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.
Then you need a lot more cosmology knowledge. Is a deal with a demon metaphysically binding? A deal with a devil would be. And if the army is available to deal with the cult, how does that make for any longer a campaign than if the PC's fought and were allowed by the DM to win by their own strength and faith?
And this is not a level appropriate Paladin wandering into the Abyss knowingly. This is LEVEL 1 paladins being sent to check out cultists in good faith, discovering that those cultists vastly outnumber them and then since that is not enough for the DM to put this level 1 party in their place, putting them at the mercy of a Demon as well.
What for a campaign start is that?
It's a start. I don't understand all this blowback at all. This is literally the setup to an arc. If this was any DM I know, I would easily assume he plans to have this spiral out into the party eventually taking down the cult in the name of their gods. That's an extremely baseline level of respect for the craft, that I'm fine giving to this person I've never heard of, because actually "holy warriors against demons" is a way more compelling story than, say, "holy warriors against drow." Right?
There's so much interesting, cool stuff you could do here. Right off the bat you could have a redemption quest to cleanse the heroes of the guilt from accepting this deal, if they feel that bad about it. That's a side of highly religious characters you don't often get to interact with. Then there's the question of whether any of the cultists could be saved, which proper heroes love to figure out and deal with. There's probably going to be some injured or killed civilians or soldiers soon, and a group of healers could really make a difference. I bet the cult doesn't have those. Maybe that's how we win. The Paladin player knows right away that he's going to get to use his cool demon-killing powers at some point, so there's no chance those get wasted, which is heartening. And finally, it's just the eternal and singular perfect D&D villain setup: You meet the bad guy at an early level, he thwarts your plans and insults you but doesn't kill you, then you come back stronger and make him regret it. Classic.
If the DM had properly communicated "a fight here will definitely kill all of you, and accepting the demon's terms won't doom your characters the way you seem to think it will," then this would've been a strong start. Alas.
The DM could've come in and said, "is that really what your character would do?" Because there's a number of reasons to believe it wouldn't be. Ultimately it's up to the player, but maybe the player doesn't have all the information. Examples of information they might not have:
1. Do they recognize that attacking means almost certain death? Even if all the heroes landed critical hits on the demon, it wouldn't die. It would have to miss on all of its subsequent attacks, or someone would probably die from each of its three attacks. Such a sequence isn't impossible, but if "we never miss and he always misses, for maybe 4 or 5 rounds, and the cultists don't intervene, or if they do, they all miss too" is your only possible win state, then maybe you "wouldn't do" that. All of this is usually abstracted with something like, "this foe radiates a menace the likes of which you have never seen. It could kill every cultist in the room without sustaining a single cut, and maybe that's why it's in charge." A DM doesn't have to straight up declare the CR of the monster. But he can do that, also. That's an option.
2. Do they recognize that they don't have to follow a given quest? They honestly might not. You can't do this in video games, right -- accept a quest, pursue it part of the way, and then totally change course? Get to the crypt, find the artifact, and destroy it, or hide it, or use it against the cult, or turn it over to your church, or...? Disappear on the road to the crypt, even? Maybe they're thinking they're locked in once they say yes. In which case what they "would do" would be "absolutely refuse."
3. Will they or won't they be chaperoned? That's going to make a difference in how the crypt mission goes. If there's a bunch of cultists going with them, then I'd agree that this deal sucks, but if the cultists can go to the crypt then why bother recruiting heroes? More likely, there's no cultists coming, or if there are, they wait outside the crypt. Would that change what the heroes "would do"? Maybe.
4. Is there some metaphysical corruptive effect of taking this deal? If yes, then surely the heroes "wouldn't do" it, but if no, they might. Also, can the corruption be overcome with enough faith?
