We are two paladins and a cleric. We are lvl1. We travelled the desert, in search for a lost caravan, and discovered a camp of cultists. The cultists "insisted" to take us to their leader. There were 30 of them and only 3 of us, so we went along with it. they lead us to the leaders camp, and it turns out the leader is a Goristro, a demon. Our characters are shocked! (We have a paladin of Pelor, a Cleric of Lathander and a Paladin of Bahamut.). The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die. There is no possibility of escape, because the cultists surround the camp, but we also don't want to help a demon. So my character decides that he will attack the demon. He rather wants to die, then help such a creature. I think this action was in-character, because my guy is a bit overzealous and doesn't have a very high wisdom. I ask the other players if they are on board, and they nod. We don't know how strong of a monster the demon is, but we attack him anyway. We get immediately downed, in the first round of combat. We get stabilized by the cultists. After this, the DM complains that I just wanted to screw over his adventure, and that I am a bad player. I replied that I thought that this was what my character would do. We continued the game after that, but I think the DM is still upset. Am I in the wrong here? Should I apologize?
Personally I would have played along until I was no longer surrounded by a small army of enemies and their demonic leader. There's a difference between "low wisdom" and "complete dumbass." I would expect your gods to understand "letting the demon live" so you can escape to fight another day rather than the standard Lawful Stupid tactic of re-eanacting Custer's Last Stand every time a powerful force of evil appears.
That being said, the DM presented a bunch of faith based good aligned characters with a "deal with the devil" type situation so I'm really not sure what else he was expecting unless he, too, is acting like a borderline dumbass.
It sounds to me (and this is an entirely personal opinion based on limited information) like blame should be shared. I say it sounds like both the players and the DM were acting excessively rigid in their approach and everybody needs to take a step back, think for a few minutes about what could have been done differently, and try to be a bit more flexible in the future. Players should think "Is there an option other than a suicidal banzai charge into certain death?" and the DM should think "What if my players don't want to take the one and only option I have planned for?"
Edit: As to not knowing how strong the demon was, I would think two paladins and a cleric should get some Religion checks to figure out at least enough to know "We really don't want to mess with that." If no checks were requested nor offered, then again I'd say both the players and the DM dropped the ball on that one.
Personally I would have played along until I was no longer surrounded by a small army of enemies and their demonic leader. There's a difference between "low wisdom" and "complete dumbass." I would expect your gods to understand "letting the demon live" so you can escape to fight another day rather than the standard Lawful Stupid tactic of re-eanacting Custer's Last Stand every time a powerful force of evil appears.
That being said, the DM presented a bunch of faith based good aligned characters with a "deal with the devil" type situation so I'm really not sure what else he was expecting unless he, too, is acting like a borderline dumbass.
It sounds to me (and this is an entirely personal opinion based on limited information) like blame should be shared. I say it sounds like both the players and the DM were acting excessively rigid in their approach and everybody needs to take a step back, think for a few minutes about what could have been done differently, and try to be a bit more flexible in the future. Players should think "Is there an option other than a suicidal banzai charge into certain death?" and the DM should think "What if my players don't want to take the one and only option I have planned for?"
Edit: As to not knowing how strong the demon was, I would think two paladins and a cleric should get some Religion checks to figure out at least enough to know "We really don't want to mess with that." If no checks were requested nor offered, then again I'd say both the players and the DM dropped the ball on that one.
Thank you for the reply! That was very helpful. I think you are right, and the entire game was a bit of a mess. I think I will talk with the DM about the game and apologize to him. And I will try to not play so „Lawful stupid“ in the future. Lol.
Sounds like someone or both missed a LOT on session 0. DM should have made a point to address a heavy demonic presence to the platers once he realized he had 3 "holy rollers" as characters. A discussion has to be had, because if he intends for you guys to be wheeling and dealing with demons, fiends, devils and more, you are going to likely want to reroll new characters. Attempting to mesh such a disparate view (holy warriors working alongside demons) is never going to work well, nor feel natural. It's kind of forcing square pegs into round holes.
