Player problem - opinions ....

[SirWilliam]

As I write this I admit I'm at a loss of what to do about an incident during tonight's gaming session. So I thought I'd post it and maybe get shown the error of my ways, or maybe get some suggestions on what to do now.

 

By way of background I've been gaming fairly regularly for about 16 years. I've played about every game that's come down the pike and read a few that never made it to the pike. I've been playing hero system since 1992 and it's been my preferred system for much of that time. Unfortunately I haven't gotten to PLAY in a campaign since I don't know when. I've always been running the action. So a few weeks ago I tell a friend who plays with me that I've got nothing for the future Champs game. Nothing in the hopper that I think is worth gaming and ask him to run something. He agrees and I'm all stoked to get to play something. In our Champs campaign it was just me as GM and Jobuna and Ran (names changed to protect the innocent) as players. Jobuna is taking over GM'ing and Ran and I are playing and Ran suggests inviting a mutual acquaintance. I agree because he's an alright guy if a little odd at times. So we make up characters and we're off. Tonight was our first night gaming. I'm playing a scoundrel type playboy who's about as non-combat oriented as you would find. Literally I have no CSL's and a Dex of only 16. My max OCV or DCV is 8. The new guy, who I will call Thrudd, is playing a Paladin to the god of Good. Outside of the mission he spends a lot of time during the first session praying, studying his bible, etc. I spend a lot of time carousing and picking up women, even during the mission. About what you'd expect. I have some fun with him with my ventriloquism skill by making it appear he had flatulence, but other than that I don't go out of my way to annoy him. Note that according to the GM we've known each other for years and are friends.

 

So after a successful mission I decide I to host a party just myself, my compatriots, and some friends. I hire some female entertainment (I have a rep as a womanizer) and everyone is having a good time. Except for Thrudd the Paladin. In addition to his vow of chastity (disad) he's apparently also taken a vow of temperance because he won't drink. So rather than leave or anything like that he avails himself of my personal gym. I suggest to one of the ladies that she should go make sure he isn't lonely. The GM rolls Seduction, and the Paladin just lapsed his vow. Now I, and the GM don't really consider this any big deal. Maybe some roleplaying of penance, etc, and he's back to normal. No mechanical repercussions at all. Now Thrudd decides that I'm responsible (even though the girl in question denied my involvement [bless her] and he was no where around when I made my suggestion) and charges up to my bedroom and attacks me. Now Mr. Thrudd the Paladin is speed 4, Dex 20 with +3 CSL's and a magic sword that does 2d6 HKA, AP, and some other stuff. I managed to survive 1 whole turn by dodging, running, etc. If I had made my block roll I might have survived to phase 3 of the 2nd turn. As it was he skewered me and put me at -4 body (my hero had 8 body). He then removes his breastplate and commits suicide.

 

At that point the GM and I were somewhat stunned and the GM called it because we only had 15 minutes left until we were supposed to quit anyway.

 

So is it me or was that reaction completely over the top? In 16 years of gaming I've never been as stunned by an incident as I am tonight.

 

The GM is considering just not inviting him back because he hates meta-gamers who act on what they know, not on what their PC's know. I don't know what to think. I almost wonder if he was just bored and didn't want to play. I just don't understand.

 

Anyway, let's hear some feedback. Thanks.

[Lucius]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Don't play in any games where that player is present. Encourage the host not to invite him back.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Want a palindromedary's opinion?

[Gunrunner]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

One thing I would do is to try and find out the reasons behind his actions. Maybe he was bothered by the jokes and temptations you were having your character send his way, so he decided to take his own form of revenge. Whatever his reasons though, *if no warning was given* then I believe he behaved in a very child-like manner. If he had a problem with something you were doing, he should have brought it up to you out-of-game first.

 

Based on what you've told us, unless he has a good explanation and/or an apology, I wouldn't let him back in the game.

[Korvar]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

The GM is considering just not inviting him back because he hates meta-gamers who act on what they know' date=' not on what their PC's know. [/quote']

 

Good plan.