5. Do they understand that they don't have the element of surprise? I find that players often assume that being the first to declare attacks during a conversation that hasn't gone all the way to "prepare to die" will give them a round of surprise. It seems unlikely that this would be the case here. Everyone's armed and the heroes are very obviously... anti-demon-cult. Maybe the character "would do" a surprise attack, but "wouldn't do" a normal, non-surprise, attack, which is what this attack is.
6. Do they know the likelihood of sudden divine intervention? I would reckon it's 0%, but evidently Kotath thinks otherwise, and I'll agree that it's possible that in this campaign the likelihood is 99%, or anywhere in between. If it's reasonable to expect that the gods will carry you through here, then that's one thing. But if they're just assuming they will, then learning the opposite would change what their character "would do."
I'm sure there's more, but I think you get my point. What a character "would do" is a question of the fictional world he's in, and as a player your understanding of that world is necessarily filled in largely by your imagination, but sometimes your imagination is wrong. It can sometimes be hard to see when this is happening, but I would say "I, a level 1 character, charge at the goristro" would be a pretty good indicator, and as a DM I'd probably pause and try to see if there's a mismatch going on, and if so, where, before proceeding to the "describe results" stage.
It still comes back to knowingly creating a hazardous "kinda stupid" character.
The DM is partly in the wrong for being annoyed at the unexpected (as it's part of the DM's job to handle such things on-the-fly, which the DM appears to have done but became annoyed for having to do it), but the player is also responsible for the kind of character the player makes, and "kinda stupid" is a risky character to roleplay without causing disruptions. One should not create "kinda stupid" characters lightly.
Again, threat assessment is fine when the threat level is completely transparent, but aren't you assuming that?
My argument is that by attacking the demon, they are kind of bypassing the cultists and if they win against the demon, the cultists have plenty of reason for second thoughts about taking them on, perhaps over their entire cult.
It's a 20-ft demon (honestly, the fact that it's a demon alone should already be cause for concern and caution regardless of it towering over you, at first level anyway) and the characters must know that aid from their deity is limited, even if just from the limitations on their spells. And there are 30 cultists around that are going to come running if they get a whiff of anything untoward happening. Is it really an assumption the PCs would feel out of their depth here, rather than an overwhelmingly likely probability?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Now that I think about it. The demon should have just killed your group on the spot and then the DM can save the campaign for someone that actually wants to play it. lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Now that I think about it. The demon should have just killed your group on the spot and then the DM can save the campaign for someone that actually wants to play it. lol
Well maybe the same players would like to play that campaign - but with very different characters who aren't massively averse to working for a demon.
And 20' tall, 100' tall, a thousand foot tall..... it could still be killable for all they know. Taking out the leader is a logical option when so cornered.
Orcus himself could still be killable for they know. I don't think that's the point. The point is whether they, as unexperienced 1st level characters cognizant of their own very limited - in comparison to anyone more senior in their respective orders - powers and presumably with some basic knowledge of demons are likely to believe a 20-ft demon that's fully materialized on the Prime is something they can dispense of without preparation when said demon apparently didn't bother to have them chained up or watched by the 30 cultists it has at its disposal (or possibly even just unarmed, unless the paladin decided tojust start throwing hands). In what scenario is it plausible that a demon who has the PCs at its mercy would put itself at risk of getting overwhelmed by these PCs?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It still comes back to knowingly creating a hazardous "kinda stupid" character.
The DM is partly in the wrong for being annoyed at the unexpected (as it's part of the DM's job to handle such things on-the-fly, which the DM appears to have done but became annoyed for having to do it), but the player is also responsible for the kind of character the player makes, and "kinda stupid" is a risky character to roleplay without causing disruptions. One should not create "kinda stupid" characters lightly.
Again, threat assessment is fine when the threat level is completely transparent, but aren't you assuming that?
My argument is that by attacking the demon, they are kind of bypassing the cultists and if they win against the demon, the cultists have plenty of reason for second thoughts about taking them on, perhaps over their entire cult.
