Player problem - opinions ....

[McCoy]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

SirWilliam, reverse the genders. Would you have done this to a female character, or a female player?

 

Thrudd was raped, and you, your character, and the GM feel that that is no big deal. I admire his player for keeping reaction confined to the game, and if he ever games with either of you again he's a better man than I am.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

#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".

 

CONCLUSION: The player was motivated by role playing his character's personality, not by power gaming over his paladin powers.

 

#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.

 

I have no concern with these skills being used. I have a concern when the personalities of the characters involved (whether established by background, by disadvantages or by consistency of play) are overridden by these skills. To me, this is not a lot different from having the Dark Lord decide to convert to the Worship of Goodness and Light because the party priestess makes an oratory roll, and the Dark Lord rolls an 18 on his ego roll. It's mechanically sound, but role playing stupid.

 

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

 

Well and good. Then you should not be upset with the "Paladin takes revenge" bit, assuming it was also done in character. Again my opinion, but this isn't all that different from the PC thief who steals from the party, defends himself with "I'm just playing in character" and then gets upset when others respond to the theft in accordance with the beliefs and personalities of their characters by doing EXACTLY what they would have done to an NPC who took the same actions. (ie punting the thief out of the group, turning hin in to the law and/or administering a little vigilante justice).

 

#4 Taken in the context of the game' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

These "known each other for years when the players just started playing" assumptions are tough to work with. Had the Paladin and the Scoundrel known each other for years, would they still voluntarily socialize with one another, given their disparate personalities, or would they long since have parted ways, and possibly even be enemies at the start of the campaign?

 

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)' date=' and honestly neither one of us are the kind of people that would do that. [/quote']

 

I don't think anyone said this is what you did. I do think there is a concern that this is what the Paladin's player may perceive as what occcured.

 

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.

 

Good luck in that. I think a large part of the problem is that he had diffferent expectations of the game than you, and perhaps the GM and/or other players, may have had. The fact that the third player wanted out of the party may indicate that his expectations also don't match yours. I would suggest a group discussion as to what kind of game is desired may be in order.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to McCoy again.

 

Nertz!

You're reading my mind, McCoy.

[Korvar]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

SirWilliam, reverse the genders. Would you have done this to a female character, or a female player?

 

Thrudd was raped, and you, your character, and the GM feel that that is no big deal. I admire his player for keeping reaction confined to the game, and if he ever games with either of you again he's a better man than I am.

 

He was seduced. That is very different from rape.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he means 'rape' in terms of 'complete violation of trust in other people to handle his character with respect.' Or, I could be putting words in his mouth, but that's what I got out of it. Further, he is technically correct. Seducing the unwilling (which a Paladin with a Vow of Chastity clearly is), is rape.

[Korvar]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Leaving murder as the only possible alternative?

 

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.

 

Well, wrong in my case, if nothing else. Murdering someone who might have been involved - specifically murdering someone you've known for years based on no evidence - still an overreaction.

 

 

 

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.

 

Agreed, although I don't think the murder and suicide could reasonably be "in character".

[Korvar]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he means 'rape' in terms of 'complete violation of trust in other people to handle his character with respect.' Or' date=' I could be putting words in his mouth, but that's what I got out of it. Further, he is technically correct. Seducing the unwilling (which a Paladin with a Vow of Chastity clearly is), is rape.[/quote']

 

You can't seduce the unwilling. Rape is not a word that applies to this situation.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Wait, isn't that the WHOLE POINT of seduction? To lure, or entice one away from their chosen duty with false promises & hopes? That's the whole point - that's why it's seduction and not, say, a logical argument. "Let's go have sex." "Sorry, can't, vow of chastity." "Aw, nertz!"

 

See the difference? Guy got one roll to defend himself against said PRE attack, fails it, and he winds up in the sack, despite his vow? And that isn't rape?

[McCoy]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

He was seduced. That is very different from rape.

No, unwanted sex was forced upon him. He was raped. Allegedly he was given one chance to defend himself, a EGO roll that was missed. We are not told by how much or if approperate modifications were made for his psych limit vow. Just because game mechanics say he didn't resist with deadly force does not change the fact that it was unwanted.