 

The GM could also recap the previous session:

 

"The paladin's sword skewers you fatally through the heart...

 

...and you wake up!"

 

"Darling! Are you all right?"

 

"I just had the most horrible dream - I was friends with an idiot paladin!"

[NinjaGeek]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. But it sounds as if Thrudd did not have any say in how his character reacted to the woman who was trying to seduce him and that he basically was forced to break his vow of chastity based on a die roll. If that is true, I think the GM handled the situation badly. If my character were forced to do something completely out of character based on a die roll, I would be upset. For another character this might not have been a big deal. But if the character is serious enough about his vow of chastity to take a disadvantage for it, he shouldn't be forced to drop his pants everytime some hottie gets a lucky die roll. He should have some say in how his character reacts to the situation. Isn't that how roleplaying is supposed to work?

 

Also, there are other possible outcomes to a successful seduction roll than to make the paladin get naked with a woman of ill repute. For example, he could have succumbed to a passionate kiss before pushing her away and fleeing a compromising situation.

 

I don't really think you did anything wrong. It sounds like something that would fit with your character's personality.

 

Regarding his reaction, I think there were much better ways to handle it, especially considering his character wouldn't have known that your character was involved. I think murdering an old friend because of his moral failure was even more out of character than breaking his vow of chastity. It would have been more appropriate if he had role played out his grief and attempted to do penance like you suggested. Oh well. At least he took his character's vows seriously. Maybe you should give him some credit for that.

 

Anyway that's my 2 cents.

[Robyn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

So is it me or was that reaction completely over the top? In 16 years of gaming I've never been as stunned by an incident as I am tonight.

 

I think he chose the character concept because it was the most strongly "I will not do this, period." oriented in the game. When he fumbled his roll, he was basically being told that his character did something that went against everything he believed in; something that he would never have done.

 

Basically, he picked a character to play, and the character was broken within the first game session. It would be pretty meaningless to play at that point, and I doubt I'd continue with such a group, though from the sound of it he's either making a dramatic parting gesture or trying to drive the point home as a warning that he won't stand for this in the future.

 

It's one thing to have a character that, after sessions of growth, begins to turn back their own inner darkness and purify their soul. When such an event takes place within the first session, it gives the impression that the GM/players responsible for such a travesty are more concerned with having a funny game that makes light of people's convictions than they are interested in having a game that takes such things seriously.

 

This player needs to express their character concept at the outset, articulating (not just roleplaying) every detail. The GM shouldn't let him play again unless this GM can allow story to take precedence over the dice rolls.

[KA.]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

SirWilliam,

Let me begin by saying that you have not provided all of the details, so that what I am about to say could be proven incorrect by information that I don't possess.

Also let me say that I am not in the habit of 'going off' on someone that I barely know here on the boards, usually I go out of my way to welcome those that I am 'meeting' for the first time.

And, even though what I am about to say may sound a bit harsh, please don't feel like I have formed some sort of instant opinion about you, or that I somehow 'dislike' you.

 

However, you did ask for input, so here it is . . .

 

It sounds like you and the GM acted like jerks.

 

I don't know if Thrudd is an experienced role-player, or if this is his first real experience, but in either case I doubt that he was informed that you and the GM were planning a reenactment of 'Dangerous Liasons', rather than a more standard Fantasy Hero game.

 

Even though I wouldn't have been thrilled about having another player use his abilities to make it seem like my character was farting, I probably could have handled that with good humor, and it sounds like Thrudd tolerated it fairly well too.

 

But, when you and the GM conspired to dishonor his character in such a capricious and mean-spirited way, and on the first night of play, I am amazed that he actually had the courtesy to seek an in-game solution, rather than just walking right out the door in the middle of the session.

 

And that is what appears to have happened. I have never seen a PC, especially one with a vow of chastity and the psych lims to back that up, fall into bed with some NPC wench because she 'made her Seduction Roll'.