It's a 20-ft demon (honestly, the fact that it's a demon alone should already be cause for concern and caution regardless of it towering over you, at first level anyway) and the characters must know that aid from their deity is limited, even if just from the limitations on their spells. And there are 30 cultists around that are going to come running if they get a whiff of anything untoward happening. Is it really an assumption the PCs would feel out of their depth here, rather than an overwhelmingly likely probability?
These are 1st level characters, so they know next to nothing in character. If the cultists come running, the cultists come running. The PC's were willing to accept that fighting the cultists was too much. They did not rebel against that.
But if you corner an animal, be ready for it fighting back. Work for a demon or die.....not even merely work for cultists or die. That was not enough. Work for an actual demon or die.... to me, that is just bashing the players over the head with their characters' helplessness. AND with them two paladins and a cleric, no less.
And 20' tall, 100' tall, a thousand foot tall..... it could still be killable for all they know. Taking out the leader is a logical option when so cornered.
Or, you could take the L, accepting that you don't get everything you want at level 1, and work towards defeating the cult in a way that can actually have more than a tiny fraction of a percentage of a chance to succeed. If no one can meaningfully threaten you at level 1, why even bother going to level 2 or beyond? Or are the bad guys only supposed to do bad things to other people?
Acting like size isn't an analogue for power in D&D is a ridiculous hill to die on. The dragons for which the game is named are a fine example. Or maybe you're familiar with the "goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, ogres, hill giants" structure? Or hell, even the Ordning: the shortest guys are at the bottom, the tallest at the top. Elementals, mind flayers, even animated plants follow this pattern. Angels follow it. Oh yeah, and demons too, lest we forget. This is basic shorthand: more powerful heroes fight bigger and bigger monsters. The biggest monsters in the game are also the ones with the highest CRs. And the only Tiny creatures above CR 4 are Wizards, and there's 3. Oh, and all the Tiny 4s are also Wizards. Anyway, point is, goristro is big, goristro is strong. This is a 100% valid and well supported assumption to make.
Am I the only one that thinks we're getting way off topic from what the OP was asking about? It wasn't a request for advice or thoughts on rules lawyering or lore lawyering.
Am I the only one that thinks we're getting way off topic from what the OP was asking about? It wasn't a request for advice or thoughts on rules lawyering or lore lawyering.
Thank you! I was just gonna write that...
He asked if he was in the wrong. I could be mistaken, but it seems to me we're arguing about whether that was the case or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What astonishes me in this thread is that people are saying that the professions/callings of the characters don't matter and that they should just have rolled with the punches. That attitude, to me, comes right out of a computer game. I normally hate the "that's what my character would do" answer, but for once in this case, with all the information we have, that's the only logical solution, the characters had. Redemption arc is meta gaming, two paladins and a good aligned cleric of a sun god choosing personal survival over the damnation of their souls by dealing with a creature from the abyss would mean they turn their back on their fate, attacking the demon and going out in a blaze of righteous glory is the only logical way to go in this encounter.
First of all, we've only heard one side so there may be stuff that wasn't communicated, but I think there's some blame on both sides. Some points to consider:
The DM did not set the PCs up against a Goristro. He set the PCs up against 30xCultist. Which isn't a winnable fight for three level 1s, but could easily be a run-away-able fight.
It is not clear from context if that was an avoidable fight. As a DM I don't think it's appropriate to drop fights on the PCs that are both unavoidable and unbeatable, but there's nothing wrong with an unbeatable fight that the PCs can reasonably avoid engaging in.
As PCs, if you're planning on resisting being captured, either do it immediately, or wait until there's an actually reasonable opportunity. Getting captured and then picking a fight after the situation has gotten worse isn't a sensible choice.
Designing an adventure on assuming the PCs will get captured and then give in to their captor's demands is... a poor idea. However, if dumb PCs get themselves captured, as a DM I may well give them an option to get out. It won't be a good option. I will, however, recognize that the PCs might refuse.
