enhance your enjoyment of the game, but understand that you may (on occasion) need to supply your own hook or motivation.
(I play a Messanger of Peace Cleric with no damage-dealing powers. He seeks out groups of adventurers - - the most destructive force in all of Faerun! ;) - in order to show them the benefits of mercy and non-violence. As long as there is a group of adventurers going on an adventure, I have my own hook! Of course, some mod-hooks are more appealing to my character than others, but even the "mercenary" hooks work for me because someone needs to make sure that these mercenary-adventurers earn their pay while minimizing the pain inflicted on others!)
Essentially, though, it's up to the DM to assess character motivations and try to provide a plot hook credible to all characters.
Up to a point I agree with you, but the player has a responsibility as well. There is only so much a DM can do, and ultimately it is the player who makes the decisions for their characters. A DM cannot force them to do anything, and it assumed a player joined a game because he wants to game. Hence I applaud the OP's attempt to learn what character traits are good to have in the LFR campaign. It saves him a lot of hassle later on ;)
Side-note: are there really many morally ambigious plot-hooks in LFR adventures? Sure, there are a few that are mercenary orientated (do x for gold), but those are hardly morally ambigious. I mean, there is nothing wrong to work as a caravan guard e.g. CORE1-13), treasure retrieval team (e.g. CORE1-1) or clear-out the ruins (e.g. DALE1-1). It might not be particular heroic, but that has little to do with alignments and morale. Good heroes have to eat as well.
Bottom line: shut up and play the mod(s). The less you think about why your character is doing what s/he does, the better. Otherwise, it'll all stop making sense.
Always with the pessimism. 
Bottom line: shut up and play the mod(s). The less you think about why your character is doing what s/he does, the better. Otherwise, it'll all stop making sense.
When you are sitting at the table? Yes, although I do hope player and DM do try to make things work. If you spend too much time thinking on these things, it is going to make it much more difficult to have fun. Feel free to complain about it afterward on these boards, especially if you have alternative sollutions that help other gamers and the campaign management making the next adventure better 
Up to a point I agree with you, but the player has a responsibility as well. There is only so much a DM can do, and ultimately it is the player who makes the decisions for their characters.
I'll often do this explicitly, particularly when the plot hook is weak or the adventure starts in media res. "Okay, as you begin this adventure, you're working together as guards on a caravan. Let's go around the table and give me a character description, where you're from and why your character took this job."
If a player is sufficiently a roleplaying purist that they'll exit a module that doesn't fit their character, better to give the out up front. Conversely, though, in the many cases where the start of the adventure doesn't make much sense but we all metagame and ignore it, it's better to make the player an accomplice in the metagaming rather than feel like it's being imposed on him.
Side-note: are there really many morally ambigious plot-hooks in LFR adventures?
Not really. Morally neutral, sure, but generally speaking, plot hooks seem to fall into three categories in LFR:
* You are offered money for a purely mercenary job with no moral implications;
* You notice someone who is obviously upset or in trouble, or a monster (hopefully not a monstrous PC) behaving badly;
* You are boxed texted into having already accepted the mission.
A basic issue is that categories one and two are designed for different groups. Being willing to accept any random job from a stranger you just met who offers you 20 gp requires a different type of motivation from being an altruistic do-gooder willing to leap into action at the merest hint that someone might be in need or danger.
Sure, a PC can be in both groups, but at that point their motivation is so broad that they might as well be described as "Bored adventurer. Will go anywhere that there's a chance I can kill something and loot its corpse. Pay me, don't pay me; need evil thwarted, need your livestock protected. I don't care. Just give me someone I can kill and take their possessions without the city watch getting involved, and I don't ask any questions."
And we wonder why Tempus is so popular a patron deity. It's not just because of his Righteous Rage; fighting for the sake of fighting is what gets most PCs out of bed in the morning.
Bypassing the entire issue of an adventure hook can also be a problem, particularly if players get stuck at the "Wait, I did what? That doesn't make any sense." stage. While I am in no way suggesting that this is the case, I would have to say that if I drunkenly bet that I could prove that most LFR players could care less about the plot hook or even if it made any rational sense, I'd probably end up with one in the same vein as CORE1-2.
clear-out the ruins (e.g. DALE1-1).
Actually that is a mod I would pick as "morally ambiguous" given the full story, as the plot is a bit more than "clear out the ruins". But yes the majority of modules range from morally neutral to good, the "ambiguous" are pretty hard to find.
