D & D What would each class do when you give them the finger?

[Noumenon]

This isn't as humorous a thread as the title would suggest. I actually do want to think about what an NPC of each character class would do when the PCs give them the finger. I've come to see that my players don't enjoy scoring points with NPCs and getting their love and respect. They like to dominate my NPCs verbally, make fun of their gods and their combat prowess, and just stick mud in their eye.

After one too many of my quest-givers was left sputtering and gasping at the impudence (ie, I had no response prepared and couldn't think of one), I decided to change how I make NPCs. I was giving them each a secret or helpful ability the players can "unlock" by gaining reputation with them. (The bartender is feeding information to the pirates. The prostitute can show you the back entrance from the brothel to the king's quarters.) Instead, I am going to start making NPCs with an idea in mind of what they'll do when the party gives them the finger.

After generating a couple generic ideas any NPC could do, I decided to get less generic and find a response that would fit best for an random NPC of each class. You could also go by alignment, but I don't use that much.

So the scenario is: "You have an NPC of class X, up to 3 levels higher than the party. The PCs probably don't know what class or level he is. Instead of taking his quest or asking him nicely, the PCs have told him they won't help him... or the horse he rode in on. What does he say?"

• Fighter: "This calls for a formal duel. Bring a healer, we're going until one of us drops."
  
• Rogue: (bluffs) "OK, let me up the ante." (offers fake magic item) [See, a rogue won't fight, because they have no honor, but they are sneaky.]
  
• Ranger: Does the quest by himself instead. [Rangers are independent.]
  
• Druid: Shapeshifts into a bear and attacks you. [I want to try this one first. Don't mess with Druid-Mayor!] Then he shifts back and apologizes for losing his temper.
  
• Paladin: slaps you or moves as if to strike, then says "No, it is not honorable to fight over insults. But we will not speak again until you have done Quest X to atone for your loose tongue."
  
• Cleric: "When you insult the most holy, he withdraws his favor from you. Do not ask for spells from Kord, you will not receive them."
  
• Monk: (closes eyes, deep breath) "You are disturbing my peace. Control your tongue, or I will teach you some discipline." (then he grapples-pins-prevents you from speaking, or uses Stunning Fist as a neck pinch.)
  
• Sorcerer: "You don't know when you're dealing with true power!" (pyrotechnics)
  
• Bard: (angry chord) "Stop this disharmony." (nice chords) Either "A gentle voice is more persuasive." or "I need music when I get angry," and then fascinate and suggest "Now, be civil."
  
• Wizard: "You idiots! You don't understand!" (makes you look foolish, like turning you into a sheep)
  
• Dragon: "Let's talk about this in private." (snatch, fly)
  
• Dragon (2): "Well, you're not too useful. At least you're tasty."

What do you think? Suitably confrontational? Too likely to devolve into full-on combat? Will the players respect my NPCs again? I often put a quote on an NPC's index card to help remember how to characterize him, is this a better way? Or have I just spent the day at work creating some kind of revenge fantasy on my players? Regardless, it was a fun time.

Do you have any ideas to build on the "how does the NPC respond to a dis" concept?

[Aus_Snow]

Originally Posted by Noumenon

Do you have any ideas to build on the "how does the NPC respond to a dis" concept?

If I wanted to rely on some of the building blocks of game mechanics, in order to ascertain behaviour patterns, I would rather go with alignment than class.

[Noumenon]

Alignment doesn't offer me any useful roleplaying material usually. I can't close my eyes and imagine a "neutral good" person the way I can imagine a "fighter," so I can't stereotype what they're like.

Like in real life, if you asked me to roleplay a person, it would be a lot easier to do an actual role like "car salesman" than a philosophy like "macho selfish."

[Aus_Snow]

Yeah, that's fair enough. I mean, whatever works.

Sorry, it probably wasn't very helpful of me, I know. And actually, your idea is interesting, and not one I can remember seeing on forums before. Just goes to show though, how different DMs might approach a given thing.

[Noumenon]

Sorry, it probably wasn't very helpful of me, I know.

I was happy you posted, I almost gave you XP! And if anyone wants to explain what each alignment would do when you give them the finger, that would be neat.

[Doug McCrae]

Sounds like the PCs are just dicks. Your responses are pretty reasonable, other possibilities would be reducing their pay or some sort of curse/geas, not necessarily permanent. If they carry on this way the only quests they are going to get will be clearing otyughs from the city sewers.

Sorcerer: "You don't know when you're dealing with true power!" (pyrotechnics)

Be wary of Monty Python references if you do this.

[Noumenon]

If they carry on this way the only quests they are going to get will be clearing otyughs from the city sewers.

That is brilliant! WORSE QUESTS! Sure you can turn down the chance to save the castle from ogres. Now you will be assigned to owlbear pellet retrieval and examination! I'm gonna fork the thread.