Again, 'we're taking you to our leader' is, in and of itself, no more 'captured' than being detained and questioned at a city gate or an entry point to a country. We have no indication that they were forced to disarm or to do anything other than follow the cultists to their leader.
By the same token, going along without the intention of actually complying is no more "trading" with a demon than hearing them out in the first place. That this might cause an issue with an honesty tenet of faith or a breach of a paladin's vow is possible, but also speculation on our part - just as we can speculate about what the demon actually proposed or whether the DM allowed for a way to get through the situation without either dying or compromising the characters' values. We don't know any of these details.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Again, 'we're taking you to our leader' is, in and of itself, no more 'captured' than being detained and questioned at a city gate or an entry point to a country. We have no indication that they were forced to disarm or to do anything other than follow the cultists to their leader.
By the same token, going along without the intention of actually complying is no more "trading" with a demon than hearing them out in the first place. That this might cause an issue with an honesty tenet of faith or a breach of a paladin's vow is possible, but also speculation on our part - just as we can speculate about what the demon actually proposed or whether the DM allowed for a way to get through the situation without either dying or compromising the characters' values. We don't know any of these details.
If they do not know the cultists are demon worshipers up front, though, it is different than if they do. If they do, then I agree, complying and hearing them out would arguably still break such an oath.
If they'd known that the leader of the band of cultists they would be taken to was a demon, I expect they'd have tried to get away there and then regardless of being outnumbered - flight rather than fight. Finding out when you're in the middle of their camp and the demon is right in your face probably nixes that as an option, however. They were shocked when they found out, that much we know, so I can only assume it was a very unwelcome surprise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't understand why some people are arguing that 2 goody paladins and 1 goody cleric would choose to bide their time and live another day? We're not talking about goody fighters or goody wizards. Paladins and clerics fully expect that they might have to die for their cause. Even if they think they will 100% lose they would still fight. Those are not the type of people where self preservation is no 1 priority. Martyrdom is something that the typical paladin and cleric see as a good ending to their life.
The other thing to consider is that the OP did check with the other party members and the entire party agreed to attack.
I don't understand why some people are arguing that 2 goody paladins and 1 goody cleric would choose to bide their time and live another day? We're not talking about goody fighters or goody wizards. Paladins and clerics fully expect that they might have to die for their cause. Even if they think they will 100% lose they would still fight. Those are not the type of people where self preservation is no 1 priority. Martyrdom is something that the typical paladin and cleric see as a good ending to their life.
The other thing to consider is that the OP did check with the other party members and the entire party agreed to attack.
A cleric and two paladins are of far more use to their gods alive than they are dead. There’s a ton of ways to work within what the DM set up that don’t involve kamikaze deaths for the characters. It’s a distressing lack of imagination that can’t come up with a solution other than attack. Spies, undercover agents, provocateurs and consorts are just a few of the types of good people stuck working for or with bad people for good ends. Outsmart the demon. Use the information it gives you against it. Pretend you’re working for it while you undermine its entire organization. Short term compromise for long term gain and ultimate victory is not an alien concept; it’s commonly employed and generally preferable to attacking against insurmountable odds.
Death before dishonour? For the most part, people want to live at almost any cost. People don’t want to die and will pay almost any price. Not only that, I’m here in my basement with my friends to play a game and, as a player, I do what it take to make the game move forward because I’m not a wangrod. I work with my DM not against him. I understand that my DM is doing me a favour by making the game so I do him the favour in return of not wrecking it even if “it’s what my character would do”.
I don't understand why some people are arguing that 2 goody paladins and 1 goody cleric would choose to bide their time and live another day? We're not talking about goody fighters or goody wizards. Paladins and clerics fully expect that they might have to die for their cause. Even if they think they will 100% lose they would still fight. Those are not the type of people where self preservation is no 1 priority. Martyrdom is something that the typical paladin and cleric see as a good ending to their life.