I have characters with a range of motivations, some of them include:
Cleric of Tempus - Find "Glory in Battle". Has as of yet to entertain doing a module "for free", but also isn't to worried about the gold, instead is more worried about the opportunity to get to battle things.
Sorcerer - To find a way to bring the Zhentarim down. Has as of yet to entertain doing a module "for free", but will have his opportunity in time.
Swordmage - To help the Fey (so there have been some cool mods for her). Only got paid for AGLA1-1 because another PC brought up the idea, would have done the whole thing for free.
Assassin - to learn how to be human again. (My single most morally ambiguous character). A girl's got to eat - unlikely to ever do a job for free, but is happy to accept payment in currency other than coin....
Bard - Establish a network of contacts across the Realms. Would happily work for free to put people in her debt, but also realises she needs the coin to keep fed etc so takes payment, but rarely brings that up as the first idea.
And of those characters, the Cleric is the one that has been the hardest to get into some modules (IMPI1-1 Alone with its "save the girl" intro being one that leaps to mind).
* You are boxed texted into having already accepted the mission.
Personally I try to avoid these for the cited reasons and I always advice authors to avoid them or to add a line or two to help the DM deal with them. More often then not, the hook is picked to get the PCs at the right place at the right time without wasting words and time on it. A DM can chat with the players and try to find an alternative reason for them being at that spot without derailing the adventure. For example, the altruistic hero might have a reason to have travelled to spot X for reason Y, so why balk at the idea of earning a bit of money to guard the trade caravan on the way back? You are going in the right direction anyway and protecting an honest trader against monsters is a good thing ;)
clear-out the ruins (e.g. DALE1-1).
Actually that is a mod I would pick as "morally ambiguous" given the full story, as the plot is a bit more than "clear out the ruins".
I don't think it is morally-ambiguous if you actually know the full story. It may be morally-ambiguous if you know only a specific part of the story (and hence jump to conclusions).
Personally, I would prefer to work a bit more to the heroic side than the mercenary side. The Dalelands adventures' tasks are generally most fit for heroes, even if some of the participating NPCs may be unaligned or have dubious patrons. Still, we have been forced to add mercenary hooks since it may be hard to motivate people to perform the tasks otherwise.
Gomez
* You are boxed texted into having already accepted the mission.
I have started adventures this way a few times (i.e. The Verdant Trail in LG), in order to jump-start the adventure and get to the action.
I set up DRAG1-6 that way originally, but after being chastised added some roleplay instructions for the hook. I tried to present it as optional though - I know that when I used the patron involved in another adventure, the hook encounter took half an hour...
Gomez
One thing that might enable the use of more creative and interesting hooks would be to put a summary of the plot hook in the blurb. "An insane halfling pays you to travel to Thesk and look for an unspecified artifact"/ "The lady of Shadowdale pays you to journey into the forest and find out what is changing the fey"/ "After a dockside scuffle, a local businesswoman pays you to search some ruins for a lost deed"/ "Seeing bandits accosting some local farmers, you decide to put them out of business permanently."
That style of blurb would enable people who care about such things to bring an appropriate character to the table because they would know whether or not their character would be interested before they sat down. It would also enable some different styles of adventure (to the extent that the 4th edition and LFR mechanics make them possible). For instance, I haven't played any pure exploration adventures in LFR yet of the style: "you come by a mysterious map promising an ancient treasure and set out to find it" / "You set out into the wilderness to find the truth about rumors of a crystal tower in the foothills."
If my experience in LG is any indication, however, that would require a great deal of discipline on the part of the editors and management of the campaign in order to maintain that function of the blurb. Many authors there were fond of writing vaguely artistic but completely uninformative--or even positively misleading--blurbs if they were permitted to do so. I don't expect that has changed much.
[Edit: WARNING! Long post! Old guy at the keyboard!]
As both a veteran player of "Living" campaigns, and someone playing a human cleric of Amaunator, I can appreciate your concerns.
"Why" any given hero gets involved in any given adventure is the essential basic question that every writer has to answer - from RPG modules to major motion pictures, the "Why" is important to suspension of disbelief.
I wouldn't give up on playing a cleric of the sun god in LFR just yet, though. Don't get me wrong, I love playing rogues, and my second favorite/most played character is in fact a rogue - but my cleric is still a great character and class for LFR play.