 

That sounds like the worst form of GM railroading, and it also seems to have happened merely so that you and the GM could have a cheap laugh at this characters expense.

 

Even if you wanted to explore this kind of plot, you should have had the player's okay before you went there, and the 'woman' in question should have had some type of supernatural ability to cause a Paladin to fall to her charms.

 

It sounds to me like you had the one thing that is the most valuable commodity in role-playing, a Player that actually understands his character and gives a crap about playing it correctly, and you decided to rub his nose in that by screwing around.

 

I think his response to that was entirely appropriate.

 

I also understand that neither you or the GM probably meant any real harm, and didn't realize what the other player's reaction would be.

 

I think that some people get so caught up in the 'clique' of friends that they regularly role play with, that they don't stop for a second to consider how obnoxious their behaviour might be to a newcomer.

 

There is a huge difference between laughing 'with' someone, and laughing 'at' them.

 

After several sessions, which would have allowed this person to feel like a part of the group, your rogue character could have probably gotten away with a few more 'practical jokes'.

 

But as it stood, Thrudd probably came to the conclusion that you and the GM had no intention of actually trying to start a campaign, and instead just put him through the process of creating a character so that you could team up and humiliate him.

 

Again, if there are tons of extenuating circumstances, please let us know, but as it stands it looks like you and the GM are the people who went over the line in this situation.

 

KA.

[KA.]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I think he chose the character concept because it was the most strongly "I will not do this' date=' period." oriented in the game. When he fumbled his roll, he was basically being told that his character did something that went against everything he believed in; something that he would [i']never[/i] have done.

 

Basically, he picked a character to play, and the character was broken within the first game session. It would be pretty meaningless to play at that point, and I doubt I'd continue with such a group, though from the sound of it he's either making a dramatic parting gesture or trying to drive the point home as a warning that he won't stand for this in the future.

 

It's one thing to have a character that, after sessions of growth, begins to turn back their own inner darkness and purify their soul. When such an event takes place within the first session, it gives the impression that the GM/players responsible for such a travesty are more concerned with having a funny game that makes light of people's convictions than they are interested in having a game that takes such things seriously.

 

This player needs to express their character concept at the outset, articulating (not just roleplaying) every detail. The GM shouldn't let him play again unless this GM can allow story to take precedence over the dice rolls.

 

I think you are on the right track.

I don't think the player even got to make a roll, I think that the GM just said:

"Okay, the girl makes her Seduction roll, so you break your Vow of Chastity."

 

I don't know how most people play, but that sounds like crap to me.

 

If you had a character with a Psych Lim "Womanizer", and a woman (maybe the King's favorite concubine, or someone else the character really shouldn't sleep with) made a Seduction roll against them, maybe they would to it.

 

But for a character with a Psych Lim like "Vow of Chastity", that is going to take a heck of a lot more than a simple roll.

 

That is like saying that someone with a 20 point Code vs. Killing, would just up and murder someone, because someone with Oratory told them to.

 

It's a 3 point skill, for goodness sake, not 100 Points worth of Mind Control!

 

Anyway, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on this one.

 

KA.

[Korvar]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I think he chose the character concept because it was the most strongly "I will not do this, period." oriented in the game. When he fumbled his roll, he was basically being told that his character did something that went against everything he believed in; something that he would never have done.

 

Basically, he picked a character to play, and the character was broken within the first game session. It would be pretty meaningless to play at that point, and I doubt I'd continue with such a group, though from the sound of it he's either making a dramatic parting gesture or trying to drive the point home as a warning that he won't stand for this in the future.

 

It's one thing to have a character that, after sessions of growth, begins to turn back their own inner darkness and purify their soul. When such an event takes place within the first session, it gives the impression that the GM/players responsible for such a travesty are more concerned with having a funny game that makes light of people's convictions than they are interested in having a game that takes such things seriously.

 

This player needs to express their character concept at the outset, articulating (not just roleplaying) every detail. The GM shouldn't let him play again unless this GM can allow story to take precedence over the dice rolls.