Sure. If they don't see any other options, that is. "Guess I'll die then" isn't heroic or dramatic if there's nothing to die for and plenty to live for. Nothing in the OP tells us they were going to have to give the demon what it wanted and wouldn't have any choice going forward. They didn't die for a cause: they accomplished nothing beyond a temporary setback for the demon while it looked for others to retrieve the item it was looking for, which doesn't seem like a great prize to lay down their life and deprive their deity of a loyal agent in the world for. If they genuinely felt the only way of preventing the demon from getting the McGuffin was to kill themselves on the spot that choice would be sensible, but that seems more than a little far-fetched.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't understand why some people are arguing that 2 goody paladins and 1 goody cleric would choose to bide their time and live another day? We're not talking about goody fighters or goody wizards. Paladins and clerics fully expect that they might have to die for their cause. Even if they think they will 100% lose they would still fight. Those are not the type of people where self preservation is no 1 priority. Martyrdom is something that the typical paladin and cleric see as a good ending to their life.
The other thing to consider is that the OP did check with the other party members and the entire party agreed to attack.
A cleric and two paladins are of far more use to their gods alive than they are dead. There’s a ton of ways to work within what the DM set up that don’t involve kamikaze deaths for the characters. It’s a distressing lack of imagination that can’t come up with a solution other than attack. Spies, undercover agents, provocateurs and consorts are just a few of the types of good people stuck working for or with bad people for good ends. Outsmart the demon. Use the information it gives you against it. Pretend you’re working for it while you undermine its entire organization. Short term compromise for long term gain and ultimate victory is not an alien concept; it’s commonly employed and generally preferable to attacking against insurmountable odds.
Death before dishonour? For the most part, people want to live at almost any cost. People don’t want to die and will pay almost any price. Not only that, I’m here in my basement with my friends to play a game and, as a player, I do what it take to make the game move forward because I’m not a wangrod. I work with my DM not against him. I understand that my DM is doing me a favour by making the game so I do him the favour in return of not wrecking it even if “it’s what my character would do”.
You are assuming there is no metaphysical consequence to living, particularly 'at almost any cost.' Based on your logic, soldiers should never fight, since they always might be killed in the line of battle and that holding the line, even though it is just buying time, has no value. Their options in this case did not seem to be 'agree or run away' but rather 'agree or die.'
No, based on my logic soldiers shouldn't throw themselves at an insurmountable opponent. When the pallies and cleric are dead, the demon is free to do whatever it pleases to whomever it pleases. Is this what their gods would want?
BTW, the options I clearly advocated are "Find some way to go along with it (whatever it may be), then talk to them after the game if you have concerns. If you simply cannot abide, still find some way to go along with it (whatever it may be) for the sake of the session..." and "Outsmart the demon. Use the information it gives you against it. Pretend you’re working for it while you undermine its entire organization" and "...do what it take to make the game move forward..." and "...do (the DM) the favour in return of not wrecking (the game)..." Not one of which remotely means never fight.
I don't understand why some people are arguing that 2 goody paladins and 1 goody cleric would choose to bide their time and live another day?
Because it's better to fight effectively against evil than to fight ineffectively. They could have simply refused, at which point if the demon kills them anyway, that's purely on the DM.
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?
Everything seemed vaguely plausible until the bit, after the "rather wants to die" paladin and friends attack, that the cultists stabilised them.
Maybe there was plenty of time left in the session but, all the same, there might be good reason to bail.
Maybe there's another factor involved, like the demon being supernaturally duped into trusting this violently righteous trio, but otherwise ... Presumably, there'd be a reason why the demon could not send any of the 30 cultists immediately present but surely this might be the time for a bit of demonic loss cutting.