As a DM, I would never, at any point, put an entire party of holy folks (Clerics and Paladins specifically) into a position where they HAD to do the bidding of a demon. As the player said, MANY of these paladins and Clerics WOULD take death over being a demon's *****. The power of said demon means nothing here, so his attempt to force it, by having vastly OP enemies was a sad attempt to railroad the party into his path. I'd put a full stop to the campaign now and insist on a serious discussion on where this is going to go. You, as players, are under no obligation to do things the way HE/SHE thinks you should and now, he/she knows that your group has he "line in the sand" that won't be crossed. If there can be no compromise, let him know it's likely to be a very short campaign. Personally, I'd have gone the same route and further still, pointed out that the encounter wasn't well thought out by the DM, so no, as a player, I wouldn't own responsibility for the DM's poor decision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I'm personally fond of playing characters with strong codes and beliefs as well, mostly clerics but there's definitely a lot of overlap with paladins in that regard. The "Lawful Stupid" trap can be easy to fall into if you aren't careful sometimes, much like Chaotic Stupid for pretty much every Chaotic aligned character ever made. I recommend any time you think "It's what my character would do" you stop and ask yourself if that's really the case. What will the likely consequences be, and does your character actually see that as a preferable outcome? Unless your character is "super impulsive and never thinks anything through" in which I would say (again, personal opinion) that you actually have made a bad character and are going to be a pain in the arse to your fellow players because you've made "I do dumb $%^#" a defining trait of your character.
Lawful alignment doesn't mean you have to play the character as absolute and uncompromising to the point of every possible choice being between one specific "by the book" option or "smite the heretics." Chaotic alignment doesn't mean you have to play a character like a certifiably insane moron with crippling ADHD. There is a lot of in between room. A big part of roleplaying (again, personal opinion and why I like doing it) is to pretend to be someone else. Ask yourself if you were in that situation and you had the priorities, desires, fears, and goals of that character, what would you do? What do you think would be the noble and pious thing to do? In your situation, sure, the valiant and pious hard stand is an option, but would that do anything to actually aid and further the goals of your character? Just like a CN rogue doesn't actually have to try to pick every pocket and steal everything that isn't nailed down during an audience with the King and surrounded by Royal Guard, a paladin doesn't have to smite a demon if they know they'll just get themselves killed.
To be honest, the DM should have realised that putting a Paladin in a situation where they have to choose between being moral and serving the needs of the plot is asking for trouble. Whatever the arc was that he planned, he should have coaxed you in using a better hook than "Do what I want and risk becoming an Oathbreaker or screw my plot over".
It's the role if the DM to facilitate your session. Even uf you were a bunch of fighters that screwed his plot, it's his responsibility to fix things. Find another hook that works better for your characters. I've had similar issues - except my problem was that the dice were screwing me over - and my inventiveness created an interesting twist to the story as I tried to salvage it. You may have screwed his hook, but it's his job to fix it and make another one.
Also, it sounds like you conferred with players before going ahead. If he really didn't like it, he should have mentioned it then. If my players are planning to do something that I really didn't want them to do for some reason, I mention it.
That said, often critical information isn't mentioned in these posts, so it's possible that there is some thing else going on. Based upon the information given, I'd say that the DM I'd a little too attached to his story, rather than facilitating yours.
Remember though, the DM is a player too. He should be having fun as well, and it seems that he's not. Have a discussion with them and see if you can all resolve it. Perhaps work on a new hook together that would work with your characters
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
What happened at this point is the info that would be very helpful to have. You continued the game so it wasn't a total catastrophe, but continued how? Was there a do-over, did the DM scrap the whole thing and started you off on a different questline, did something that happen that made it more manageable for your characters to deal with this demon? Was there any talk about how things went pearshaped and how to fix it? Was anything said at all beyond the complaint and the reply? Did the other two players add their two cents to the conversation?
You moved on, which is obviously good, but I can't tell whether anything was fixed or if any problem was even acknowledged. I also don't know if the DM had told you anything about the campaign before you created your characters, or if you gave him some info about the characters in advance of the first session (by which I mean, give him enough time to consider the characters to possibly make some adjustments).
As the previous replies indicated, a whole lot of frustration can be avoided by being a bit flexible (D&D is a cooperative game - it's going to be infinitely better if everyone involved tries to consider what might make it better as it unfolds, rather than hold strictly to the adventure and characters as they were defined before the first session even started), and by talking about expectations a little bit both before the campaign and, if anything happens anyone feels negative about, during. To have a great game it clearly helps if the players play great and the DM DMs great, but I promise it helps just as much to do a little work outside the game itself: tell each other what you liked and what you hope for, as well as what wasn't fun or you'd rather not deal with, and take what the others say into consideration.
