In this scenario where the helpful NPC turns out to be the main villain and has all his facts straight and has the heroes dead to rights, what should the party even do? what would you do, would you give up the quest, would you join the antagonist, would you incur an alignment shift?

I'd go play a game that isn't based on following the DM's failed novel or theater primer.

>>95971999
so you're a murder hobo?

Most here don't watch modern television so please expound on your worthless post with some additional context

>>95972088
>party takes on a quest in exchange for payment
>early on they are offered more money to abandon the quest
>they press on with the notion that they are providing some good
>genuinely good NPC confronts them down the line
>explains that he is positioned to do some good in the world
>explains that there's bigger factors at play that aren't under control
>explains that the party selfishly is doing the quest for money
>explains that if they really wanted money they would have taken the buy out of the quest
>explains if they really want to achieve good in the world they also would take their leave
>explains if they deal with him then not only are they selfish but arrogant too
>the party's shaky motivations and skewed sense of self worth is called into question
This isn't even some kind of plot twist it's foreshadowed as the game progresses and the party actively chose each action that the main antagonist challenges them on when he goes mask off. It's an entirely unwinnable scenario when the main antagonist is revealed to be the protagonist, and the party is revealed to be the main antagonists in his steed.

>>95972017
Nah, I just like games.

>>95971979 (OP)
>has all his facts straight and has the heroes dead to rights
I don't understand what this could actually mean.
>would you give up the quest
Depends on the quest
>would you join the antagonist
You mean the helpful NPC who's berating us for following his advice? Probably not. >would you incur an alignment shift
No, because I don't play any games that use that mechanic.

>>95971979 (OP)
ttrpgs are terrible for narrative games. the sooner you realize this, the better.

>>95972139
Not for nothing, but most parties upon being lectured and insulted by the antagonist like they are children would give him five seconds to reconsider before aiming for his throat. This isn’t like the movies, if you’re trying to convince an adventuring party to do the right thing, starting by talking down them is a bad opening ploy

>>95972139
>party takes on a quest in exchange for payment
I’d already never be in this scenario because no party I’ve ever been part of has been a band of mercenaries

>>95971979 (OP)
>narrative railroad
>alignment
just stop GMing forever

>>95972139
Guess I'd sit back and wait for the GM to tell me what my character does since I've been doing that all campaign anyway.
It sounds like an incredibly specific scenario, but it's described so vaguely as to be almost meaningless.

>>95972139
Why is this guy trying to convince them that betraying their contract is the honorabru position?

>>95972139
I dunno, I guess I'd explain to him why he's wrong, which he most likely would be from my character's perspective, see where it goes, maybe resort to violence if he doesn't see sense.

>>95972139
i would 100% murder that faggot

"unwinnable" my ass, 2500cc rock to head is a tested solution to most issues like this one, wouldn't even be out of character, i always leave a little space on the character sheet to write "undiagnosed psychosis" so i can play a moralfag when i want to but also bash some heads in when the gm tries to pull some shit like this

>>95972139
Terrible example.
If it was a game I'd ask the GM, if he planned for us to abandon the quest and if not why he is sabotaging his own game, since my character has clearly no incentive to follow through.
I'd probably break character so we can follow through with the campaign then send the (obviously first time) GM a few ressources on how to prep a game.

You also fail to explain how the NPC is the villain in this scenario.

>>95972139
Is this more Critical Role bullshit, you know it's scripted right

>>95972139
PS:
If you don't provide a more precise example it's impossible how a PC would argue or act in that situation.

PPS:
An NPC berating the players has 9/10 a very short life expectancy, if there is even the slightest reason to doubt their alignment. Just a friendly hint from someone who plays games.

>>95972309
>>95972557
>>95972605
>>95972727

>Turning down rewards is stupid because it leaves resources that could be put towards the good fight in the hands of those disinterested in it.
PCs work off Greek heroes rules. Fuck the moralizing.

>>95972375
The party took the contract for money, and long after refusing a higher sum to give it up they complete the original contract. It just happens that they didn't necessarily achieve any meaningful good out of doing it like they had hoped. The money is still good right
>>95972664
There's no plan to abandon the quest, it was merely an option at one point, one where the players declined and continued forward. There's no sabotage going on, just a thorough pulling back the curtains as the game progressed and past a certain point it becomes undeniable that the party's actions aren't achieving much good in the region of the setting. There's no reason to break character, it's just a question of what does your character do in this confrontation. The NPC is a villain because he steers clear of problematic scenarios and accepts no responsibility for the consequences people experience. The party is seemingly revealed to be villainous themselves because they inadvertently have caused some issues in what they've done.