The DM could have at least asked, out of the game, if the players wanted their characters revived in the current situation or if they'd prefer to generate different characters that might, for instance, already be imprisoned.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's a start. I don't understand all this blowback at all. This is literally the setup to an arc. If this was any DM I know, I would easily assume he plans to have this spiral out into the party eventually taking down the cult in the name of their gods. That's an extremely baseline level of respect for the craft, that I'm fine giving to this person I've never heard of, because actually "holy warriors against demons" is a way more compelling story than, say, "holy warriors against drow." Right?
There's so much interesting, cool stuff you could do here. Right off the bat you could have a redemption quest to cleanse the heroes of the guilt from accepting this deal, if they feel that bad about it. That's a side of highly religious characters you don't often get to interact with. Then there's the question of whether any of the cultists could be saved, which proper heroes love to figure out and deal with. There's probably going to be some injured or killed civilians or soldiers soon, and a group of healers could really make a difference. I bet the cult doesn't have those. Maybe that's how we win. The Paladin player knows right away that he's going to get to use his cool demon-killing powers at some point, so there's no chance those get wasted, which is heartening. And finally, it's just the eternal and singular perfect D&D villain setup: You meet the bad guy at an early level, he thwarts your plans and insults you but doesn't kill you, then you come back stronger and make him regret it. Classic.
If the DM had properly communicated "a fight here will definitely kill all of you, and accepting the demon's terms won't doom your characters the way you seem to think it will," then this would've been a strong start. Alas.
The DM could've come in and said, "is that really what your character would do?" Because there's a number of reasons to believe it wouldn't be. Ultimately it's up to the player, but maybe the player doesn't have all the information. Examples of information they might not have:
1. Do they recognize that attacking means almost certain death? Even if all the heroes landed critical hits on the demon, it wouldn't die. It would have to miss on all of its subsequent attacks, or someone would probably die from each of its three attacks. Such a sequence isn't impossible, but if "we never miss and he always misses, for maybe 4 or 5 rounds, and the cultists don't intervene, or if they do, they all miss too" is your only possible win state, then maybe you "wouldn't do" that. All of this is usually abstracted with something like, "this foe radiates a menace the likes of which you have never seen. It could kill every cultist in the room without sustaining a single cut, and maybe that's why it's in charge." A DM doesn't have to straight up declare the CR of the monster. But he can do that, also. That's an option.
2. Do they recognize that they don't have to follow a given quest? They honestly might not. You can't do this in video games, right -- accept a quest, pursue it part of the way, and then totally change course? Get to the crypt, find the artifact, and destroy it, or hide it, or use it against the cult, or turn it over to your church, or...? Disappear on the road to the crypt, even? Maybe they're thinking they're locked in once they say yes. In which case what they "would do" would be "absolutely refuse."
3. Will they or won't they be chaperoned? That's going to make a difference in how the crypt mission goes. If there's a bunch of cultists going with them, then I'd agree that this deal sucks, but if the cultists can go to the crypt then why bother recruiting heroes? More likely, there's no cultists coming, or if there are, they wait outside the crypt. Would that change what the heroes "would do"? Maybe.
4. Is there some metaphysical corruptive effect of taking this deal? If yes, then surely the heroes "wouldn't do" it, but if no, they might. Also, can the corruption be overcome with enough faith?
5. Do they understand that they don't have the element of surprise? I find that players often assume that being the first to declare attacks during a conversation that hasn't gone all the way to "prepare to die" will give them a round of surprise. It seems unlikely that this would be the case here. Everyone's armed and the heroes are very obviously... anti-demon-cult. Maybe the character "would do" a surprise attack, but "wouldn't do" a normal, non-surprise, attack, which is what this attack is.
6. Do they know the likelihood of sudden divine intervention? I would reckon it's 0%, but evidently Kotath thinks otherwise, and I'll agree that it's possible that in this campaign the likelihood is 99%, or anywhere in between. If it's reasonable to expect that the gods will carry you through here, then that's one thing. But if they're just assuming they will, then learning the opposite would change what their character "would do."
