I'm running this as a 1-15 campaign instead of 1-13, because getting those extra two levels in is kinda nice and going through Avernus is always interesting. I REALLY-REALLY want to play up the MORAL aspect of things and really make the devils feel like Lawyers here. I want this contracts and deals and CHOICES they make to feel impactful. The story areas where some of these contracts happen are....rather lack luster and the deals don't really do anything? Aside from the Zariel deal where you can (SPOILERS) literally save the city/people. MY initial plan was make up a 20 question - questionaire for session 0 of moral quandries and have them answer them as if they were their characters. Anyone have any fun or interesting ideas i could try?
All you really need to do is ask "The Adventure is based on the assumption that Zariel is to be redeemed. What would you rather do?"
If they say they want to kill her, tell them that they need to be about 25th level to have much of a chance, and that can't be done in D&D.
Always glad to help.
Geann, that's a very reductive read of BG:DiA. Zariel's redemptions is one of manifold possible resolutions to the book. In print, Zariel's potential redemption is four columns of text in a pretty meaty chapter of possibilities.
To the OP, what matters to a player's conception of a character at session 0 is likely to be very different when they're level 5 and venturing into Avernus. The mechanism at play in Avernus isn't black and white morality but the necessity to _compromise_ morally for the "good" of the mission (which is a problem in DiA as written, unless you present some truly good souls, there's a whole "why would we bother?" aspect of going into Avernus in the first place aside from it being what "heroes" would presumptively do, heroes that were most recently employed as a kill team by the Flaming Fist ... why would such mercenaries care other than "the book says" but that's my beef with the adventure as written?). Rather than pin the characters morality at the start (being one who thinks what happens after session 0, what is actually played, should be far more important to the character than anything that happened in the unplayed past), I'd just observe and take notes on the characters moral agency in actual play. Do telegraph what you're doing, when morally complex decisions come up in game, especially prior to Hell, take your time from the player stating the character's intent and you explaining the resolution, before resolving the action, ask questions, even allow the player to reconsider and change upon further deliberation in that moment. A moral laundry list at session 0 beyond the usual basic values and beliefs asked of a character's background becomes a straightjacket for character development. I think it's best to let the players breath into their characters during play, thereby allowing opportunities to exploit their exhibited (and played out) virtues and vices in Hell arise from things the characters actually did in game.
I'm running this as a 1-15 campaign instead of 1-13, because getting those extra two levels in is kinda nice and going through Avernus is always interesting. I REALLY-REALLY want to play up the MORAL aspect of things and really make the devils feel like Lawyers here. I want this contracts and deals and CHOICES they make to feel impactful. The story areas where some of these contracts happen are....rather lack luster and the deals don't really do anything? Aside from the Zariel deal where you can (SPOILERS) literally save the city/people. MY initial plan was make up a 20 question - questionaire for session 0 of moral quandries and have them answer them as if they were their characters. Anyone have any fun or interesting ideas i could try?
All you really need to do is ask "The Adventure is based on the assumption that Zariel is to be redeemed. What would you rather do?"
If they say they want to kill her, tell them that they need to be about 25th level to have much of a chance, and that can't be done in D&D.
Always glad to help.
<Insert clever signature here>
Geann, that's a very reductive read of BG:DiA. Zariel's redemptions is one of manifold possible resolutions to the book. In print, Zariel's potential redemption is four columns of text in a pretty meaty chapter of possibilities.
To the OP, what matters to a player's conception of a character at session 0 is likely to be very different when they're level 5 and venturing into Avernus. The mechanism at play in Avernus isn't black and white morality but the necessity to _compromise_ morally for the "good" of the mission (which is a problem in DiA as written, unless you present some truly good souls, there's a whole "why would we bother?" aspect of going into Avernus in the first place aside from it being what "heroes" would presumptively do, heroes that were most recently employed as a kill team by the Flaming Fist ... why would such mercenaries care other than "the book says" but that's my beef with the adventure as written?). Rather than pin the characters morality at the start (being one who thinks what happens after session 0, what is actually played, should be far more important to the character than anything that happened in the unplayed past), I'd just observe and take notes on the characters moral agency in actual play. Do telegraph what you're doing, when morally complex decisions come up in game, especially prior to Hell, take your time from the player stating the character's intent and you explaining the resolution, before resolving the action, ask questions, even allow the player to reconsider and change upon further deliberation in that moment. A moral laundry list at session 0 beyond the usual basic values and beliefs asked of a character's background becomes a straightjacket for character development. I think it's best to let the players breath into their characters during play, thereby allowing opportunities to exploit their exhibited (and played out) virtues and vices in Hell arise from things the characters actually did in game.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.