"The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die."
The Demon clearly wants something from an ancient crypt and indicates to the party that it wants them to get it. That's all we know.
We also know after the fact that the Demon had the cultists spare the PC's, revive them and try again with the ultimatum. And that this same Demon has at least 30 cultists that could instead be sent into that crypt to get whatever dingus the demon wants. Since it is sending the PC's instead of its fanatically loyal cultists, it follows that the PC's can do things the cultists cannot. Hence 'need'
Emphasis mine.
You know we are discussing the motives of a completely fictional being, right? And about the PC's speculation on that?
This is not a court of law. The Players are not on trial and if they were, for what? Semantic definitions of the word 'need?'
You are correct. The Demon did not literally need them. its existence was not riding on whatever it wanted them to do. ...
... However to do whatever it was it was trying to do, what it wanted to do, it did seem to need them. ...
The demon certainly had a "hence need" situation for someone other than the cultists to "be sent into that crypt to get whatever dingus the demon wants". This does not necessarily equate specifically to "need them".
... Before the fact is speculation but how is saying there was no actual proof that logic was correct until after the fact until after the fact invalidate the logic?
Based on that, PCs should never do anything since any conclusion they come to might be wrong.
No, I think that the point was just being made that you can't criticise what PCs do on the basis of an after the fact corroboration which, for all we know, might have just been cobbled together to get the DM's campaign back on the rails.
I do agree that they should have at least stuck to a firm 'no' and called the Demon's bluff. That way if they are still killed, it really is on the Demon.
You do make a good point on atonement, but to atone properly, one must normally be truly repentant and if it is all a cost-benefit analysis on your part, it is questionable if you really are repentant. The 'cost of doing business/greater good' approach is also one used in this discussion here quite a bit, however it really can be problematic.
The players could have handled it better, too, but players with the wisdom level to sort such things out well are really hard to find and should never be assumed by the DM. This is true even of really experienced players. Theoretical theology is a pretty deep rabbit hole (or Olympic mountain) to try to take on. Most people avoid it in the name of sanity and self preservation.
After the fact, the party are still presumably in a situation in which "The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die." The player might still naturally have a view of his character that "He rather wants to die, then help such a creature." After the fact, there was a meta-gamed discussion which may have been the only thing to have changed the situation. Other than that, the only thing that would have changed is that the party had lost a potential round of surprise.
Being able to pin the blame deaths, in-game, on the demon may not have been a significant issue.
I do agree that they should have at least stuck to a firm 'no' and called the Demon's bluff. That way if they are still killed, it really is on the Demon.
You do make a good point on atonement, but to atone properly, one must normally be truly repentant and if it is all a cost-benefit analysis on your part, it is questionable if you really are repentant. The 'cost of doing business/greater good' approach is also one used in this discussion here quite a bit, however it really can be problematic.
The players could have handled it better, too, but players with the wisdom level to sort such things out well are really hard to find and should never be assumed by the DM. This is true even of really experienced players. Theoretical theology is a pretty deep rabbit hole (or Olympic mountain) to try to take on. Most people avoid it in the name of sanity and self preservation.
After the fact, the party are still presumably in a situation in which "The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die." The player might still naturally have a view of his character that "He rather wants to die, then help such a creature." After the fact, there was a meta-gamed discussion which may have been the only thing to have changed the situation. Other than that, the only thing that would have changed is that the party had lost a potential round of surprise.
Being able to pin the blame deaths, in-game, on the demon may not have been a significant issue.
Well there were no deaths, in game, so nothing to pin in that regard. There was, however, a dressing down from the DM, which the players seem to have gone along with, but only reluctantly it seems in the case of the OP.
..., 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. ...
Basically this has become a discussion between people thinking players know how to play their classes and people who think the DM is always right in ignoring what classes are represented if it doesn't serve the campaign.
Basically this has become a discussion between people thinking players know how to play their classes and people who think the DM is always right in ignoring what classes are represented if it doesn't serve the campaign.
It actually has very little to do with class. There is no reason you can't play a rogue who absolutely refuses to bargain with evil or a cleric of flexible morals. The key questions at hand are to what degree the DM screwed up (we have only one perspective, from a likely biased observer, though it's hard to imagine anything resembling the story as told by the OP being a good idea) and to what degree it's the responsibility of the players to modify their PCs behavior in favor of making a functional game (there's usually some of that needed, particularly 'why are these random people hanging out together again?', but plenty of room to argue about how much is necessary or desirable).