I'm sure there's more, but I think you get my point. What a character "would do" is a question of the fictional world he's in, and as a player your understanding of that world is necessarily filled in largely by your imagination, but sometimes your imagination is wrong. It can sometimes be hard to see when this is happening, but I would say "I, a level 1 character, charge at the goristro" would be a pretty good indicator, and as a DM I'd probably pause and try to see if there's a mismatch going on, and if so, where, before proceeding to the "describe results" stage.
It's a 20-ft demon (honestly, the fact that it's a demon alone should already be cause for concern and caution regardless of it towering over you, at first level anyway) and the characters must know that aid from their deity is limited, even if just from the limitations on their spells. And there are 30 cultists around that are going to come running if they get a whiff of anything untoward happening. Is it really an assumption the PCs would feel out of their depth here, rather than an overwhelmingly likely probability?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Now that I think about it. The demon should have just killed your group on the spot and then the DM can save the campaign for someone that actually wants to play it. lol
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Well maybe the same players would like to play that campaign - but with very different characters who aren't massively averse to working for a demon.
Orcus himself could still be killable for they know. I don't think that's the point. The point is whether they, as unexperienced 1st level characters cognizant of their own very limited - in comparison to anyone more senior in their respective orders - powers and presumably with some basic knowledge of demons are likely to believe a 20-ft demon that's fully materialized on the Prime is something they can dispense of without preparation when said demon apparently didn't bother to have them chained up or watched by the 30 cultists it has at its disposal (or possibly even just unarmed, unless the paladin decided tojust start throwing hands). In what scenario is it plausible that a demon who has the PCs at its mercy would put itself at risk of getting overwhelmed by these PCs?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Or, you could take the L, accepting that you don't get everything you want at level 1, and work towards defeating the cult in a way that can actually have more than a tiny fraction of a percentage of a chance to succeed. If no one can meaningfully threaten you at level 1, why even bother going to level 2 or beyond? Or are the bad guys only supposed to do bad things to other people?
Acting like size isn't an analogue for power in D&D is a ridiculous hill to die on. The dragons for which the game is named are a fine example. Or maybe you're familiar with the "goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, ogres, hill giants" structure? Or hell, even the Ordning: the shortest guys are at the bottom, the tallest at the top. Elementals, mind flayers, even animated plants follow this pattern. Angels follow it. Oh yeah, and demons too, lest we forget. This is basic shorthand: more powerful heroes fight bigger and bigger monsters. The biggest monsters in the game are also the ones with the highest CRs. And the only Tiny creatures above CR 4 are Wizards, and there's 3. Oh, and all the Tiny 4s are also Wizards. Anyway, point is, goristro is big, goristro is strong. This is a 100% valid and well supported assumption to make.
Thank you! I was just gonna write that...
He asked if he was in the wrong. I could be mistaken, but it seems to me we're arguing about whether that was the case or not.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What astonishes me in this thread is that people are saying that the professions/callings of the characters don't matter and that they should just have rolled with the punches. That attitude, to me, comes right out of a computer game. I normally hate the "that's what my character would do" answer, but for once in this case, with all the information we have, that's the only logical solution, the characters had. Redemption arc is meta gaming, two paladins and a good aligned cleric of a sun god choosing personal survival over the damnation of their souls by dealing with a creature from the abyss would mean they turn their back on their fate, attacking the demon and going out in a blaze of righteous glory is the only logical way to go in this encounter.
Death before dishonour anyone?