Sounds like new gamers all around. I would have killed your pc but left the other ones alive. The DM has bought into his plot line and not set up other paths to his goal. This a failure of new DMs. With new DMs and new players ALWAYS follow the plot hook even if covered with a dirty worm. Then after the session talk with your DM.
This is a place where a little meta-gaming could have helped. Your character might think "Work for a demon?? NEVER!!!", while you as a player might think "ok, this is the DM's adventure hook. Since I signed on to play this campaign, I should make an effort to play along and see where this goes. It doesn't have to compromise my character's beliefs, maybe he's just stalling for time until the right moment to strike back... yeah, that should work."
That flexibility to do field surgery on your character's motivations on the fly will get you far in dnd, especially as far as not being a Wangrod.
However, I will also agree that yeah, maybe your DM should've put a little more thought into sending three devout clerics/paladins into the den of a demonic cult. The fact that your fellow party members were also on board for your character's suicide mission speaks volumes, and shows that the problem wasn't just you. DM's also need to be flexible, and have to either consider how players will react to things, or accept results regardless of what they are.
Usually, I answer the OP’s question with, yeah, you were wrong. Because usually when a player says “it’s what my character would do” that player is just being a jerk. This case is an exception. The DM was just railroading you all and completely unprepared for any outcome but the one he had scripted. Railroads can be fun and can work (some people like that style of play) but this one was executed poorly. He should have anticipated that you might fight the demon. Heck, you might have tried to fight the cultists when they first found you. Or run from them, or do 100 other things. But when he only gives you one option, he’s really boxing himself in since players will often not take it.
It sounds like he saved it from tpk when the cultists helped you, though I wonder why they would do that. But it’s on him not to put you in a situation where there’s only one way to solve the challenge. And he should have expected a party with that composition to try and kill the demon.
Your characters were well within their rights to react like that and for you guys to play it that way. It's a roleplaying game afterall! The DM should have forseen this possibility, it appears he or she wasn't prepared or willing to accept this outcome without regrets or hard feelings expressed. The DM should not blame his players for roleplaying their characters even if it almost foiled its plans, that's the sad part.
It's a railroad onto which you were doom to go wether you accepted or refused the Demon's offer. "You do this or you die" is terrible as it's not a choice you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is the other sad part.
It comes down as well a bit on what oaths your paladin and the other two paladins have taken. I had to leave a campaign for similar reasons. Order of the Watchers includes the following oath:
"Loyalty. Never accept gifts or favors from fiends or those who truck with them. Stay true to your order, your comrades, and your duty."
The DM seemed not to understand that nor had willingness to make any accommodation for it. The plot required us to negotiate with fiends.
I think there's a difference between accepting a favor, and accepting a trade. Especially when the terms of the deal are "do this or die." I think a Paladin can do that. He won't *like* it, but it's not going to break his oath.
Similarly, I don't think you need to make a check to recognize that a goristro is bad news. Everything about that situation should be screaming "you're lucky if you get out of here alive."
It sounds to me like the players considered this bargain to be a bigger problem than the DM did, and the error in communication wasn't dealt with before it basically got everyone killed. It happens. Lesson learned, hopefully.
It comes down as well a bit on what oaths your paladin and the other two paladins have taken. I had to leave a campaign for similar reasons. Order of the Watchers includes the following oath:
"Loyalty. Never accept gifts or favors from fiends or those who truck with them. Stay true to your order, your comrades, and your duty."
The DM seemed not to understand that nor had willingness to make any accommodation for it. The plot required us to negotiate with fiends.
I think there's a difference between accepting a favor, and accepting a trade. Especially when the terms of the deal are "do this or die." I think a Paladin can do that. He won't *like* it, but it's not going to break his oath.
Similarly, I don't think you need to make a check to recognize that a goristro is bad news. Everything about that situation should be screaming "you're lucky if you get out of here alive."
It sounds to me like the players considered this bargain to be a bigger problem than the DM did, and the error in communication wasn't dealt with before it basically got everyone killed. It happens. Lesson learned, hopefully.