 

Hm. I can see your point. I guess it's just that killing another PC is supposed to be pretty much the ultimate taboo in gaming. Plus he was working on metagame information.

 

However, there's the fact that the GM (from the account given) has the woman roll Seduction, and poof his paladin has broken his vow. And one of the common bits of GM advice you hear is you have to be cautious about using social skills against PCs, because nobody likes control of their character taken away.

 

I would still consider the slaughter of another PC (especially without IC knowledge) to be a massive overreaction.

 

Edited to make it clear who I was responding to

[KA.]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Hm. I can see your point. I guess it's just that killing another PC is supposed to be pretty much the ultimate taboo in gaming. Plus he was working on metagame information.

 

However, there's the fact that the GM (from the account given) has the woman roll Seduction, and poof his paladin has broken his vow. And one of the common bits of GM advice you hear is you have to be cautious about using social skills against PCs, because nobody likes control of their character taken away.

 

I would still consider the slaughter of another PC (especially without IC knowledge) to be a massive overreaction.

 

Edited to make it clear who I was responding to

 

 

Korvar,

You are right about it being a major step for one character to slaughter another one.

However:

1) In character, the Paladin would not have to be a genius to figure out that the Person who hosted the party, and who knew he was in the exercise room, was the one who might have sent the woman to seduce him.

Also, in character, he would not have felt it was right to attack the woman (NPC or not) and instead would look for the 'man' responsible.

 

2) Out of character. I think the player got the idea, from the combination of SirWilliam's character sending the woman, and the GM railroading his character into breaking his vow, that the two of them had set up the entire game to have a cheap laugh at his expense.

At which point the usual taboos are no longer in force.

One major reason that you don't kill PC's is that you don't want to upset your fellow players.

But at the point that you think your fellow players have gone out of their way to humiliate you, why would you care how they feel?

 

KA.

[Korvar]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

1) In character, the Paladin would not have to be a genius to figure out that the Person who hosted the party, and who knew he was in the exercise room, was the one who might have sent the woman to seduce him.

 

Might have.

 

Also' date=' in character, he would not have felt it was right to attack the woman (NPC or not) and instead would look for the 'man' responsible.[/quote']

 

And he couldn't have used his fists? Pummelled the guy unconscious? This isn't D&D...

 

2) Out of character. I think the player got the idea, from the combination of SirWilliam's character sending the woman, and the GM railroading his character into breaking his vow, that the two of them had set up the entire game to have a cheap laugh at his expense.

At which point the usual taboos are no longer in force.

One major reason that you don't kill PC's is that you don't want to upset your fellow players.

But at the point that you think your fellow players have gone out of their way to humiliate you, why would you care how they feel?

 

KA.

 

I still see it as an overreaction, given the other options available (up to, and including, walking out).

 

Quite frankly, I'm not sure any of the people in this tale are covering themselves with glory...

 

Perhaps the next session should start with apologies all round, and a do-over.

[Outsider]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

When you say that the woman in question denied that you put her up to it, that pretty much implies that the paladin asked her if you were involved. If the back story is that he's known you for years, and you are a 'joker', him suspecting your involvement isnt unreasonable out of game knowledge. His vow of chastity went out the window with an NPC die roll. Did he even get a chance (die roll) to tell if she was lying about your involvement?

[input.jack]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

This sounds like a miscommunication problem, and some really bad calls by the GM.

 

First, the GM should have made it clear what -kind- of game he was running. A campaign where a totally non-combat character and a combat-oriented character can exist side by side, and both Players think they are getting their moneys' worth out of it, I have yet to see. Not that every character needs to have 28 OSL's and a Blade of Weasel Whacking, but from the sound of it, was your PC even capable of assisting in a combat situation at all?