Basically this has become a discussion between people thinking players know how to play their classes and people who think the DM is always right in ignoring what classes are represented if it doesn't serve the campaign.
It actually has very little to do with class. There is no reason you can't play a rogue who absolutely refuses to bargain with evil or a cleric of flexible morals. The key questions at hand are to what degree the DM screwed up (we have only one perspective, from a likely biased observer, though it's hard to imagine anything resembling the story as told by the OP being a good idea) and to what degree it's the responsibility of the players to modify their PCs behavior in favor of making a functional game (there's usually some of that needed, particularly 'why are these random people hanging out together again?', but plenty of room to argue about how much is necessary or desirable).
So you are arguing that a Rogue is as likely to be and as expected to be Oath-bound or ideology/religion-bound as a Paladin or Cleric?
Or are you arguing that the Paladin or Cleric should be no more ideology limited in their thinking than a Rogue?
Yes, Rogues can be pious. Yes they can be just as concerted with theology and metaphysics as a Paladin or Cleric. What, exactly, has that got to do with this discussion other than as just an irrelevant aside. The characters accused of misbehaving are not Rogues.
Now if dealing with the Demon or accepting being hired by it somehow violated the rules of the Thieves' Guild to which a Rogue belongs, then they may have some issue that way, but that is a lot less predictable an issue unless the DM dictated such a Guild rule. But again, there are no Rogues amongst the trio accused of being problems. There are no Mages of any variety. No Fighters, no Rangers, no Monks, no Bards, no Artificers, no Barbarians. Ironically, if a Barbarian decided to just blindly charge the Demon rather than accept its demand, would you be as critical of them?
A question for you that you did not seem to answer earlier: How much should the players be expected to second guess the DM as to which very obvious enemies they should fight or not fight? Again, for all they knew, the DM intended for them to somehow beat the demon, or at least chase it off somehow.
What happens if they get to the crypt and there is an apparent fight needed then that they could retreat from or otherwise negotiate their way out of? Should they back off again every time there is an apparent way out?
I think Pantagruel666 was arguing that "Basically this has become a discussion [relating to] The key questions at hand ... to what degree the DM screwed up"
For whatever reason the character "rather wants to die, then help such a creature." How the character got there, for discussions of resultant play behaviour, is, potentially, of little relevance.
The fact that the Paladins and Clerics were of 'goodly' deities and specifically seem to have been played as such might actually have given the DM hints that characterisations of such weighty momentum might derail when faced with a major plot twist.
How much should the players be expected to second guess the DM as to which very obvious enemies they should fight or not fight? Again, for all they knew, the DM intended for them to somehow beat the demon, or at least chase it off somehow.
Looking at it from the other perspective, should the DM always make it abundantly clear that yup, these critters you're supposed to whoop on and defeat but nope, that one over there is always going to kill you if you look at it sideways? Isn't that a little metagamey? Your character doing things because of what you know rather than what it knows is usually considered bad roleplaying, or so I've been informed on numerous occasions at least. If the DM wants it to be ok for the PCs to go with a violent approach, then the DM should give those PCs a reason why that might be a good choice - an actual, in-game reason, not a metagame consideration like "all fights are supposed to be winnable, this could be a fight, so this should be winnable". What the PCs knew was that they were facing a 20-ft minotaur demon with horns longer than they themselves are tall, which has 30 cultists at its command and didn't bother to have them tied up or even disarmed for this confrontation. They also knew their own limitations relative to the abilities bestowed upon more experienced faithful. They didn't know anything about a "DM", because there's no such thing in their reality.
To give you a very specific answer: they should not be expected to second guess the DM at all. Not one bit. They should look at the situation, decide how their character looks at the situation, and make a decision. "What does the DM want me to do?" shouldn't be a factor beyond the very basic level of playing a character that works for the campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think it is generally helpful to play your characters more flexible. Granted the situation presented by the dm as described wasn't good given the party and I think it should have been discussed for sure. I would attribute it towards being an unexperienced dm though. That is why I would advise players in such a situation to go with the flow if a new/inexperienced dm clearly implies that that is the only way forward (instead of charging into death and basically ending the adventure). There are also many ways you could justify the actions of your char without ruining the concept.