"Or those who would truck with them." Trading with them is arguably trucking with them.
That's alright, that just means you can't accept gifts or favors from yourself or your party members.
It comes down as well a bit on what oaths your paladin and the other two paladins have taken. I had to leave a campaign for similar reasons. Order of the Watchers includes the following oath:
"Loyalty. Never accept gifts or favors from fiends or those who truck with them. Stay true to your order, your comrades, and your duty."
The DM seemed not to understand that nor had willingness to make any accommodation for it. The plot required us to negotiate with fiends.
I think there's a difference between accepting a favor, and accepting a trade. Especially when the terms of the deal are "do this or die." I think a Paladin can do that. He won't *like* it, but it's not going to break his oath.
Similarly, I don't think you need to make a check to recognize that a goristro is bad news. Everything about that situation should be screaming "you're lucky if you get out of here alive."
It sounds to me like the players considered this bargain to be a bigger problem than the DM did, and the error in communication wasn't dealt with before it basically got everyone killed. It happens. Lesson learned, hopefully.
"Or those who would truck with them." Trading with them is arguably trucking with them.
I'm not sure giving in to coercion by threat of death constitutes as trading, trucking or any other term short of being put in an impossible position, even for paladins and clerics finding themselves at the mercy of a demon they cannot hope to defeat.
I'm all for DMs making paladins deal with the strength of their convictions, to be perfectly honest; and by the stricter standards of previous editions at that. But this is not that. "Do this thing you really don't want to do or die for your principles" is not interesting or fun or, at lvl 1, arguably even all that dramatic. It's "I give in so the game doesn't end" vs "the game ends so my character dies with its honor intact". I don't know what the DM had in mind or was hoping for. I just hope it was something other than that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
In standard cosmology, killing the demon on the material plane just gets it off the material plane. I'm sure the locals would be grateful but you haven't killed it, really. And you cut short your ability to do good in this world if you die, so be careful with that.
Even the odds? If your deity could destroy any big demon anywhere at any time, why would there even be demons? Pelor (or whoever) helps those who help themselves, as the saying goes. In other words, you're on your own for this one, chief. There's only so much even-ing you can do between a goristro and a level one group of three.
1) Why not Sure if Fiends are treated as just normal foes but they are not. They are quasi divine beings and therefore presumably subject to some sort of divine rules. Short of being on their territory (which they do not seem to be), wouldn't simply killing them bear some price and pretty much guarantee the Paladin's relatively strong positions in the afterlife?
2) And assuming they are true to their faith, would they not trust their respective deities to even the odds? They are not facing just the mortal cultists but something that should not be there.
1) If we're talking some FR cosmology petitioners situation, maybe. I don't know that getting killed by a fiend at lvl 1 guarantees anything with regards to the afterlife though, considering the only point made by dying was not giving in. Not trying to foil anything or escape or even just waiting for an opportunity, just going out with a whimper.
2) But it was there. And presumably characters in the game know there are limitations to what their deities can do for them. Not sure what their orders or mentors or whoever taught them about divine intervention, but if it was something to the extent of "he'll come through for you no matter what" they were clearly lied to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is a fictional setting and it is there because the DM chose for it to be there. The DM can, of course, build their own cosmology, but it would be a tough sell to worship good aligned deities if the evil ones are allowed to send Demons down to force innocent people to do their dirty work.
This is pretty much what Christians believed for centuries.
And it's perfectly possible to worship a god without believing that god is omnipotent and can prevent anything they don't like by proverbially snapping their fingers. In fact, the simple observation that the world isn't in perfect harmony should be sufficient evidence to anyone with an ounce of sense that if good gods exist not only must they have an evil counterpart but said counterpart must be comparably strong and be able to work in ways not immediately apparent to the good gods.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Maybe Pelor *can* send an angel down to kick some ass. But probably not right at the exact moment a Paladin suddenly decides to attack a powerful demon in its base of operations, no. Maybe it would be wise to extract oneself from that situation, and then seek out one of those priests I keep hearing about. They say priests can get in touch with him. Might be worth checking out. And while you're at it, maybe inform the army or something. It seems like nobody's found out about the demon yet, and that's probably bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We are two paladins and a cleric. We are lvl1. We travelled the desert, in search for a lost caravan, and discovered a camp of cultists. The cultists "insisted" to take us to their leader. There were 30 of them and only 3 of us, so we went along with it. they lead us to the leaders camp, and it turns out the leader is a Goristro, a demon. Our characters are shocked! (We have a paladin of Pelor, a Cleric of Lathander and a Paladin of Bahamut.). The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die. There is no possibility of escape, because the cultists surround the camp, but we also don't want to help a demon. So my character decides that he will attack the demon. He rather wants to die, then help such a creature. I think this action was in-character, because my guy is a bit overzealous and doesn't have a very high wisdom. I ask the other players if they are on board, and they nod. We don't know how strong of a monster the demon is, but we attack him anyway. We get immediately downed, in the first round of combat. We get stabilized by the cultists. After this, the DM complains that I just wanted to screw over his adventure, and that I am a bad player. I replied that I thought that this was what my character would do. We continued the game after that, but I think the DM is still upset. Am I in the wrong here? Should I apologize?
