You an enchanted (LG) guardian with powerful, but limited magic. You have been compelled to guard a castle and expel or kill any intruder until your master returns or the gem containing the magic compelling you is destroyed. You must protect the gem as well and cannot destroy it yourself. For whatever reason, your master is never going to return. A group of peaceful adventurers come to reclaim the abandoned castle.
How do you honor your magically enforced duty and yet do not kill the good natured adventurers?
Kayden Gomez
>You have been compelled to guard a castle and expel or kill any intruder until your master returns or the gem containing the magic compelling you is destroyed. You don't have a choice but to protect the castle by your own ruleset.
HOWEVER.
The compulsion does not forbid you from speakign with the adventurers and explaining the situation, which can include the fact that if the gem is destroyed you are no longer compelled to protect the castle. That you have to protect the gem is permissible, as well, and there is nothing forbidding you from using nonlethal means to subdue and expel intruders or protectign the gem.
So, you're fine. I will also point out that being compelled does not make you fall, though you will need to atone.
Fuck off mastermind.
Adrian Roberts
Destroy the castle.
Robert Bell
>Destroy the castle. You must protect it.
>So, you're fine. I suppose I should have added that the adventurers are determined not to give up, forcing the conflict. Although you are absolutely correct in everything you said.
I'm actually looking for a solution.
Cameron Miller
It doesn't say you can't destroy it and protect the ruins
Hudson Scott
If i am bound to A master, but not THE master, then simply requiring said adventurers to acquire legal proof of being inheritors might be enough.
Colton Smith
>A group of peaceful adventurers come to reclaim the abandoned castle.
Have all who enter the castle swear to protect it until the master returns.
They no longer count as intruders, they're now additional protection for the castle hired by you to aid you in guarding it. Of course if they break the contract you have to go back to smacking them, but if they're peaceful that shouldn't happen.
Evan Nelson
Maybe the master left any kind of pass phrase for this case (for if his mom comes by to do his Laundry while he is gone, or anthing to that effect). If I like the adventurers and am sufficiently bored with my eternal pointless vigil, I could hint at the existence of the phrase and where to find it.
As has pointed out, if there is no such phrase, I could hit at the existence of the focus that keeps me there and go easy on them for trying to destroy it.
As a Lawful Good being I'd probably be an astute wording lawyer too, as to find a loophole in the wording of the master's command, should one exist. Maybe they're not intruders but fall into another category entirely? You'd assume a guy who summons a LG guardian might have exception clauses so the Guardian doesn't flat out eject starved wanderers so they die in the wilderness, maybe?
Eli Robinson
>squintingFry.jpg
Gabriel Edwards
>How do you honor your magically enforced duty and yet do not kill the good natured adventurers? Since they're peaceful, this is not an issue. You explain the situation to the adventurers and then escort them out.
Xavier Lewis
>If i am bound to A master, but not THE master, then simply requiring said adventurers to acquire legal proof of being inheritors might be enough. I like this idea as a solution to the problem as presented.
The actual scenario involves the master being a selfish, paranoid dick, so this probably shouldn't work though.
Ian Hughes
>I could hit at the existence of the focus that keeps me there and go easy on them for trying to destroy it. Can't go so easy on them that they might succeed. If it's kill or risk the castle or gem, the they must kill.
>As a Lawful Good being I'd probably be an astute wording lawyer too, as to find a loophole in the wording of the master's command, should one exist. Maybe they're not intruders but fall into another category entirely? Like >Have all who enter the castle swear to protect it until the master returns. I like this resolution. It could let them gain access to the gem and not trigger the guardian until they start to destroy it, making the climax a battle where they fend off an unwilling enemy nonlethally until they can destroy it. Happy ending possible. I dig it.
Noah Bennett
>If I like the adventurers and am sufficiently bored with my eternal pointless vigil, I could hint at the existence of the phrase and where to find it. Btw, this is essentially the situation. I like to reward the players for pursuing a non-murderhobo option and wanted to present a valuable npc ally, but then I couldn't see a good end.
Wyatt Hall
>Happy ending possible. Only if you assume the adventurers to be dishonorable scum.
Robert Bailey
In order to help bettser, it would be useful if you could describe how you imagine the Master summoning the Guardian, because then it's easier to fit in a piece that allows the characters to win by the rules.
Did he go on a long quest and summon the Guardian before and say: "While I am away, don't let strangers in?"
Or did he just summon him when he got the Castle and went: "Prevent people from entering without my permission."?
Luis Jenkins
You talk to them.
Zachary Reed
>Only if you assume the adventurers to be dishonorable scum. I'll take that bet.
Also, they could attempt to "reclaim" the castle as a guardian force.
Henry Harris
Technically, the Guardian was summoned and bound to the gem by a complex and powerful ritual few xan accomplish. The guardian was made to serve the master of the gem. Then the Master of the Castle obtained the gem, became its master, and commanded the Guardian, eventually making it the protector of his castle.
I'll be back later, board willing.
Grayson Peterson
>in b4 "Could the adventurers become the new masters?" It would take longer than it would for them to destroy it. The Guardian would have to protect it from that as well.
Jace James
I'm still willing to help here, my point of that post was mostly that if you come up with a specific wording of what the Master demanded of the Guardian, it will become much easier to help you find a neat trick to circumventt the Masters wishes without breaking the letter of the law, which strikes me as a generally fine way for a peaceful solution to a Lawful Good non-violent problem.
You know, if the Guardian is supposed to "stop all beings", you could just release a bee hive into the Castle, and the Guardian could choose to busy itself with the bees instead of stopping the characters. And so on. Just becomes easier if you know what his precise order is.
Jason Lewis
>Just becomes easier if you know what his precise order is. Something like: "To the best of your ability, protect this castle and my treasures within (precious items known by the Guardian that include the gem) from any intruders and those who seek to seize or destroy them."
That's what I came up with when trying to sum it up simply. Seizing includes any kind of handling, really.
Huh. I guess I worded a loophole there, if they could remove the the gem from the castle, which is designed to be difficult. I could have changed that, but it's a neat accident if you don't think a paranoid dick would think of it. The Guardian can't remove the gem or store it on the outer ledge, as that would not be "protecting it to the best of their ability".
Levi Adams
I guess a Druid might motivate a flock of magpies to keep the Guardian busy while they go for the gem, for example.
Carter Lee
True, but the Guardian can gauge threats. A swarm of magpies and the adventurers attacking the vault might work well. The magpies snatching silverware while the adventurers steal treasures might not.