I think such an approach is much healthier for the group than arguing about who messed up afterwards (possibly referring to a forum thread that basically says "your dming is bad"). As I said discuss why the situation didn't feel good for your characters and how to resolve it. Learn from that as a player and as a dm to make the game better moving forwards.
Do you remember that game where your first set of characters got killed by the Goristro and his 30 immediately available cultists? Wasn't that the one where you wanted to railroad us into making a deal with the demon. Yeah, you were really playing into the Paladin of Pelor role. I should have known it wouldn't work. Nah, it was all good. Once we got our new characters going as previous prisoners of the cultists everything got back on track.
Basically this has become a discussion between people thinking players know how to play their classes and people who think the DM is always right in ignoring what classes are represented if it doesn't serve the campaign.
It actually has very little to do with class. There is no reason you can't play a rogue who absolutely refuses to bargain with evil or a cleric of flexible morals. The key questions at hand are to what degree the DM screwed up (we have only one perspective, from a likely biased observer, though it's hard to imagine anything resembling the story as told by the OP being a good idea) and to what degree it's the responsibility of the players to modify their PCs behavior in favor of making a functional game (there's usually some of that needed, particularly 'why are these random people hanging out together again?', but plenty of room to argue about how much is necessary or desirable).
This has everything to do with the class the players had. Basically a scenario as in the OP is a big middle finger to the choices the players made at character creation, just like asking a Cercle of the Forest Druid to burn a forest down, asking an Order of the Scribe Wizard to burn a Mage library down or a Beast Master Ranger to skin its animal companion to advance the scenario. And the the DM has the temerity to blame the player? Please.
Basically this has become a discussion between people thinking players know how to play their classes and people who think the DM is always right in ignoring what classes are represented if it doesn't serve the campaign.
It actually has very little to do with class. There is no reason you can't play a rogue who absolutely refuses to bargain with evil or a cleric of flexible morals. The key questions at hand are to what degree the DM screwed up (we have only one perspective, from a likely biased observer, though it's hard to imagine anything resembling the story as told by the OP being a good idea) and to what degree it's the responsibility of the players to modify their PCs behavior in favor of making a functional game (there's usually some of that needed, particularly 'why are these random people hanging out together again?', but plenty of room to argue about how much is necessary or desirable).
This has everything to do with the class the players had. Basically a scenario as in the OP is a big middle finger to the choices the players made at character creation, just like asking a Cercle of the Forest Druid to burn a forest down, asking an Order of the Scribe Wizard to burn a Mage library down or a Beast Master Ranger to skin its animal companion to advance the scenario. And the the DM has the temerity to blame the player? Please.
This has everything to do with a character that "... rather wants to die, then help such a creature."
In RL I used to be a part of an environmental action group. We were rogues.
How much should the players be expected to second guess the DM as to which very obvious enemies they should fight or not fight? Again, for all they knew, the DM intended for them to somehow beat the demon, or at least chase it off somehow.
Looking at it from the other perspective, should the DM always make it abundantly clear that yup, these critters you're supposed to whoop on and defeat but nope, that one over there is always going to kill you if you look at it sideways? Isn't that a little metagamey? Your character doing things because of what you know rather than what it knows is usually considered bad roleplaying, or so I've been informed on numerous occasions at least. If the DM wants it to be ok for the PCs to go with a violent approach, then the DM should give those PCs a reason why that might be a good choice - an actual, in-game reason, not a metagame consideration like "all fights are supposed to be winnable, this could be a fight, so this should be winnable". What the PCs knew was that they were facing a 20-ft minotaur demon with horns longer than they themselves are tall, which has 30 cultists at its command and didn't bother to have them tied up or even disarmed for this confrontation. They also knew their own limitations relative to the abilities bestowed upon more experienced faithful. They didn't know anything about a "DM", because there's no such thing in their reality.
To give you a very specific answer: they should not be expected to second guess the DM at all. Not one bit. They should look at the situation, decide how their character looks at the situation, and make a decision. "What does the DM want me to do?" shouldn't be a factor beyond the very basic level of playing a character that works for the campaign.