Personally I would have played along until I was no longer surrounded by a small army of enemies and their demonic leader. There's a difference between "low wisdom" and "complete dumbass." I would expect your gods to understand "letting the demon live" so you can escape to fight another day rather than the standard Lawful Stupid tactic of re-eanacting Custer's Last Stand every time a powerful force of evil appears.
That being said, the DM presented a bunch of faith based good aligned characters with a "deal with the devil" type situation so I'm really not sure what else he was expecting unless he, too, is acting like a borderline dumbass.
It sounds to me (and this is an entirely personal opinion based on limited information) like blame should be shared. I say it sounds like both the players and the DM were acting excessively rigid in their approach and everybody needs to take a step back, think for a few minutes about what could have been done differently, and try to be a bit more flexible in the future. Players should think "Is there an option other than a suicidal banzai charge into certain death?" and the DM should think "What if my players don't want to take the one and only option I have planned for?"
Edit: As to not knowing how strong the demon was, I would think two paladins and a cleric should get some Religion checks to figure out at least enough to know "We really don't want to mess with that." If no checks were requested nor offered, then again I'd say both the players and the DM dropped the ball on that one.
Thank you for the reply! That was very helpful. I think you are right, and the entire game was a bit of a mess. I think I will talk with the DM about the game and apologize to him. And I will try to not play so „Lawful stupid“ in the future. Lol.
Sounds like someone or both missed a LOT on session 0. DM should have made a point to address a heavy demonic presence to the platers once he realized he had 3 "holy rollers" as characters. A discussion has to be had, because if he intends for you guys to be wheeling and dealing with demons, fiends, devils and more, you are going to likely want to reroll new characters. Attempting to mesh such a disparate view (holy warriors working alongside demons) is never going to work well, nor feel natural. It's kind of forcing square pegs into round holes.
As a DM, I would never, at any point, put an entire party of holy folks (Clerics and Paladins specifically) into a position where they HAD to do the bidding of a demon. As the player said, MANY of these paladins and Clerics WOULD take death over being a demon's *****. The power of said demon means nothing here, so his attempt to force it, by having vastly OP enemies was a sad attempt to railroad the party into his path. I'd put a full stop to the campaign now and insist on a serious discussion on where this is going to go. You, as players, are under no obligation to do things the way HE/SHE thinks you should and now, he/she knows that your group has he "line in the sand" that won't be crossed. If there can be no compromise, let him know it's likely to be a very short campaign. Personally, I'd have gone the same route and further still, pointed out that the encounter wasn't well thought out by the DM, so no, as a player, I wouldn't own responsibility for the DM's poor decision.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I'm personally fond of playing characters with strong codes and beliefs as well, mostly clerics but there's definitely a lot of overlap with paladins in that regard. The "Lawful Stupid" trap can be easy to fall into if you aren't careful sometimes, much like Chaotic Stupid for pretty much every Chaotic aligned character ever made. I recommend any time you think "It's what my character would do" you stop and ask yourself if that's really the case. What will the likely consequences be, and does your character actually see that as a preferable outcome? Unless your character is "super impulsive and never thinks anything through" in which I would say (again, personal opinion) that you actually have made a bad character and are going to be a pain in the arse to your fellow players because you've made "I do dumb $%^#" a defining trait of your character.