First of all, we've only heard one side so there may be stuff that wasn't communicated, but I think there's some blame on both sides. Some points to consider:
By the same token, going along without the intention of actually complying is no more "trading" with a demon than hearing them out in the first place. That this might cause an issue with an honesty tenet of faith or a breach of a paladin's vow is possible, but also speculation on our part - just as we can speculate about what the demon actually proposed or whether the DM allowed for a way to get through the situation without either dying or compromising the characters' values. We don't know any of these details.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If they'd known that the leader of the band of cultists they would be taken to was a demon, I expect they'd have tried to get away there and then regardless of being outnumbered - flight rather than fight. Finding out when you're in the middle of their camp and the demon is right in your face probably nixes that as an option, however. They were shocked when they found out, that much we know, so I can only assume it was a very unwelcome surprise.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't understand why some people are arguing that 2 goody paladins and 1 goody cleric would choose to bide their time and live another day? We're not talking about goody fighters or goody wizards. Paladins and clerics fully expect that they might have to die for their cause. Even if they think they will 100% lose they would still fight. Those are not the type of people where self preservation is no 1 priority. Martyrdom is something that the typical paladin and cleric see as a good ending to their life.
The other thing to consider is that the OP did check with the other party members and the entire party agreed to attack.
A cleric and two paladins are of far more use to their gods alive than they are dead. There’s a ton of ways to work within what the DM set up that don’t involve kamikaze deaths for the characters. It’s a distressing lack of imagination that can’t come up with a solution other than attack. Spies, undercover agents, provocateurs and consorts are just a few of the types of good people stuck working for or with bad people for good ends. Outsmart the demon. Use the information it gives you against it. Pretend you’re working for it while you undermine its entire organization. Short term compromise for long term gain and ultimate victory is not an alien concept; it’s commonly employed and generally preferable to attacking against insurmountable odds.
Death before dishonour? For the most part, people want to live at almost any cost. People don’t want to die and will pay almost any price. Not only that, I’m here in my basement with my friends to play a game and, as a player, I do what it take to make the game move forward because I’m not a wangrod. I work with my DM not against him. I understand that my DM is doing me a favour by making the game so I do him the favour in return of not wrecking it even if “it’s what my character would do”.
Sure. If they don't see any other options, that is. "Guess I'll die then" isn't heroic or dramatic if there's nothing to die for and plenty to live for. Nothing in the OP tells us they were going to have to give the demon what it wanted and wouldn't have any choice going forward. They didn't die for a cause: they accomplished nothing beyond a temporary setback for the demon while it looked for others to retrieve the item it was looking for, which doesn't seem like a great prize to lay down their life and deprive their deity of a loyal agent in the world for. If they genuinely felt the only way of preventing the demon from getting the McGuffin was to kill themselves on the spot that choice would be sensible, but that seems more than a little far-fetched.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That's probably what the demon wanted them to think, sure. Not necessarily an accurate summary of the situation though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
No, based on my logic soldiers shouldn't throw themselves at an insurmountable opponent. When the pallies and cleric are dead, the demon is free to do whatever it pleases to whomever it pleases. Is this what their gods would want?
BTW, the options I clearly advocated are "Find some way to go along with it (whatever it may be), then talk to them after the game if you have concerns. If you simply cannot abide, still find some way to go along with it (whatever it may be) for the sake of the session..." and "Outsmart the demon. Use the information it gives you against it. Pretend you’re working for it while you undermine its entire organization" and "...do what it take to make the game move forward..." and "...do (the DM) the favour in return of not wrecking (the game)..." Not one of which remotely means never fight.
Because it's better to fight effectively against evil than to fight ineffectively. They could have simply refused, at which point if the demon kills them anyway, that's purely on the DM.
back at the op,
Everything seemed vaguely plausible until the bit, after the "rather wants to die" paladin and friends attack, that the cultists stabilised them.
Maybe there was plenty of time left in the session but, all the same, there might be good reason to bail.
Maybe there's another factor involved, like the demon being supernaturally duped into trusting this violently righteous trio, but otherwise ...
Presumably, there'd be a reason why the demon could not send any of the 30 cultists immediately present but surely this might be the time for a bit of demonic loss cutting.
The DM could have at least asked, out of the game, if the players wanted their characters revived in the current situation or if they'd prefer to generate different characters that might, for instance, already be imprisoned.