I think this is a very good point. A player shouldn't have to worry interpreting what their character is or would do according to a guess of what the DM wants.
The onus is on me as a DM to either:
1. Create a situation in which the character will reasonably behave in the way I want them to.
Or
2. Create a situation with multiple potentially valid options that I'm prepared for them to take.
If I'm going to railroad my players for whatever reason, it's on me to make the situation such that they would make that choice. The one presented was never going to be a surety that they'd help the demon. It was likely to end up the way it did, and certainly was never a surett that they'd help the demon.
That's not to say that players have no responsibility to be somewhat flexible flexible help the DM out. However, the DM has to present viable and decent options and then nudge the players rather than forcing them to so something completely out of character.
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.
Basically a scenario as in the OP is a big middle finger to the choices the players made at character creation, ...
The antagonist for a campaign with three faith-based characters is a demon, exactly the sort of thing those characters would dream of foiling, so that's a big middle finger to the players? Okay then. Thanks for clarifying that, I sure was under the mistaken impression it'd be something the players could get excited about.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Basically a scenario as in the OP is a big middle finger to the choices the players made at character creation, ...
The antagonist for a campaign with three faith-based characters is a demon, exactly the sort of thing those characters would dream of foiling, so that's a big middle finger to the players? Okay then. Thanks for clarifying that, I sure was under the mistaken impression it'd be something the players could get excited about.
Right off the bat and immediately captured by it then scolded by the DM for having the audacity for attacking this thing that they should be excited about destroying?
You and I have very different ideas of enjoyment, it seems.
You run into a demon - yay, we attack it - you kill it - yay, what's next?
Sounds like a waste of a demon to me, to be honest. It's more than ok to have to do some leg work and face some adversity along the way before achieving your goal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
How much should the players be expected to second guess the DM as to which very obvious enemies they should fight or not fight? Again, for all they knew, the DM intended for them to somehow beat the demon, or at least chase it off somehow.
Looking at it from the other perspective, should the DM always make it abundantly clear that yup, these critters you're supposed to whoop on and defeat but nope, that one over there is always going to kill you if you look at it sideways? Isn't that a little metagamey? Your character doing things because of what you know rather than what it knows is usually considered bad roleplaying, or so I've been informed on numerous occasions at least. If the DM wants it to be ok for the PCs to go with a violent approach, then the DM should give those PCs a reason why that might be a good choice - an actual, in-game reason, not a metagame consideration like "all fights are supposed to be winnable, this could be a fight, so this should be winnable". What the PCs knew was that they were facing a 20-ft minotaur demon with horns longer than they themselves are tall, which has 30 cultists at its command and didn't bother to have them tied up or even disarmed for this confrontation. They also knew their own limitations relative to the abilities bestowed upon more experienced faithful. They didn't know anything about a "DM", because there's no such thing in their reality.
To give you a very specific answer: they should not be expected to second guess the DM at all. Not one bit. They should look at the situation, decide how their character looks at the situation, and make a decision. "What does the DM want me to do?" shouldn't be a factor beyond the very basic level of playing a character that works for the campaign.
My response remains that the DM already had shown power and control over the PC's with the cultists. The Demon was just overkill. At that point as a player, I too on a meta level would be figuring we were meant to fight the Demon or directly outsmart it (rather than go along with its requests until there is a chance to betray it, which did in no way need for it to be a demon).
The mission was to find a lost caravan. What any of this has to do with that is anyone's guess....
Yes, on a meta-level, the Scream screenwriter knows that the masked killer has to be addressed as the plot develops, but that doesn't mean that an initial Drew Barrymore type character isn't expendable.
Yes, on a meta-level, the Scream screenwriter knows that the masked killer has to be addressed as the plot develops, but that doesn't mean that an initial Drew Barrymore type character isn't expendable.
If the DM has cast the PC's as expendable, well then short campaign, not sure the point. The "big bad" here is not making prank phone calls or otherwise skulking in the background but inexplicably appearing up front.
..
The DM, players, scene, rules and dice cast the PC's as expendable - and, yes, after Drew Barrymore's knifing, Scream would have been a short plotline if Neve Cambell hadn't then been brought into the spotlight. Similarly, rocket man George Clooney can get lost in space (but without an extended plotline) leaving Sandra Bullock to deal with the Gravity of the situation. Is no one safe? Hopefully not, otherwise the railroad may become a ghost train with no end.