[McCoy]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he means 'rape' in terms of 'complete violation of trust in other people to handle his character with respect.' Or' date=' I could be putting words in his mouth, but that's what I got out of it. Further, he is technically correct. Seducing the unwilling (which a Paladin with a Vow of Chastity clearly is), is rape.[/quote']

No, I'm saying that reducing this to a pair of die rolls was no different from slipping him a Roofie. This was rape.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

And I agreed with you - just wasn't sure which angle you were taking. Note my post slightly ahead of your post in re: seduction. I'm seeing it the same way you are.

 

I'm ALSO pointing out that the violation of trust at the table is another variation on the same theme. So it's double jeopardy - not only was the character raped by an NPC on a die roll, the player's expectations, and his view of how the character should be treated, were grossly violated.

[Korvar]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Wait' date=' isn't that the WHOLE POINT of seduction? To lure, or entice one away from their chosen duty with false promises & hopes? That's the whole point - that's why it's [i']seduction[/i] and not, say, a logical argument. "Let's go have sex." "Sorry, can't, vow of chastity." "Aw, nertz!"

 

See the difference? Guy got one roll to defend himself against said PRE attack, fails it, and he winds up in the sack, despite his vow? And that isn't rape?

 

Rape is forced, unwanted sex. Seduction is making someone want sex.

 

But evidently I'm using different definitions of these two words than everyone else, so I'd best leave this thread before I get more angry than I am already.

[McCoy]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

And I agreed with you - just wasn't sure which angle you were taking. Note my post slightly ahead of your post in re: seduction. I'm seeing it the same way you are.

 

I'm ALSO pointing out that the violation of trust at the table is another variation on the same theme. So it's double jeopardy - not only was the character raped by an NPC on a die roll, the player's expectations, and his view of how the character should be treated, were grossly violated.

Not disagreeing, just clairifying my meaning.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

*blinks*

 

So making someone want sex... who otherwise would never have sex through a vow of chastity... isn't rape?

 

So if I convince a nun to sleep with me... and she says "yes" in the heat of the moment, despite the fact she'll regret it and likely be excommunicated, that isn't rape, because she said yes? Right?

 

Oh my. We have EXTREMELY different definitions. I'm saying (and I beleive McCoy is as well) that rape is any action which puts someone in a position to compromise their morals or beliefs in regards to sexual practices. A person who, under normal circumstances, would never consent to sex, and is then later 'convinced' to have sex, has been raped under my definition. Which may not be yours, but if you're limiting the scope of rape to simple physical assault, then we're calling it very different things.

[McCoy]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Rape is forced' date=' unwanted[/b'] sex. Seduction is making someone want sex.

 

But evidently I'm using different definitions of these two words than everyone else, so I'd best leave this thread before I get more angry than I am already.

Let's try this one more time. The Player was not willing. The Character was FORCED, by game mechanics, to submit to sex. Rape. Now do you understand?

[Lucius]

Player problem - opinions ....

 

There's the "R" word. I'm outta here.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary pauses to clarify that our first answer, to Sir William, is the same answer we'd have given to Thrudd if he'd been the one asking, then hurries off to do something safer - like talk about the "I" word

[McCoy]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Let's try this one more time. The Player was not willing. The Character was FORCED' date=' by game mechanics, to submit to sex. Rape. Now do you understand?[/quote']

Let me try this one more time. I guess what I am saying is that situations involving limitations like vows ought to be resolved through role playing, not pure game mechanics.

[Storn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Whether it was rape or not... it was breaking the trust of the social contract.

 

The paladin player was intruded upon. He probably shouldn't have taken down Sir William's PC in his tragic death spiral... but he did.

 

What I am interested in is CAN THIS BE SALVAGED?

 

Can the two of you come up with new characters, connected to the old characters, to make amend the wrongs?