Consider the various reasons ANYONE would adventure, regardless of "character class". To willingly march into a dark, smelly series of tunnels and caves, which are probably trapped and certainly full of flesh eating monsters takes someone either powerfully motivated, or simply out of his cotton pickin mind. How many people do you know fairly well in real life? Forty or fifty people or more? How many of them are thrill seeking types who go sky diving, enter 'tough man' fighting competitions, or travel to Hawaii for the express purpose of leaping off a 90 foot high cliff into the ocean? None of those things comes close to "Please go explore those haunted crypts and see if you can figure out what has been leaving half eaten villagers scattered around...we can pay you 15 bucks up front and you get to keep whatever you find down there." As adventurers, we have to be crazy!
On the other hand, maybe we aren't totally crazy. Maybe we are just driven by some strong sense of duty, or wanderlust, or even fear.
Compare the LFR clergy/temples to real life (during the Middle Ages, for example). You have all kinds of Orders within the Church. This one is primarily concerned with fighting disease or famine. This one over here is all about taking care of orphans and the homeless. That one is focused on protecting travelers who are making pilgrimages. Another investigates reports of demonic activity. Still another trains as a military organization, to defend outposts and frontier parishes from bandits or monsters. In the monasteries, you have orders devoted to recovering knowledge that has been lost or forgotten. Another is charged with promoting the Faith to the common man, in a manner that he can understand and/or afford. Yet another investigates the Church itself, seeking out corruption or heresy. There is another that trains its members for the most holy task of establishing new temples/parishes in faraway lands. Within all of these are secret societies that have darker (or more lofty) goals - while you are out doing whatever your order normally does, keep an eye out for That Other Faith (whoever They might be) and see if you can screw up their plans.
All of those things offer possible motivations for your cleric to be adventuring, particularly with semi-random groups of other adventurers, and while travelling all over the known world.
My cleric is a "shielding" build - I prefer powers and feats that buff my allies and debuff my enemies. I am a competent healer and a reasonable combatant (but only with my ranged attacks). He is not equipped to take on most threast directly, so he seeks out adventurers to help with the task.
He travels the world in search of Evil, doing whatever he can, wherever he can, to combat it. Sometimes its straightforward - Monster X is killing the good people of Generic Village. Kill it, make sure the peasants know it wouldn't have happened without your God's divine help, then move along. Sometimes it's more complicated - maybe there's no clear villain, or your group is doing something that seems simply "armed labor", like delivering a package. In that case, your cleric is there to keep an eye on the rest of the crew and make sure they aren't tempted into doing anything Bad. If you get to fight Evil directly, great! If not, you gained experience in the world and were able to "lead by example". Maybe this is a good time to try and convert those villagers, or that shifty eyed halfling in your group.
Sometimes you WILL run into a clear case of "I just cannot justify my Good cleric doing this". If you know (in advance) what the adventure is likely to be about, pick a different character for tonight's game. You can always tell the DM up front "I'm a devout cleric of the sun god, and a roleplayer - is that likely to cause serious problems during the adventure?" Most DMs will warn you if they think it will be a problem. If you let your players know the same thing up front, you can help prevent problems later. 1) they won't be surprised when your Good cleric refuses to plunder the temple of another Good god, and 2) they are far more likely to try and help you figure a way out of your moral problem when it crops up.
Last night was a perfect example. We were hired to find a missing dwarf who was rumored to be out exploring some old burial grounds and ruins. As it turns out, he was plundering an old tomb that happened to be blessed (originally) by Lathander - who we know as Amaunator since the spellplague. My boss! On top of that, the tomb had a bunch of undead and one seriously evil necromancer in residence. Destroying the undead and their boss was pretty much a given, but then we came to the part where we rescue the dwarf and he wants us to help him finish plundering the tomb. Worse yet, he refuses to surrender what loot he has already taken while robbing graves. My cleric was not OK with that, at all, and was quite prepared to reseal the tomb up with the dwarf inside - or send him off to talk to the Gods in person, and THEN reseal the tomb. This would have hosed the adventure loot for pretty much the entire party. Fortunately, the rest of the group knows I'm a roleplayer and were ready to back me up if we couldnt figure a way around this "moral roadblock". In the end, we intimidated the dwarf into leaving the goodies in the tomb. During the last few minutes in the tomb, we discovered a secret compartment in a room we had previously examined (we made successful perception checks this time, where we all failed horribly before). In the little compartment was some nice jewelry/loot, which we took - this annoyed the dwarf, you bet. However, one of the other players had an inspiration and announced "Obviously Amaunator is pleased with our decision to reseal the tomb and avoid tomb robbing, and has revealed these items to us as a reward for Doing The Right Thing!".