It's called "now you know, saddle up". The players don't have to see the solution mapped out right away in order for being presented with massive stakes to be ok. One step at a time can get you across the world eventually. Sometimes "big" is the point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The OP in this situation is 100% not wrong. In real life their have been warriors/soldiers that have chosen death before dishonor or capture and certainly people willing to die for their beliefs. Paladins aren’t a commoner with a sword that if asked will say “yeah, sure I believe in such and such god. Go to church almost every kingsday!” Paladins (at least those who take oaths to gods) are dedicated to their faiths and are absolutely expected to die for their cause. For a paladin sworn to good, lying to a demon to escape death would most likely be seen as a violation of their faith and an act of cowardice. Most commoners would most likely say they believe in an afterlife, but still don’t want to see it soon. Paladins and clerics know their is an afterlife and aren’t afraid to get there.
The DM should never have created this position, or at least should have discussed the players’/characters’ motivations in session 0 to avoid this.
There were ways the DM could have handled this after the players made their choice to attack the demon. An easy way could have been that they were just knocked unconscious after the demon tries to toy with them. They wake up in a holding cell with x amount of cultists guarding them and possibly their weapons. Then they need to plan how to escape and level up so that they can defeat the demon further down the road. (That's just one example of what could have happened without anyone getting all meta-gamey) Now whether after their attack the cultists still try to get them to do what the demon asks is up to the DM and the players based on if they manage to escape.
But no, the DM gets all narky and reckons the players have ruined everything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Odo Proudfoot - Lvl 10 Halfling Monk - Princes of the Apocalypse (Campaign Finished)
It's called "now you know, saddle up". The players don't have to see the solution mapped out right away in order for being presented with massive stakes to be ok. One step at a time can get you across the world eventually. Sometimes "big" is the point.
Solution mapped out? Massive stakes?
If the stakes are that massive, why is suicide by demon such a bad idea? Alternatively, if they do have the destiny of defying and eventually destroying the demon, why wouldn't it make more sense for it to just destroy them then and there? What happens if it simply sends the cultists with them to ensure they carry out its dirty work?
There is a missing caravan and people out there in apparent need of rescue, but that is not 'big' enough for 1st level?
Suicide by demon accomplishes nothing but martyrdom, lets the demon go about its business unhindered by anything other than the temporary inconvenience of of needing to find a couple other mortals to try and make comply, and certainly doesn't further the rescue of that caravan in trouble. Martyrdom aside, I don't expect the deities involved to be all that impressed with the choice made.
The demon wouldn't know of any destiny wherein it will inevitably be destroyed, if it would even believe in such a thing. And if the cultists are sent along, the PCs still aren't any worse off - at least they'd have a better idea of what the demon wants exactly, there might be opportunities to turn the tables later, and if push comes to shove attacking 30 cultists probably has a better chance of success than attacking a goristro. A caravan going missing in the same area a goristro is mucking about with a cult is a pretty big coincidence too, could be worth sticking around for nothing more than to see if there's anything more to that as well.
There were ways the DM could have handled this after the players made their choice to attack the demon. An easy way could have been that they were just knocked unconscious after the demon tries to toy with them. They wake up in a holding cell with x amount of cultists guarding them and possibly their weapons. Then they need to plan how to escape and level up so that they can defeat the demon further down the road. (That's just one example of what could have happened without anyone getting all meta-gamey) Now whether after their attack the cultists still try to get them to do what the demon asks is up to the DM and the players based on if they manage to escape.
You realize that's pretty much what happened, and that the game moved on?
Maybe it did, we don't know.
The demon certainly had a "hence need" situation for someone other than the cultists to "be sent into that crypt to get whatever dingus the demon wants". This does not necessarily equate specifically to "need them".
No, I think that the point was just being made that you can't criticise what PCs do on the basis of an after the fact corroboration which, for all we know, might have just been cobbled together to get the DM's campaign back on the rails.
After the fact, the party are still presumably in a situation in which "The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die." The player might still naturally have a view of his character that "He rather wants to die, then help such a creature." After the fact, there was a meta-gamed discussion which may have been the only thing to have changed the situation. Other than that, the only thing that would have changed is that the party had lost a potential round of surprise.