 

Ive played Rogue type characters who were pretty useless in a straight up fight, but who could still open locks, decipher ancient texts and filch small shinies during a combat, in order to help the party. (One incident comes to mind where someone had let an Invulnerable Demon out of an Iron Flask; the party kept it busy chasing them, while my Rogue deciphered the writing on the FLask, learned the incantation, said it, and trapped the Demon back inside).

 

The fact that the GM let you play what was obviously a character based on "court intrigue" and him play a character who was obviously based on "facing evil head-on" seems...unwise.

 

The next big GM error was in the GM declaring what the Paladin, a PC, was going to do, based on a single skill roll for an NPC, apparently without even taking the Paladin's Disads into account. Now, in our campaigns we have a rule; NPC Presence skills CANNOT dictate the actions of a PC. The Player is enocuraged strongly to take the roll into account when making his decision as to what his character is going to do, but the roll itself does NOT dictate reality. Otherwise theres no reason for the Players to be there.

 

I do think it was rather unkind of you to pester and humiliate the Paladin by making it seem he was flatulent. Again, he was wanting to play a very serious, respected character, and your character was robbing him of his dignity for sheer sport. HOWEVER, did his Paladin ask your character to stop?

 

If the Paladin asked you to stop in character, and you persisted, then the blame must lie in some degree with you.

 

If the Paladin did not ask you to stop in character, then the blame lies much more squarely with him, as he did not make his wishes known to your character.

 

The Paladin deciding that your character had sent the girl after him was very much metagaming, and bad form. If he wanted to make the connection between her actions and your character's prompting them, a good GM would have had him make an Int or Deduction roll to see if he found that idea reasonable. (If the Player had not actually heard you tell her to go in, the I wouldnt have called for the roll. But in this case it is obviously metagamed, and to justify that in some way requires a roll, IMHO).

 

The GM and you apparently thought that his breaking his vow was "no biggie", and that a little penance should cover it. The GM failed in his job AGAIN by not finding out ahead of time how serious the character was about his vows, and not talking to the Player about the Paladin's faith and coming to an agreement on how such matters are handled in the church.

 

The Paladin's Player failed at HIS job because once told that, according to the church of the campaign, it was no biggie, he should have let it slide.

 

The whole "taking off the breastplate and committing suicide" thing is just melodramatic and juvenile.

 

To my way of thinking, this fiasco was brought about by a number of factors, mostly involving a total lack of effective communication between the GM, and the Players, all around.

 

Yes, Im afraid you share in some of the blame here. But so does the GM. And so does the Player of the Paladin. To my mind, the GM is the most culpable. He made the most mistakes.

 

The Paladin's reaction was extreme, but not something I havent seen before (though usually in borderline acceptable Players). Id recommend that either your GM tell him that hes out because of using metagame information, OR of you want to be a bit more fair to the guy, that you all get together, discuss what happened in a calm, rational manner, be prepared to apologize to him for how your character behaved towards his, and be prepared to accept his apology for overreacting.

 

Ive known Players who have never been in anything but dark, brooding games filled with ANGST!....and they dont take kindly to being made the butt of a joke the first thing out of the starting gate. If you and your friends have a more relaxed vibe to your games, give him time to acclimate

[Jhereg]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I think there’s plenty of blame to go around here. Attacking a fellow PC, who his character’s supposedly known for years, is uncalled for. However, I can see How Mr. Thrudd would be offended by the obtuse violation of his character concept in his very first game with you guys. You’re telling the story from your own perspective and it looks like you were giving him a hard time. I can only imagine how angry he might have been.

 

I consider it a major GM faux pas to have instantly violated his code based on an NPC’s seduction roll. Furthermore, interaction skills like seduction are not truly intended to be used on PCs (SL has said as much on these very boards), and should never be an absolute, as it was in this case. While Thrudd’s reaction was extreme, it’s certainly understandable. I think this fiasco is an example of what not to do, on everybody’s part.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I think I'll chime in here. I have to make some basic assumptions; I don't know how experienced your Pally is, I read from the background that you (SirWilliam) have been playing for some time & I'm sure your GM has as well. So here's what I picked up between the lines of your post, without having been there:

 

You: "Alright, sex and wine!"