In the end, we completed the adventure, solved an unexpected moral dilemma, and still got the goodies for being heroic. A good night all around, and nobody was offended by my desire to roleplay a 'devout' cleric. You should consider the potential for similar problems as you adventure, and think of them as challenges, not blocks to your game play. I think that if you are up front about being a roleplayer, and a good cleric, your group will adjust themselves to the idea and support you. Then its just a matter of looking at every adventure in that light - "Why would a guy like me be in a place like this?" LFR isn't morally bankrupt, it's just morally open to interpretation by the players. Making it work for your cleric is just part of the fun!
Incidentally, back in the LG days, I was part of a group that set sort of a notorious record. At a table of 6 players, we had 2 paladins and 4 clerics. All but one were Lawful Good, and that one was Lawful Neutral. The adventure (which was very poorly written, in our minds) started with the players being offered a job to help one gang of criminals dominate another - by committing a murder! The adventure basically assumed that the players would at least TRY to murder the guy, but we flatly refused, and promptly arrested the NPC who tried to coerce us into the job. The game crashed to a stop.
The DM (poor fellow) kind of went into shock. He warned us that if we failed to "swallow the hook", he'd have no choice but to award us all 10 XP for failing the very first encounter and end the adventure without gaining any gold. For 5 minutes he tried valiantly to try and work around the problem, but the adventure (as written) simply didn't allow him much leeway, and we were hardcore roleplayers. At 6 minutes after game start, we collected our 10 XP and headed to the snack bar, dissatisfied with the module, but very pleased with both our DM (for trying so hard) and our fellow players for "sticking to their guns". That was the only LG adventure I ever played where there simply wasn't a way around the moral issue, and even though we got almost nothing for it, we were happy with the way we played our characters. When you play a "Lawful Good" character, you are going to find yourself having to make hard choices some day - its part of the appeal, for me.
Incidentally, back in the LG days, I was part of a group that set sort of a notorious record. At a table of 6 players, we had 2 paladins and 4 clerics. All but one were Lawful Good, and that one was Lawful Neutral. The adventure (which was very poorly written, in our minds) started with the players being offered a job to help one gang of criminals dominate another - by committing a murder! The adventure basically assumed that the players would at least TRY to murder the guy, but we flatly refused, and promptly arrested the NPC who tried to coerce us into the job. The game crashed to a stop.
The DM (poor fellow) kind of went into shock. He warned us that if we failed to "swallow the hook", he'd have no choice but to award us all 10 XP for failing the very first encounter and end the adventure without gaining any gold. For 5 minutes he tried valiantly to try and work around the problem, but the adventure (as written) simply didn't allow him much leeway, and we were hardcore roleplayers. At 6 minutes after game start, we collected our 10 XP and headed to the snack bar, dissatisfied with the module, but very pleased with both our DM (for trying so hard) and our fellow players for "sticking to their guns". That was the only LG adventure I ever played where there simply wasn't a way around the moral issue, and even though we got almost nothing for it, we were happy with the way we played our characters. When you play a "Lawful Good" character, you are going to find yourself having to make hard choices some day - its part of the appeal, for me.
[STANDING OVATION!!!!]
I've heard it said (and I am in agreement with) that you cannot truly consider yourself a roleplayer unless you have performed in-game actions that you are know are detrimental (or sub-optimal) for your character simply because that is what that particular character would do in that situation.
With that in mind, I've:
Hurled myself off of a cliff attempting to land on a monster, crushing it. (I missed horribly, but it was good fun for the Dragonborn Warlord).
Hurled myself off a ledge, knowing that I probably would not survive the fall, just to stop a ranged combatant that was on the verge of killing the rest of the party. (I hit, but went unconscious from the fall).
Surrendered an NPC to a hag, because my character had given his word (and thereby nearly started a fight with the entire party).
Carried an alabaster pillar all through Spellguard. (One dwarf on each end of the pillar. We used it as a bridge, as a battering ram, and even used it to bull-rush a shade, only to have the elven ghost NPC take it away with her to the Feywild at the end of the adventure.)
Miserably failed a skill challenge when I refused to give up a person I'd sworn to protect to the town guard. (I threatened to fight the whole town to the death, but the DM blanched a little at that.)
Activated my +2 Bloodclaw weapon, even when down to single digit hit points, just because a battlerager would do that in the height of a battle rage.
All great fun.