Being able to pin the blame deaths, in-game, on the demon may not have been a significant issue.
No, just the promise of death.
There was certainly a disagreement with the DM.
Basically this has become a discussion between people thinking players know how to play their classes and people who think the DM is always right in ignoring what classes are represented if it doesn't serve the campaign.
It actually has very little to do with class. There is no reason you can't play a rogue who absolutely refuses to bargain with evil or a cleric of flexible morals. The key questions at hand are to what degree the DM screwed up (we have only one perspective, from a likely biased observer, though it's hard to imagine anything resembling the story as told by the OP being a good idea) and to what degree it's the responsibility of the players to modify their PCs behavior in favor of making a functional game (there's usually some of that needed, particularly 'why are these random people hanging out together again?', but plenty of room to argue about how much is necessary or desirable).
I think Pantagruel666 was arguing that "Basically this has become a discussion [relating to] The key questions at hand ... to what degree the DM screwed up"
For whatever reason the character "rather wants to die, then help such a creature." How the character got there, for discussions of resultant play behaviour, is, potentially, of little relevance.
The fact that the Paladins and Clerics were of 'goodly' deities and specifically seem to have been played as such might actually have given the DM hints that characterisations of such weighty momentum might derail when faced with a major plot twist.
Looking at it from the other perspective, should the DM always make it abundantly clear that yup, these critters you're supposed to whoop on and defeat but nope, that one over there is always going to kill you if you look at it sideways? Isn't that a little metagamey? Your character doing things because of what you know rather than what it knows is usually considered bad roleplaying, or so I've been informed on numerous occasions at least. If the DM wants it to be ok for the PCs to go with a violent approach, then the DM should give those PCs a reason why that might be a good choice - an actual, in-game reason, not a metagame consideration like "all fights are supposed to be winnable, this could be a fight, so this should be winnable". What the PCs knew was that they were facing a 20-ft minotaur demon with horns longer than they themselves are tall, which has 30 cultists at its command and didn't bother to have them tied up or even disarmed for this confrontation. They also knew their own limitations relative to the abilities bestowed upon more experienced faithful. They didn't know anything about a "DM", because there's no such thing in their reality.
To give you a very specific answer: they should not be expected to second guess the DM at all. Not one bit. They should look at the situation, decide how their character looks at the situation, and make a decision. "What does the DM want me to do?" shouldn't be a factor beyond the very basic level of playing a character that works for the campaign.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think it is generally helpful to play your characters more flexible. Granted the situation presented by the dm as described wasn't good given the party and I think it should have been discussed for sure. I would attribute it towards being an unexperienced dm though. That is why I would advise players in such a situation to go with the flow if a new/inexperienced dm clearly implies that that is the only way forward (instead of charging into death and basically ending the adventure). There are also many ways you could justify the actions of your char without ruining the concept.
I think such an approach is much healthier for the group than arguing about who messed up afterwards (possibly referring to a forum thread that basically says "your dming is bad"). As I said discuss why the situation didn't feel good for your characters and how to resolve it. Learn from that as a player and as a dm to make the game better moving forwards.
Do you remember that game where your first set of characters got killed by the Goristro and his 30 immediately available cultists?
Wasn't that the one where you wanted to railroad us into making a deal with the demon.
Yeah, you were really playing into the Paladin of Pelor role. I should have known it wouldn't work.
Nah, it was all good. Once we got our new characters going as previous prisoners of the cultists everything got back on track.
This has everything to do with the class the players had. Basically a scenario as in the OP is a big middle finger to the choices the players made at character creation, just like asking a Cercle of the Forest Druid to burn a forest down, asking an Order of the Scribe Wizard to burn a Mage library down or a Beast Master Ranger to skin its animal companion to advance the scenario. And the the DM has the temerity to blame the player? Please.
This has everything to do with a character that "... rather wants to die, then help such a creature."
In RL I used to be a part of an environmental action group. We were rogues.
I think this is a very good point. A player shouldn't have to worry interpreting what their character is or would do according to a guess of what the DM wants.