>>95972805
4000cc rock to head

>>95971979 (OP)
Sounds like you've written the players into a no-win scenario, which sounds gay and retarded desu senpai-a-lam

>>95972859
>The money is still good right
Since they turned down a greater sum of money to abandon the job, it sounds more like they're committed to the cause and aren't interested in becoming oathbreakers just because some smug NPC told them to. In other words, they sound based, unlike you OP.

>>95972859
Sounds like you’re trying to make the players feel bad for being tricked by the bad guy, and bad things happened as a result. Which every GM has tried, and it never works cause then the person who tricked them AND the guy trying to read them the riot act just get shot through the neck. It’s not rocket science.

>>95972859
Is my PC in it for the money?
They abandon ship when a more lucrative option is revealed
Is my PC in it to do good?
They quit once they realise they're not doing something good
>There's no sabotage going on, just a thorough pulling back the curtains as the game progressed and past a certain point it becomes undeniable that the party's actions aren't achieving much good in the region of the setting.
So my character has no incentive to go on in their quest?
>aren't achieving much good in the region of the setting. There's no reason to break character, it's just a question of what does your character do in this confrontation.
Then we just quit the campaign early since the GM clearly hasn't thought thus through.

Or you're doing the old
> In the end your actions didn't matter
at the end if the campaign in which case PC doesn't do much, because it's the end of the campaign (and to determine a precise reaction we would need a precise example) and the player tells the GM that his writing is lacking.

>>95972139
>party takes on a quest in exchange for payment
Who gives us this quest and what do we have to do
>early on they are offered more money to abandon the quest
By whom and why?
>genuinely good NPC confronts them down the line
>explains that there's bigger factors at play that aren't under control
Like what?
>explains that the party selfishly is doing the quest for money
what makes him say this? We refused the offer of more money at the beginning.
>explains that if they really wanted money they would have taken the buy out of the quest
Correct, so we cant be after money. Is he retarded?
>explains if they really want to achieve good in the world they also would take their leave
Why? What is this wrong we are causing here?
>explains if they deal with him then not only are they selfish but arrogant too
what reason do we have to belive him?
>the party's shaky motivations and skewed sense of self worth is called into question
There is so little context provided, i am calling nothing into question here.

>>95972366
And that's basically the end of the thread. It turns out that D&Disms are literally at the heart of every problem ever encountered at the table.
Best thing you and your group can ever do is to not only stop using D&D but also stop trying to "play D&D". That is, what you think D&D is or is supposed to be like. Stop doing it. Get away from it.

>>95972859
>didn't necessarily achieve any meaningful good out of doing it like they had hoped
Elaborate. As in, "killing 5 goblins was irrelevant because there are thousands of them"? "The bandit lord you killed was Robin Hood"? "The orphans you saved had ebola and now so does the whole town"? This is surely fundamental to your whole horribly contrived scenario yet you gloss over it as irrelevant.

>>95971979 (OP)
Regarding alignment: When you run a game, generally there are a couple of overarching themes both the GM and players should maybe agree with before diving into the game. One of them is how much emphasis on good and evil there's going to be, shades of grey, if any. That doesn't even have to involve game rules but story themes.
Alignment shifts are probably going to boil down to out of game discussions about character motives. Sticking to a contract could be a very lawful thing and they may not give a fuck about the good and evil outcomes, for example.
Alignment as rules is a weird mechanism and people are generally kind of inconsistent, so probably should be allowed some degree of leeway in their actions but also, again, some out of game discussion about the unspoken reasons for actions that may seem out of character.

As for what I would do, it highly depends on the character I'm playing. Could easily shrug and walk away in some cases, but also follow through with the contract in others. Join the antagonist? Possibly. It's guaranteed violence if the NPC poses a possible threat to party members in the present or future.

>>95971979 (OP)
>has all his facts straight and has the heroes dead to rights
So? We don't care. We get paid by the hour. If he's still paying, we're still fighting. If not, we'll find someone who is.

>>95971979 (OP)
>>95972139
it depend on the personalities of the PC. there is no what they "should do," retard.