Lawful alignment doesn't mean you have to play the character as absolute and uncompromising to the point of every possible choice being between one specific "by the book" option or "smite the heretics." Chaotic alignment doesn't mean you have to play a character like a certifiably insane moron with crippling ADHD. There is a lot of in between room. A big part of roleplaying (again, personal opinion and why I like doing it) is to pretend to be someone else. Ask yourself if you were in that situation and you had the priorities, desires, fears, and goals of that character, what would you do? What do you think would be the noble and pious thing to do? In your situation, sure, the valiant and pious hard stand is an option, but would that do anything to actually aid and further the goals of your character? Just like a CN rogue doesn't actually have to try to pick every pocket and steal everything that isn't nailed down during an audience with the King and surrounded by Royal Guard, a paladin doesn't have to smite a demon if they know they'll just get themselves killed.
To be honest, the DM should have realised that putting a Paladin in a situation where they have to choose between being moral and serving the needs of the plot is asking for trouble. Whatever the arc was that he planned, he should have coaxed you in using a better hook than "Do what I want and risk becoming an Oathbreaker or screw my plot over".
It's the role if the DM to facilitate your session. Even uf you were a bunch of fighters that screwed his plot, it's his responsibility to fix things. Find another hook that works better for your characters. I've had similar issues - except my problem was that the dice were screwing me over - and my inventiveness created an interesting twist to the story as I tried to salvage it. You may have screwed his hook, but it's his job to fix it and make another one.
Also, it sounds like you conferred with players before going ahead. If he really didn't like it, he should have mentioned it then. If my players are planning to do something that I really didn't want them to do for some reason, I mention it.
That said, often critical information isn't mentioned in these posts, so it's possible that there is some thing else going on. Based upon the information given, I'd say that the DM I'd a little too attached to his story, rather than facilitating yours.
Remember though, the DM is a player too. He should be having fun as well, and it seems that he's not. Have a discussion with them and see if you can all resolve it. Perhaps work on a new hook together that would work with your characters
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
What happened at this point is the info that would be very helpful to have. You continued the game so it wasn't a total catastrophe, but continued how? Was there a do-over, did the DM scrap the whole thing and started you off on a different questline, did something that happen that made it more manageable for your characters to deal with this demon? Was there any talk about how things went pearshaped and how to fix it? Was anything said at all beyond the complaint and the reply? Did the other two players add their two cents to the conversation?
You moved on, which is obviously good, but I can't tell whether anything was fixed or if any problem was even acknowledged. I also don't know if the DM had told you anything about the campaign before you created your characters, or if you gave him some info about the characters in advance of the first session (by which I mean, give him enough time to consider the characters to possibly make some adjustments).
As the previous replies indicated, a whole lot of frustration can be avoided by being a bit flexible (D&D is a cooperative game - it's going to be infinitely better if everyone involved tries to consider what might make it better as it unfolds, rather than hold strictly to the adventure and characters as they were defined before the first session even started), and by talking about expectations a little bit both before the campaign and, if anything happens anyone feels negative about, during. To have a great game it clearly helps if the players play great and the DM DMs great, but I promise it helps just as much to do a little work outside the game itself: tell each other what you liked and what you hope for, as well as what wasn't fun or you'd rather not deal with, and take what the others say into consideration.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Sounds like new gamers all around. I would have killed your pc but left the other ones alive. The DM has bought into his plot line and not set up other paths to his goal. This a failure of new DMs. With new DMs and new players ALWAYS follow the plot hook even if covered with a dirty worm. Then after the session talk with your DM.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
This is a place where a little meta-gaming could have helped. Your character might think "Work for a demon?? NEVER!!!", while you as a player might think "ok, this is the DM's adventure hook. Since I signed on to play this campaign, I should make an effort to play along and see where this goes. It doesn't have to compromise my character's beliefs, maybe he's just stalling for time until the right moment to strike back... yeah, that should work."
That flexibility to do field surgery on your character's motivations on the fly will get you far in dnd, especially as far as not being a Wangrod.
However, I will also agree that yeah, maybe your DM should've put a little more thought into sending three devout clerics/paladins into the den of a demonic cult. The fact that your fellow party members were also on board for your character's suicide mission speaks volumes, and shows that the problem wasn't just you. DM's also need to be flexible, and have to either consider how players will react to things, or accept results regardless of what they are.