 

And really, what the GM should have done is say "wow, your really blew your Ego/PRE roll... your character is sorely tempted... keep that in mind and tell me what your character does." Leaving the control, ALL of the control, in the hands of the player to dictate the rest of the scene.

 

It could have easily played out as some kissing and heavy petting and our Paladin hero tearing himself away muttering; "I cannot..." and then going to Sir Williams character and beating the crap out of him, but not killing him... all the while the Players are having a blast....knowing that this is a potential great, rich arch of redemption of their friendship in the adventures to come.

 

That scenario is possible, but takes good communication between the players.

 

But at the very least, you and your GM should apologize. AND he should apologize for the retaliation. Then sit down and discuss how to avoid this in the future.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I'm just taking notes on how to not handle these situations in the future. Storn is bringing up the same point I was discussing before - that beyond simply being a breach of character contract, it was also a breach of social contract. Both of these things are wrong.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Leaving murder as the only possible alternative?

 

Leaving murder as a possible alternative which makes sense to the character in a less than rational state. There is a difference.

 

Well' date=' wrong in my case, if nothing else. Murdering someone who [b']might[/b] have been involved - specifically murdering someone you've known for years based on no evidence - still an overreaction.

 

There's that "known for years" issue again. If the characters have known each other for years (the premise set by the GM, and not by actual role playing experiences) and have become fast friends (which seems unlikely given the differences in their personalities, but again the premise set by the GM), is it reasonable to think that the scoundrel would push his "friend's" buttons like that? Or would he, after years of friendship, have a pretty good idea that the Paladin is dead serious about his vow of chastity, and know better than to push that button - and refrain from doing so out of respect for the beliefs of his "friend"? It is no less reasonable to assert that the Paladin can kill his "old friend" out of feelings of betrayal than to assert that the Scoundrel can't understand a vow of chastity under which his "old friend" has operated for their "many years" of friendship.

 

As noted above, the approach of deeming brand new characters old friends bugs me. If the GM wanted this to have any verisimilitude, he needed to make sure that the characters' personalities and world views were at least moderately compatible.

 

Agreed' date=' although I don't think the murder and suicide could reasonably be "in character".[/quote']

 

Highly religious individual is tempted into a gross violation of his religious convictions. Looking for a scapegoat, he finds one in the Scoundrel. He punishes the Scoundrel with death, then, in a fit of remorse takes his own life.

 

Not a very happy story, but a very believable one.

 

And if I am to believe the Paladin's mental state was so precarious that a few minutes with the seductress gets him to chuck a lifelong vow of chastity, the further chain of events seems not too much a stretch either, at least to me.

 

You can't seduce the unwilling. Rape is not a word that applies to this situation.

 

And yet a serious vow of chastity seems to scream "unwilling". Have a look at this web page and see if it assists you in understanding the definition many posters are using in respect of this topic. http://teenadvice.about.com/od/daterape/a/daterapeguysfyi.htm

[csyphrett]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Sounds like your character got off lucky. I have known paladin players to go after everything associated with an enemy instead of committing suicide. The whole Will Munny speech at the end of Unforgiven.

CES

[SirWilliam]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

The Paladin may also have been played in character. Unfortunately, these characters' incombatability made for an untenable gaming situation.

 

 

Speaking only as a GM, the Paladin was not being played in character.

 

* The paladin's player was acting on information the paladin had no way of knowing. That is the definition of "out of character". It was obvious that the player was not able to separate what "he" knew and what his character "knew".

 

* The paladin was aligned with the God of GOOD. Which involves things like mercy, forgiveness and helping people. Murdering an unarmed man would go just a bit counter to those tenets no matter what he did.

 

* The paladin certainly could have opted to leave the party and retire to his church. That would have been more "in character" than retreating to the gym for a late night workout. Having been at more than one party, someone really seeking to be alone doesn't do so by finding a private room at the party.

 

I think the biggest problem is that we were expecting him to be a more experienced player than he is. He told us that he'd RPG'ed before and I took it at that. I think that may have been more along the lines of Bob and Dave from KoDT than RP'ing because he surely didn't seem be much into his "role".