The onus is on me as a DM to either:
1. Create a situation in which the character will reasonably behave in the way I want them to.
Or
2. Create a situation with multiple potentially valid options that I'm prepared for them to take.
If I'm going to railroad my players for whatever reason, it's on me to make the situation such that they would make that choice. The one presented was never going to be a surety that they'd help the demon. It was likely to end up the way it did, and certainly was never a surett that they'd help the demon.
That's not to say that players have no responsibility to be somewhat flexible flexible help the DM out. However, the DM has to present viable and decent options and then nudge the players rather than forcing them to so something completely out of character.
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.
The antagonist for a campaign with three faith-based characters is a demon, exactly the sort of thing those characters would dream of foiling, so that's a big middle finger to the players? Okay then. Thanks for clarifying that, I sure was under the mistaken impression it'd be something the players could get excited about.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You run into a demon - yay, we attack it - you kill it - yay, what's next?
Sounds like a waste of a demon to me, to be honest. It's more than ok to have to do some leg work and face some adversity along the way before achieving your goal.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yes, on a meta-level, the Scream screenwriter knows that the masked killer has to be addressed as the plot develops, but that doesn't mean that an initial Drew Barrymore type character isn't expendable.
The DM, players, scene, rules and dice cast the PC's as expendable - and, yes, after Drew Barrymore's knifing, Scream would have been a short plotline if Neve Cambell hadn't then been brought into the spotlight.
Similarly, rocket man George Clooney can get lost in space (but without an extended plotline) leaving Sandra Bullock to deal with the Gravity of the situation. Is no one safe? Hopefully not, otherwise the railroad may become a ghost train with no end.
It's called "now you know, saddle up". The players don't have to see the solution mapped out right away in order for being presented with massive stakes to be ok. One step at a time can get you across the world eventually. Sometimes "big" is the point.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The OP in this situation is 100% not wrong. In real life their have been warriors/soldiers that have chosen death before dishonor or capture and certainly people willing to die for their beliefs. Paladins aren’t a commoner with a sword that if asked will say “yeah, sure I believe in such and such god. Go to church almost every kingsday!” Paladins (at least those who take oaths to gods) are dedicated to their faiths and are absolutely expected to die for their cause. For a paladin sworn to good, lying to a demon to escape death would most likely be seen as a violation of their faith and an act of cowardice. Most commoners would most likely say they believe in an afterlife, but still don’t want to see it soon. Paladins and clerics know their is an afterlife and aren’t afraid to get there.
The DM should never have created this position, or at least should have discussed the players’/characters’ motivations in session 0 to avoid this.
There were ways the DM could have handled this after the players made their choice to attack the demon. An easy way could have been that they were just knocked unconscious after the demon tries to toy with them. They wake up in a holding cell with x amount of cultists guarding them and possibly their weapons. Then they need to plan how to escape and level up so that they can defeat the demon further down the road. (That's just one example of what could have happened without anyone getting all meta-gamey) Now whether after their attack the cultists still try to get them to do what the demon asks is up to the DM and the players based on if they manage to escape.
But no, the DM gets all narky and reckons the players have ruined everything.
Odo Proudfoot - Lvl 10 Halfling Monk - Princes of the Apocalypse (Campaign Finished)
Orryn Pebblefoot - Lvl 5 Rock Gnome Wizard (Deceased) - Waterdeep: Dragon Heist (Deceased)
Anerin Ap Tewdr - Lvl 5 Human (Variant) Bard (College of Valor) - Waterdeep: Dragon Heist
Suicide by demon accomplishes nothing but martyrdom, lets the demon go about its business unhindered by anything other than the temporary inconvenience of of needing to find a couple other mortals to try and make comply, and certainly doesn't further the rescue of that caravan in trouble. Martyrdom aside, I don't expect the deities involved to be all that impressed with the choice made.
The demon wouldn't know of any destiny wherein it will inevitably be destroyed, if it would even believe in such a thing. And if the cultists are sent along, the PCs still aren't any worse off - at least they'd have a better idea of what the demon wants exactly, there might be opportunities to turn the tables later, and if push comes to shove attacking 30 cultists probably has a better chance of success than attacking a goristro. A caravan going missing in the same area a goristro is mucking about with a cult is a pretty big coincidence too, could be worth sticking around for nothing more than to see if there's anything more to that as well.
You realize that's pretty much what happened, and that the game moved on?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].