>>95972805
>>95971979 (OP)
No one gets the reference you're making, because no one watches whatever gay TV show you're referencing. Here's what would happen in an actual game, in the people that play in this hobby: they kill your DMPC or the group disbands and possibly reforms with you excluded.

>>95972807
>>95972888
>>95972932
>>95972976

>>95977155
Sure would be nice if OP could just use words to explain his points instead of pointing pics from some random TV show. If you'd rather just discuss that TV show instead, you should probably head to /tv/ instead of /tg/.

>>95977192
I already posted it. >>95972139 If you're too dumb to discuss it or too stupid to google image, I have nothing else to say to you.

>>95977242
I already replied to that (almost meaninglessy vague) post, as did several other anons, and you replied to those responses with nothing but TV screenshots. I'm assuming you have nothing to say to those replies, seeing how you're not, in fact, saying anything about them.

>>95976975
Burnice's fat ass

>>95977242
If you don’t have the time or willpower to name it, then it can’t have been that relevant to your stupid hypothetical

>>95971979 (OP)
I shoot him for getting in the way of my job, lot his corpse, and continue on my way. Since OP refuses to elaborate I'll assume this is from Brokeback Mountain and assume he was just bothering us for gay sex anyways.

A quick bit of googling reveals that OP is referencing the 2022 motion picture Vengeance and attempting to hoodwink fa/tg/uys into agreeing with a character who is a drug dealing pedophile.

>>95979314
So shooting him and leaving him for dead WOULD be the correct choice? Who could have guessed.

>>95979351
This board is in shit state if this thread is anything to go by, right?

>>95979380
Has been for a very long time

>>95979351
The character, or OP?

>>95980120
Would that meaningfully change the answer at all?

>>95980120
Yes

>>95980528
One less spammer on the board. I suggest aiming for the liver. Very painful, fairly slow, usually impossible to save the victim.

>>95977192
I only posted the OP and the second picture with finger pistols, I thought I explained my position rather admirably. Just was interested in what anons of /tg/ would do when confronted with their choices at the climax of the campaign.

>>95973220
>It's guaranteed violence if the NPC poses a possible threat to party members in the present or future.
The NPC isn't threatening the party, he is merely pointing out all their choices along the way didn't achieve much in the way of good or lots of money neither. He's just not going to intervene more then maybe he should considering he is the one in a position of reasonable power in this region of the world. There's genuine factors that go well beyond him, and he's not too interested in that sort of thing. If I had to surmise what happened in the climax, it's that party realized they are big fish in a very tiny pond and their services are no longer required around these parts.

>>95972937
>Then we just quit the campaign early since the GM clearly hasn't thought thus through.
You require hand holding? very strange that when asked what you would choose to do, you decide to quit. Should I play your character for you?

>>95972888
No win scenarios can happen all the time. If I rolled a dragon encounter when they are low level they merely run.

>>95988941
Gonna be frank, man, there's a reason nobody tries that shit anymore. It's generally seen as moralizing/lecturing by the GM, not an NPC reading the player characters the riot act for the unintended consequences of their actions. And players generally show their displeasure in the rudest way possible to get across the fact they do not enjoy impromptu lectures from an NPC, aka with violent reprisal.

>/tg/ - Faggot Nonce Television Cowboys

>>95988941
>I thought I explained my position rather admirably
You didn't. It's a specific set of circumstances described vaguely that assumes a load of prior decisions with no hint of the context or consequences. And you ignored anyone that asked you to clarify what the fuck you meant.
>>95988972
>choices along the way didn't achieve much in the way of good
See, this is what I mean. By what standard did we not achieve good, and for what reasons? Why is it supposed to be a problem? Because the question is meaningless without these details.

>>95989113
>It's generally seen as moralizing/lecturing by the GM, not an NPC reading the player characters the riot act for the unintended consequences of their actions.
I dont understand the difference I run both the game and the NPC characters. If you spazz because I point out you missed out on more money, and because I point out your actions didn't do much good, and the party decides to just kill the NPC, it is what it is??

>>95990016
>You didn't.
>described vaguely that assumes
>no context
>you ignored anyone that asked you to clarify
I was trying not to write like an entire book of what players chose to do to everything so far?
at that point why even post a thread. maybe we could do with more Magic the Gathering & Warhammer threads.
>By what standard did we not achieve good
>and for what reasons?
>Why is it supposed to be a problem?
Because the game/system could be anything, no one needs to do anything in particular. The thread is merely a question of if you played these kinds of characters and made these kinds of decisions what might you be prone to do in this "final" confrontation?