 

Honestly I don't really care if my character lives or dies. There's an infinite number of characters out there but from a player dynamic this is concerning to me. Just wanted to get that out there that I'm not upset or anything about what happened to my character.

 

And this is JMO, but nothing that happens around a gaming table is even remotely close to rape. That particular violation maybe role-played, but not in any game I'll be involved in past the first suggestion that it's being considered. Seduction is about temptation. Sometimes you succumb to temptation and when you do it's your responsibility, not the person who tempted you. It's like when someone offers you a slice of cake when you're on a diet. If you eat the cake it's your responsibility. Was the person wrong for offering it? Probably, but you can't blame them if you ate it willingly. Carrying out the analogy rape would be like holding someone down and forcefeeding them or threatening them if they don't eat it. Actual rape involves removing consent. Yes the dice removed the player's power of consent, but if there was never any chance for something negative to happen to characters what would be the point of playing? We could just say "We win" and that would be the end of it. For the record this will be the only reply I make to this part of the discussion.

 

Should the GM have offered him an "out" via RP'ing? I think so, and quite frankly I was surprised when he said that Thrudd succumbed that easily. I certainly would have if I'd been GM'ing, but each GM has his own style and interpretation of the rules, and this was the first session.

 

Someone asked if I would have done the same thing if it had been a woman paladin. Honestly, I probably would have, only I would have been the one trying to seduce her. That would have been totally in keeping with his character.

 

Anyway I have written an e-mail to all parties involved and have apologized for upsetting him if that was the source of the incident. If, by some twisted logic, he thought that that was appropriate behavior then we'll have to educate him. I think it's possible his gaming experience with MMORPG's (WoW and DDO) may be doing him a disservice in the much looser world of regular RPG's. Personally I think he just didn't really want to play any more, and chose this as his "out" rather than just say so. If so, we'll soldier on without him.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

* The paladin's player was acting on information the paladin had no way of knowing. That is the definition of "out of character". It was obvious that the player was not able to separate what "he" knew and what his character "knew".

 

I think that's been covered. The host knew where he was and who was at the party. Leaping to the conclusion the host had something to do with it doesn't seem like a huge leap.

 

* The paladin was aligned with the God of GOOD. Which involves things like mercy' date=' forgiveness and helping people. Murdering an unarmed man would go just a bit counter to those tenets no matter what he did.[/quote']

 

If the chastity vow was that fragile, why should the Mercy & Forgiveness vow be made of sterner stuff? Did he have any psychological limitations related to mercy and forgiveness? he did have one related to chastity and it seems that was readily overcome.

 

* The paladin certainly could have opted to leave the party and retire to his church. That would have been more "in character" than retreating to the gym for a late night workout. Having been at more than one party' date=' someone really seeking to be alone doesn't do so by finding a private room at the party. [/quote']

 

How many parties has the Paladin with the vow of chastity (and, apparently, temperence, as you indicated) been to? Why is it OK for him to use OOC knowledge of social customs at parties, but not OK to conclude the host put the seductress up to it?

 

Frankly, with one character already having left the party, I as a GM would be looking for a quick wrapup to the party and move on to the meat of the game. I assume there WAS a goal for the party to accomplish somewhere that went beyond hosting parties.

 

I think the biggest problem is that we were expecting him to be a more experienced player than he is. He told us that he'd RPG'ed before and I took it at that. I think that may have been more along the lines of Bob and Dave from KoDT than RP'ing because he surely didn't seem be much into his "role".

 

I would suggest the biggest problem is that you were expecting his playing style to be more compatable with your playing style. Experience has very little (though not nothing) to do with that.

 

Seduction is about temptation. Sometimes you succumb to temptation and when you do it's your responsibility, not the person who tempted you. It's like when someone offers you a slice of cake when you're on a diet.

 

Should the GM have offered him an "out" via RP'ing? I think so, and quite frankly I was surprised when he said that Thrudd succumbed that easily. I certainly would have if I'd been GM'ing, but each GM has his own style and interpretation of the rules, and this was the first session.