Incidentally, back in the LG days, I was part of a group that set sort of a notorious record. At a table of 6 players, we had 2 paladins and 4 clerics. All but one were Lawful Good, and that one was Lawful Neutral. The adventure (which was very poorly written, in our minds) started with the players being offered a job to help one gang of criminals dominate another - by committing a murder! The adventure basically assumed that the players would at least TRY to murder the guy, but we flatly refused, and promptly arrested the NPC who tried to coerce us into the job. The game crashed to a stop.
The DM (poor fellow) kind of went into shock. He warned us that if we failed to "swallow the hook", he'd have no choice but to award us all 10 XP for failing the very first encounter and end the adventure without gaining any gold. For 5 minutes he tried valiantly to try and work around the problem, but the adventure (as written) simply didn't allow him much leeway, and we were hardcore roleplayers. At 6 minutes after game start, we collected our 10 XP and headed to the snack bar, dissatisfied with the module, but very pleased with both our DM (for trying so hard) and our fellow players for "sticking to their guns". That was the only LG adventure I ever played where there simply wasn't a way around the moral issue, and even though we got almost nothing for it, we were happy with the way we played our characters. When you play a "Lawful Good" character, you are going to find yourself having to make hard choices some day - its part of the appeal, for me.
Nice. I wrote a Mod for the Veluna region where the hook saw the PCs stuck between the thieves guild and the law and you had to choose which side to help. That split the direction of the mod... it was essentially two mods in one. The admins hated me for it. :D
One thing that might enable the use of more creative and interesting hooks would be to put a summary of the plot hook in the blurb. "An insane halfling pays you to travel to Thesk and look for an unspecified artifact"/ "The lady of Shadowdale pays you to journey into the forest and find out what is changing the fey"/ "After a dockside scuffle, a local businesswoman pays you to search some ruins for a lost deed"/ "Seeing bandits accosting some local farmers, you decide to put them out of business permanently."
That style of blurb would enable people who care about such things to bring an appropriate character to the table because they would know whether or not their character would be interested before they sat down. It would also enable some different styles of adventure (to the extent that the 4th edition and LFR mechanics make them possible). For instance, I haven't played any pure exploration adventures in LFR yet of the style: "you come by a mysterious map promising an ancient treasure and set out to find it" / "You set out into the wilderness to find the truth about rumors of a crystal tower in the foothills."
If my experience in LG is any indication, however, that would require a great deal of discipline on the part of the editors and management of the campaign in order to maintain that function of the blurb. Many authors there were fond of writing vaguely artistic but completely uninformative--or even positively misleading--blurbs if they were permitted to do so. I don't expect that has changed much.
I remember these, and always thought they were an excellent idea - until some module authors started deliberately giving misleading clues. There was one that promised an adventure on the high seas, but instead you started shipwrecked. The extent of the 'high seas adventure' was the 30 seconds of box text that basically meant "Ha ha you brought your sea going character to a desert mission, hope this upsets you". We were unamused, and made a note of the author's name for future reference.
Perhaps we could do something like this in the 4e style. Use keywords for the adventure, instead of blurbs, or perhaps instead of just blurbs.
Split the keywords into 3 types maybe - Terrain/Environment (urban, underground, etc), Type/Theme (puzzle/trap, investigation/mystery, battle/warfare, etc), and Special Challenges (this is where you warn folks that there might be unusual problems, like Undead or choices based on your Alignment, etc):
So you would see something like this:
CORMYR 20-12 "...And That To The Hilt"
Adventure Keywords: Mystery, Outdoor, Undead
"You've arrived at the small town of Underhill, but something is terribly wrong. The place seems abandoned, except for a lone figure desperately ringing the bell in the church tower."
I'm just making up random keywords here, but even if we only gave 2 or 3, it might be enough. Some people might say keywords would remove some of the element of surprise, but in 4e LFR you can play an adventure more than once as long as you don't use the same character (so there goes your element of surprise anyway). I think keywords would allow folks to bring more appropriate characters to the table, at least the first time they played an adventure (so keywords would be most helpful to a newer player).
Anyway, just some ideas...
I suspect there are a lot of factors at play here. For the OP, I find the primary factor goes back to the change with alignment. Alignment has become meaningless, both because it is de-emphasized in importance in the PH and because it is stripped of mechanical impact. 1E had a lot of requirements, such as classes not being available or monsters naturally fighting others because of alignment. 2E really tried to push alignment, and many of us probably still carry some of that 'training'. 3E still had a focus on it creation-wise, but then had lots of spell and feat effects that pushed players towards considering alignment and how their PC fit into the world.