>>95990514
You realise the character in the OP is _wrong_ right?
He's just trying to squirm out of being killed for his actions. The protagonist not being perfect up to that point is neither here nor there. You could summarise the scenario as "you're about to kill an orc but he calls you a dipshit, what do?" and that would be equally accurate.

>>95990514
>if you played these kinds of characters and made these kinds of decisions
But the problem is I still don't know what kinds of characters or what decisions you're actually on about. All I have to go on is, "Some fag NPC says he's not impressed by my achievements or earnings." Unless I'm playing a little bitch with a chip on his shoulder, why would you expect my character to give a fuck? Why is, "You didn't maximise your profits" a gotcha unless I'm playing a cyberpunk executive? Why would I take take it at all seriously if a villain tells me I'm not righteous enough for him? What is the context that makes this confrontation anything other than laughable?

>>95972139
If the party is going to be morally consistent with their previous actions, since they're focused on completing the quest, the solution is to kill him and complete the quest.
I don't really see the issue.

>>95990485
> I dont understand the difference I run both the game and the NPC characters
That’s precisely why. This is not a video game. This is a table of human beings, talking face to face with you, another human being. An npc is not an entirely separate being, they are still in effect a mouth piece for the game master to communicate to their players the in-game circumstances. Very few tables are 100% disconnected from that aspect, so the first thought when a game master starts to moralize with an npc isn’t always “The GM is reading from his script to say these things”, it’s “the GM is trying to convey something to us, but what is it?”. And when it amounts to “You fucked up the mission I gave you by being tricked by this npc I control, and you are now terrible people for it”, that usually gets a negative reaction since you facilitated a disconnect in their expectations vs yours, knew it the whole time, and waited until now to bring it up instead of making it clearer from the start, since you wouldn’t be lecturing them for deviating from your stupid unspoken script if they were truly free to do what they wanted in your game.

And while some parties will either disconnect entirely from the situation in response to being talked down to, and some will break character to argue with you OOC, others will just keep their responses in-character but show their displeasure by attacking the npc in question to make it clear to you, the DM, that they will not go along with the narrative you are trying to frame their actions around by disrupting the status quo via removing the moralizing npc from the game. After all, they don’t see him as just another character in a narrative anymore, he’s now your direct mouthpiece, and telling him to shove it up his ass with his lecturing will be the equivalent to doing it to you. Getting revenge at a smug jerk in a game of pretend is just a bonus.

TL;DR Stop being a railroading asshole if you want your npcs to live

>>95988941
>Guy who impersonated you from >>95977155 and further here.
You do realize you're so easy to impersonate BECAUSE you've been vagueposting about the whole situation, clearly super impressed by some gay faggot show nobody in their right conscience would watch?

>>95971979 (OP)
Yeah we'd just kill your DMPC
>alignment shift
1.) Who cares 2.) Not playing Wheelchairs & Pronouns to begin with, so wouldn't happen.

>>95990976
Nogames post.

>>95990514
Man, you're one dumb fucking nigger, aren't you.

>>95971979 (OP)
"It's unethical to renege on our obligations to our employer. We lack the geopolitical background to understand all of the forces at play here, but if we betray our contract we will become unemployable and we have no guarantee that you are not simply lying. In fact we have every reason to believe that you are, since someone already tried to bribe us to abandon it. Why would our opposition lead with a bribe, and only later attempt moral pleading?

No, I think not. Anyway, we aren't being paid to kill you specifically, so you are free to leave, but if you interfere in our operations we will eliminate you and anyone else who poses a threat to our mission. If it turns out that you are correct after the fact, we will admit it, but we are not thieves or dishonest mercenaries. We are honest mercenaries."

>>95988990
Bad DMing, skill issue
>>95988941
You didn't explain anything you buffoon of a loser, you just vaguely posted about some movie that nobody knows, and acted smug about it

>>95988981
Looks lile the /osrg/ theory wank brigade has arrived.

>>95988972
Okay, so he gets up there and starts spouting his opinions, getting judgy wudgy, and doesn't threaten the party? If the party has achieved their objectives and reached outcomes we're satisfied with, we get our pay and leave. He can be a judgy cockmongler all he wants, who cares?

>>95990976
based