Thrudd: "*sigh* Vagrant. GM, I go pray to maintain my focus on the Divine."

You: "Loser! GM, I make it sound like Mr. Pious here farts in his Platemail! HA HA HA!"

 

I'm already not amused, and I wasn't there. Nothing serious is different things to different people. If he comes in and wants to go hardcore with a Paladin, that's well within his rights. Even the example above shows a measure of disrespect that wouldn't jive in any world scenario I was running - Paladins, like Priests, are icons of their church in my world. They are, as we note from d20, the Sacred Cow. You don't muck with them. They have divine powers and tend to be efficient combatants.

 

Take this another step forward. Game one, night one, guy shows up to play his Paladin, is relentlessly ****ed with, up til and including the moment you, SirWilliam, send down a prostitute, who makes ONE SEDUCTION ROLL and *pop* there go his Paladin Abilities. "No big deal" to you would be a screaming fit from me. I just got here, I just sat down to start this campaign, and within three or four hours I've gotten annoyed, been mistreated, clearly disrespected, and now the GM is in cahoots with the PC and *blam* no powers.

 

I appreciate that everyone has to find their own fun, but when it comes at the expense of someone else's fun, I take serious issue. Now was his final reaction "Over the top?" Certainly, he murdered you, but considering that he'd already lost his powers and considered the night a total wash, I can almost appreciate how he (the player) would want a little revenge on behalf of his character.

 

I wasn't there. It may have gone down completely differently. But there are rules at my table. One of those rules is "Respect the player, respect their character, and respect the game." Don't break my story and call it entertainment, don't mess with people for no reason and think it's funny, and be nice to the people at the table. Sounds from your description (and what I admittedly read into it) that all three of those rules were broken. So I don't think he's out of bounds.

 

At the end of the day, I agree with Robyn. *shrug*

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

SirWilliam,

Let me begin by saying that you have not provided all of the details, so that what I am about to say could be proven incorrect by information that I don't possess.

Also let me say that I am not in the habit of 'going off' on someone that I barely know here on the boards, usually I go out of my way to welcome those that I am 'meeting' for the first time.

And, even though what I am about to say may sound a bit harsh, please don't feel like I have formed some sort of instant opinion about you, or that I somehow 'dislike' you.

 

Well said. I echo this sentiment.

 

It sounds like you and the GM acted like jerks.

 

I don't know if Thrudd is an experienced role-player, or if this is his first real experience, but in either case I doubt that he was informed that you and the GM were planning a reenactment of 'Dangerous Liasons', rather than a more standard Fantasy Hero game.

 

Even though I wouldn't have been thrilled about having another player use his abilities to make it seem like my character was farting, I probably could have handled that with good humor, and it sounds like Thrudd tolerated it fairly well too.

 

SirWilliam, you note you've been gaming for 16 years. That's a bit out of context with fart humour, which I generally find most 16 year olds are beginning to outgrow.

 

But, when you and the GM conspired to dishonor his character in such a capricious and mean-spirited way, and on the first night of play, I am amazed that he actually had the courtesy to seek an in-game solution, rather than just walking right out the door in the middle of the session.

 

And that is what appears to have happened. I have never seen a PC, especially one with a vow of chastity and the psych lims to back that up, fall into bed with some NPC wench because she 'made her Seduction Roll'.

 

That sounds like the worst form of GM railroading, and it also seems to have happened merely so that you and the GM could have a cheap laugh at this characters expense.

 

I've got to agree with this one. The later example of a character with a Code vs killing deciding to murder an innocent person because someone made their oratory roll is another good example. If the Paladin had the Conversation or Persuasion skill, would you accept your character donating all his worldly possessions to the Church because he made a successful roll? To me, that Seduction roll represented temptation, but a true conviction represented by a strong or total psych limit should override it. Now if she made her seduction roll on your Womanizer, I would feel differently.