 

Moving off the "R word", always a hot button, would you have been OK with the Paladin making a stirring oratory, you failing an ego roll and your character converting to his religion, giving his worldly possessions to the church and taking his own vow of chastity? As you say, an out beyond "oops - failed roll - your character moves completely out of character" would have been appropriate.

 

Someone asked if I would have done the same thing if it had been a woman paladin. Honestly' date=' I probably would have, only I would have been the one trying to seduce her. That would have been totally in keeping with his character.[/quote']

 

I'm not asking whether the character would have tried, but whether you would be as blase about saying "forget about the possibility of any aftereffects". Would you have considered it good role playing for the virginal Paladin to have broken her vow, then brushed it off the next morning as "oh well, I still have all my paladin powers so it's no big deal"? To me, that's pretty lousy role playing.

 

Anyway I have written an e-mail to all parties involved and have apologized for upsetting him if that was the source of the incident. If' date=' by some twisted logic, he thought that that was appropriate behavior then we'll have to educate him. I think it's possible his gaming experience with MMORPG's (WoW and DDO) may be doing him a disservice in the much looser world of regular RPG's. Personally I think he just didn't really want to play any more, and chose this as his "out" rather than just say so. If so, we'll soldier on without him.[/quote']

 

Again, I hope it works out. I don't get a good vibe for that, however, if the rest of the group has already decided that the "problem" was that this player is a poor/inexperienced role player, and that his decision of how to role play his character was inappropriate, but everyone else's actions were OK.

[csyphrett]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

And it seems like you messed with this guy until he snapped. Did you really expect him to give you flowers and thanks the morning after? I don't recall sending the wizard a hooker at his tower.

 

Sounds like new guy hazing to me.

 

Crusaders fought for a god of good too. Look how many they killed doing that.

 

Maybe you should have backed off, and maybe you should have stepped up and said seduction doesn't work like that since you are a GM, and should know.

 

It's mature that you didn't mind getting killed, but the rest is kind of low.

CES

[Lumbering Ox]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

1: I am suprised that none of the experienced players questioned the lack of a seriously bad modifier on this. And even then. Breaking your vows should be on several orders of magnitude harder then seducing a MOTAS when you are attractive and they are inclined. One would have a minus the other a plus. Even with rolls of 3 or 18 for both seduction and ego I would question just allowing it to happen. THis is more a 30, 50+ point mind control, or similar points into seduction. If it were me, I would get rid of the Paladin, and show up with someone with a high persuasion skill and talk the rouge character into having sex with animals and children, and joining racist organizations who hate his own race untill you guys got the point and started not just following the rules but thinking about the implications of said rules.

 

2: It wasen't rape, in so far that such a result should never of happened.

 

3: Unless I take a punching bag character, I have a very low tolerance of being the target of abuse. If I want to be subject to abuse, I will talk to my brother, or go out and talk to females ["Hey I'm 36, morbidly obese, unemployed, and live with my parents, want to shag?"] . I don't need that sort of treatment in my recreational activities. For that matter I also have no tolerance for practical jokes in real life either.

 

4: Friends understand what friends can put up with and not put up with. If I knew someone who made a vow, I wouldn't go about testing them except in the most minor way which I knew they would pass and only if I knew they wouldn't mind.

4a: What your character did was similar to offering a recovering alcoholic a drink. The moment the seduction role failed, you should of said something to the DM as events were quickly exceeding what your character [and you] thought should have happened.

 

5: I usually employ the long time friends/flashing PC light rule. Adventuring with people you don't trust is usually pretty irrational. I insist on either a friends or a flashing PC light. I dispise people who take characters that say rob other characters and do things to betray trust, or do the backstabbing. If you screw over a player character, and it is my caimpaign, your flashing PC light goes off. Sure it isn't proper roleplaying, but I don't care. It isn't fun, to be screwed over. Take characters that can get along or don't bother.

 

6: Characters with widely differening personalities are fine and good, but there should be some basic respect both ways. It might take a few sessions to work out these comprimises which in reality friends would already have. I've modified player personality for playability.