Usually, I answer the OP’s question with, yeah, you were wrong. Because usually when a player says “it’s what my character would do” that player is just being a jerk.
This case is an exception. The DM was just railroading you all and completely unprepared for any outcome but the one he had scripted. Railroads can be fun and can work (some people like that style of play) but this one was executed poorly. He should have anticipated that you might fight the demon. Heck, you might have tried to fight the cultists when they first found you. Or run from them, or do 100 other things. But when he only gives you one option, he’s really boxing himself in since players will often not take it.
It sounds like he saved it from tpk when the cultists helped you, though I wonder why they would do that. But it’s on him not to put you in a situation where there’s only one way to solve the challenge. And he should have expected a party with that composition to try and kill the demon.
You were not in the wrong.
Your characters were well within their rights to react like that and for you guys to play it that way. It's a roleplaying game afterall! The DM should have forseen this possibility, it appears he or she wasn't prepared or willing to accept this outcome without regrets or hard feelings expressed. The DM should not blame his players for roleplaying their characters even if it almost foiled its plans, that's the sad part.
It's a railroad onto which you were doom to go wether you accepted or refused the Demon's offer. "You do this or you die" is terrible as it's not a choice you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is the other sad part.
I think there's a difference between accepting a favor, and accepting a trade. Especially when the terms of the deal are "do this or die." I think a Paladin can do that. He won't *like* it, but it's not going to break his oath.
Similarly, I don't think you need to make a check to recognize that a goristro is bad news. Everything about that situation should be screaming "you're lucky if you get out of here alive."
It sounds to me like the players considered this bargain to be a bigger problem than the DM did, and the error in communication wasn't dealt with before it basically got everyone killed. It happens. Lesson learned, hopefully.
That's alright, that just means you can't accept gifts or favors from yourself or your party members.
I'm not sure giving in to coercion by threat of death constitutes as trading, trucking or any other term short of being put in an impossible position, even for paladins and clerics finding themselves at the mercy of a demon they cannot hope to defeat.
I'm all for DMs making paladins deal with the strength of their convictions, to be perfectly honest; and by the stricter standards of previous editions at that. But this is not that. "Do this thing you really don't want to do or die for your principles" is not interesting or fun or, at lvl 1, arguably even all that dramatic. It's "I give in so the game doesn't end" vs "the game ends so my character dies with its honor intact". I don't know what the DM had in mind or was hoping for. I just hope it was something other than that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
In standard cosmology, killing the demon on the material plane just gets it off the material plane. I'm sure the locals would be grateful but you haven't killed it, really. And you cut short your ability to do good in this world if you die, so be careful with that.
Even the odds? If your deity could destroy any big demon anywhere at any time, why would there even be demons? Pelor (or whoever) helps those who help themselves, as the saying goes. In other words, you're on your own for this one, chief. There's only so much even-ing you can do between a goristro and a level one group of three.
1) If we're talking some FR cosmology petitioners situation, maybe. I don't know that getting killed by a fiend at lvl 1 guarantees anything with regards to the afterlife though, considering the only point made by dying was not giving in. Not trying to foil anything or escape or even just waiting for an opportunity, just going out with a whimper.
2) But it was there. And presumably characters in the game know there are limitations to what their deities can do for them. Not sure what their orders or mentors or whoever taught them about divine intervention, but if it was something to the extent of "he'll come through for you no matter what" they were clearly lied to.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm actually surprised a Goristro was the head of a cult. They're pretty dumb.
This is pretty much what Christians believed for centuries.
And it's perfectly possible to worship a god without believing that god is omnipotent and can prevent anything they don't like by proverbially snapping their fingers. In fact, the simple observation that the world isn't in perfect harmony should be sufficient evidence to anyone with an ounce of sense that if good gods exist not only must they have an evil counterpart but said counterpart must be comparably strong and be able to work in ways not immediately apparent to the good gods.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Maybe Pelor *can* send an angel down to kick some ass. But probably not right at the exact moment a Paladin suddenly decides to attack a powerful demon in its base of operations, no. Maybe it would be wise to extract oneself from that situation, and then seek out one of those priests I keep hearing about. They say priests can get in touch with him. Might be worth checking out. And while you're at it, maybe inform the army or something. It seems like nobody's found out about the demon yet, and that's probably bad.