 

It sounds to me like you had the one thing that is the most valuable commodity in role-playing' date=' a Player that actually understands his character and gives a crap about playing it correctly, and you decided to rub his nose in that by screwing around.[/quote']

 

In fairness, it sounds like SirWilliam was playing his character, who strikes me as a jerk. But the other player was also playing his character. His deep-seated religious convictions shattered, he sought out the person he perceived as the source of his disgrace, killed him, then took his own life. OK, a tightly wound religious character's reaction, but that was the way your character, and the GM, seemed to be treating his character, so why shouldn't he respond in kind?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Hugh's being a bit more lenient than I, KA or Robyn are, but I agree with him none-the-less. The error, in my mind, was on your side of the table, not Thrudd's.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Hm. I can see your point. I guess it's just that killing another PC is supposed to be pretty much the ultimate taboo in gaming. Plus he was working on metagame information.

 

Isn't knowing which characters are other PC's and which ones are not, and varying your reactions to their behaviour as a consequence, also metagaming behaviour? The Paladin character was just as much "killed" by the actions of the player and GM in question as the rogue character was. His whole character background and personality was tossed on the basis of a single off-screen seduction roll. Would it have some how been OK if the Paladin had been introduced to the Rogue, joined the party, and, at the first watch, hacked off the Rogue's hands with the explanation that "Thievery is unacceptable" (or hacked off something else with the explanation that casual sex is an affront to his deity)?

 

However' date=' there's the fact that the GM (from the account given) has the woman roll Seduction, and [i']poof[/i] his paladin has broken his vow. And one of the common bits of GM advice you hear is you have to be cautious about using social skills against PCs, because nobody likes control of their character taken away.

 

True. It also sounds like the two characters weren't very compatible, and it would have been appropriate for the GM to make some suggestions as to common PC attitudes. Even without matters of seduction and murder, these hardly sound like two people likely to work together for many years and become fast friends.

 

I would still consider the slaughter of another PC (especially without IC knowledge) to be a massive overreaction.

 

Again, I would suggest the Paladin was effectively "slaughtered" first. Complete disrespect for a fictional game character's religious convictions is hardly a crime. Neither, however, is rolling dice to kill a fictional game character. The Rogue and the Paladin both played in character, and both destroyed another PC. I don' see where either player has claim to moral high ground.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

As to settling the matter, if I were the GM, I think I'd feel a need to apologize to both sides, since I clearly misread their expectations of the game, and allowed at least one to take a character that would be inconsistent with the tone of the game, and would not be fun, if even viable, in the game. Retroactive wiping out of the scenario in question would strike me as a good first step (assuming everyone still wants to game together), with the next step being a group discussion to get a consensus as to the overall tone of the campaign. Once that consensus is reached, one player (at least) likely needs a new character, since I don't see the rogue and the paladin ever being compatible.

[Korvar]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Again, I would suggest the Paladin was effectively "slaughtered" first.

 

Absolutely 100% disagreed. There are a bazillion ways Mr. Fallen Paladin (and it's not been established he lost any abilities, or anything) can get his character back. Coming back from being dead is not something you can do on your own.

 

Like I've said before, I think pretty much all concerned screwed up. SirWilliam's scoundrel was a jerk, the GM imposed an action on the Paladin the player didn't want, and then the Paladin's player hit the "nuke" button, taking out SirWilliam's character and his own.

 

Of course, we're missing tons and tons of context here. We're forming our opinions of what happened based off one person's account. Maybe there were cues (on one side or the other, or both) that were missed. Perhaps everyone thought things were going okay, with no indication buttons were bing pushed until violence erupted. Maybe it was aliens with mind-control rays.

 

I do wonder what "Ran"'s character was doing through all this

[SirWilliam]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Ok, I'll admit I I had not considered some of these points.

 

Now for some more info.