In 4E, the good dragons are unaligned. Spells have no alignment issues. Alignment is something you pick in the CB, right around the time you type in the PC's name and your RPGA (sorry, should I say WPN?) number.
The game reflects that. Gone are rooms where everyone that is of x alignment takes y damage. Gone are encounters where the spirit only talks to PCs of x alignment. Gone is alignment in almost any shape or form in modules. In a campaign where we now often have 4-10 PCs, that constant feedback of alignment not mattering starts to add up. Players pick up on that. No RP impact? No mechanical impact? Alignment doesn't matter, got it.
Construction-wise, I'm personally not worried about adventure plot hooks. I find plenty of reasons for my PCs to take part, regardless of background. Caravan run? Yeah, I need some more gold for my agenda. Save someone? Sure, I'll do that as a hero or play along as an anti-hero. But, beyond accepting the hook, we can't strip away all impact of alignment and not expect everyone to play without a moral compass.
I recall in the BK (Bandit Kingdoms), many LG players gravitating towards true neutral or chaotic neutral. In a region where your personality could cost you and the guards might actually detect your alignment, your paranoid PC extended to the paranoid player... and thus, the region had very few Lawful and even Good PCs! In a different but still strong feedback loop, LFR builds playing away from your alignments. Some of that is good, in that you play away from a 'type' and perhaps towards a personality, but more often it is bad in that players feel un-obliged to be consistent with their IC actions.
To fix this? Bring back alignment, and enforce it in adventures. I don't suspect either will happen.
The game reflects that. Gone are rooms where everyone that is of x alignment takes y damage. Gone are encounters where the spirit only talks to PCs of x alignment. Gone is alignment in almost any shape or form in modules. In a campaign where we now often have 4-10 PCs, that constant feedback of alignment not mattering starts to add up. Players pick up on that. No RP impact? No mechanical impact? Alignment doesn't matter, got it.
Well nothing stops people from creating situations where rooms are more hostile (or safer) for PCs that are of X Alignment, similarly for the NPC that will only talk to people of X Alignment. Though in truth, because these things can be stumbling blocks there are better ways of handling this in 4E (eg auto-successes in a skill challenge if a person of X-Alignment talks to the NPC).
Also I have had to remind a player that he is not playing a "Good" character and ask him to adjust appropriately in a session, he changed the alingment to Unaligned.
In other words it is what people do with alignment that matters. (for eg I always removed all the Alignment related spells from my games all the way back to 1E. In my games only Paladins could detect evil, and once the Complete Paladin's Handook came out and let me make them puke if the evil was to high that was never a popular choice either )
Well nothing stops people from creating situations where rooms are more hostile (or safer) for PCs that are of X Alignment, similarly for the NPC that will only talk to people of X Alignment. Though in truth, because these things can be stumbling blocks there are better ways of handling this in 4E (eg auto-successes in a skill challenge if a person of X-Alignment talks to the NPC).
The fact that there is no method to detect alignment pretty much makes it impossible to let things activate based on it. Now, in case of NPCs an author could write down some kind of test, and let the NPCs react based on how the PCs did, but that is not exactly the same.
There is no way to detect origin either, but effects target origin just fine.
The fact that PCs cannot do it is no longer a restriction on what monsters/NPCs can do, so if there is a narative reason for alignment favouring there is no reason not to include it.
There is no way to detect origin either, but effects target origin just fine.
You can learn origin with knowledge checks.
And does anyone make such checks? (There are examples of traps that do not attack members of X Race in Dungeon mods - how are they making the check?)
The thing remains, if you have narative justification then nothing stops the NPC being able to do it, it just isn't going to be something PCs are going to be able to do in 4E.
Still, there is a way to determine origin (through applying knowledge), and there is no such way to determine alignment. That has several implications:
- that it is possible to set up a mechanism to determine origin, while it is unsure if that can be done for alignment
- that, being able to determine it, origin is actual a part of the world's makeup, and a distinctive part at that, while alignment is (apparently) not
- that, being a distinctive part, this implies different origin may react differently to different situations, and therefor may be affected differently by powers, regardless of being detected
That doesn't mean it is impossible to apply this to alignment. But since we have, so far, no mechanic for making alignment a distinctive and identifiable part of the world's makeup, it is less likely to be a factor in power effects.
A case of: theoretically possible, but unlikely. See it, then believe it.