 

#1 The vow wasn't part of his Paladin package and had no bearing upon whether or not he had his powers. It was also a Moderate. I know he didn't think he had lost his powers because he wanted to roll for them when he was chasing me and the GM pointed out that I wasn't an "evil creature".

 

#2 The precise mechanism of the seduction involved a seduction roll and an ego roll to resist. Still I agree that using a social skill on a PC should be used with care.

 

#3 The woman bit was done in-character. My character is a playboy (well actually he's a spy, but he acts like a playboy) and while he's heard of vows of chastity he can't quite believe they're real.

 

#4 Taken in the context of the game, our characters have known each other for years. My intent was to set up our characters as kind of a balance to each other where he's the serious warrior and I'm the flighty one. A little good-natured banter always makes things more fun.

 

 

Honestly I've known Thrudd as an acquaintance for quite a while and if I thought he wouldn't have taken this well I wouldn't have done it. I hardly "rode his @@@" all game session. I did my ventriloquism joke a couple (2) times and quit because a joke that's over used quickly becomes unfunny.

 

I'm not sure about the views that the GM and I set this up to have fun at Thrudd's expense. Neither the GM nor I have that kind of time (both married with kids), and honestly neither one of us are the kind of people that would do that.

 

Well anyway this thread has been helpful. I'll see if I can find out what the problem was and see if we can solve it.

[SirWilliam]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

 

I do wonder what "Ran"'s character was doing through all this

 

He had left the party and headed back to the Wizards tower. My character had kept him out all night the night before and he pleaded fatigue. His player was sitting there with a look on his face that said "What the H$$$?"

 

With regards to cues, it was obvious Thrudd wasn't happy about the woman coming on to him, but his reaction certainly came as a surprise.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Sounds like you took away from the conversation what I would've wanted, as I have drama in my own game. Back up, ask, evaluate away from the intensity of the table, and move forward.

[McCoy]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Hm. I can see your point. I guess it's just that killing another PC is supposed to be pretty much the ultimate taboo in gaming. Plus he was working on metagame information.

 

However, there's the fact that the GM (from the account given) has the woman roll Seduction, and poof his paladin has broken his vow. And one of the common bits of GM advice you hear is you have to be cautious about using social skills against PCs, because nobody likes control of their character taken away.

 

I would still consider the slaughter of another PC (especially without IC knowledge) to be a massive overreaction.

 

Edited to make it clear who I was responding to

Um, wouldn't giving special treatment to PC's for no reason other than that they are PC's be working on metagame information?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Absolutely 100% disagreed. There are a bazillion ways Mr. Fallen Paladin (and it's not been established he lost any abilities' date=' or anything) can get his character back. Coming back from being [b']dead[/b] is not something you can do on your own.

 

This is a very mechanistic viewpoint. "The character still has all his powers and abilities so all's right with the world." It is the character's personality, convictions and beliefs which have been damaged, rendering him not the same character the player created and set out to play. The player wanted to role play a Paladin who has religious convictions and has taken vows which he treats as very seriously. How would such a person react when he breaks such a vow at the drop of a hat? He's likely not to be the same person for a considerable period after, if ever.

 

I suspect the discussion might be very different if, instead of a Paladin, the other character was a virginal priestess, with the exact same vow of chastity, and a similar seduction by a male had taken place. Somehow, our modern cultural sensibilities deny the possibility that a male could possibly be serious about wanting to maintain a vow of chastity, or having any remorse if such vow is broken.

 

Like I've said before' date=' I think pretty much all concerned screwed up. SirWilliam's scoundrel was a jerk, the GM imposed an action on the Paladin the player didn't want, and then the Paladin's player hit the "nuke" button, taking out SirWilliam's character and his own.[/quote']

 

There's certainly lots of blame to go around. SW's character was a jerk, and was played in character. The Paladin may also have been played in character. Unfortunately, these characters' incombatability made for an untenable gaming situation. More unfortunately, the GM didn't see the likelihood of conflict between the two characters, and take steps up front to ensure everyone was going to be OK with this kind of conflict.