[NerfedWizard]

You are a mighty, combat-capable NPC of true power and cunning in a game of AD&D or 3rd/3.5. Some snivelling PC has stuck his middle finger up at you, backwards. How do you react, depending on your alignment?

LAWFUL GOOD:- "You cur, by your insolent tongue you dishonour us both, and you insult the gods you claim to serve, and those whose champion I am! Now I shall put you to the sword for your heresy! Defend yourself, scum! Here, take this sword and we shall fight now!"

PURE GOOD:- "You cur, by your insolent tongue you affront the gods you claim to serve, and those whose champion I am! Though I shall look with sorrow upon your death, I know it is for the greater good, for one who looks with such contempt upon the will of the Divine can inflict only evil upon the world! You have but one chance to kneel and repent, or I shall strike! 3, 2, 1 ... too late! Prepare to die!"

CHAOTIC GOOD:- "Taking the mick out of me and my gods? OK, well, screw the rules, you're clearly a servant of evil," >flick trapdoor button, hole opens up beneath PC's feet<

PURE LAWFUL:- "Then let us fight now, that honour be satisfied! Take up your sword, cur, now, and die!"

NEUTRAL NEUTRAL:- "I see. Watch your back." Leaves and arranges ambush to kill the PC.

CHAOTIC NEUTRAL:- "OK, that's fine. No problem at all." Leaves and arranges ambush to kill the PC.

LAWFUL EVIL:- "Draw your sword and defend yourself cur! Ah, too late, I already have my sword at your throat. I suppose you weren't quick enough." >Thrusts<

PURE EVIL:- "I see. Watch your back." Leaves and arranges assassin to kill the PCs one by one.

CHAOTIC EVIL:- "OK, that's fine. No problem at all." Leaves and arranges assassin to kill the PCs one by one, and all their known friends and associates.

And my players think I'm a bastard - I just don't understand it...

[Noumenon]

OK, I'm a fan of the idea that Good people you flip off decide you're Evil, especially if you're refusing their Good quest. But only Lawful gives you a chance to fight back.

Suppose there are laws against actually killing people in a situation where the PCs are merely antagonistic. (I'll edit my druid example to have him drop out of bear form and apologize for losing his temper.) The trapdoor idea is a good one then as it ends the encounter, is a punishment, but isn't really that violent. A less cartoony version would be a hold person trap or something.

I see how you have the chaotic characters say one thing ("that's fine, no problem") and do another. That's actually a pretty good roleplaying tip, as lawful characters wouldn't lie. Now what is it about the Neutrals that makes you think they'd set up an ambush?

[kitsune9]

Originally Posted by Noumenon

This isn't as humorous a thread as the title would suggest. I actually do want to think about what an NPC of each character class would do when the PCs give them the finger. I've come to see that my players don't enjoy scoring points with NPCs and getting their love and respect. They like to dominate my NPCs verbally, make fun of their gods and their combat prowess, and just stick mud in their eye.

After one too many of my quest-givers was left sputtering and gasping at the impudence (ie, I had no response prepared and couldn't think of one), I decided to change how I make NPCs. I was giving them each a secret or helpful ability the players can "unlock" by gaining reputation with them. (The bartender is feeding information to the pirates. The prostitute can show you the back entrance from the brothel to the king's quarters.) Instead, I am going to start making NPCs with an idea in mind of what they'll do when the party gives them the finger.

After generating a couple generic ideas any NPC could do, I decided to get less generic and find a response that would fit best for an random NPC of each class. You could also go by alignment, but I don't use that much.

So the scenario is: "You have an NPC of class X, up to 3 levels higher than the party. The PCs probably don't know what class or level he is. Instead of taking his quest or asking him nicely, the PCs have told him they won't help him... or the horse he rode in on. What does he say?"

• Fighter: "This calls for a formal duel. Bring a healer, we're going until one of us drops."
  
• Rogue: (bluffs) "OK, let me up the ante." (offers fake magic item) [See, a rogue won't fight, because they have no honor, but they are sneaky.]
  
• Ranger: Does the quest by himself instead. [Rangers are independent.]
  
• Druid: Shapeshifts into a bear and attacks you. [I want to try this one first. Don't mess with Druid-Mayor!] Then he shifts back and apologizes for losing his temper.
  
• Paladin: slaps you or moves as if to strike, then says "No, it is not honorable to fight over insults. But we will not speak again until you have done Quest X to atone for your loose tongue."
  
• Cleric: "When you insult the most holy, he withdraws his favor from you. Do not ask for spells from Kord, you will not receive them."
  
• Monk: (closes eyes, deep breath) "You are disturbing my peace. Control your tongue, or I will teach you some discipline." (then he grapples-pins-prevents you from speaking, or uses Stunning Fist as a neck pinch.)
  
• Sorcerer: "You don't know when you're dealing with true power!" (pyrotechnics)
  
• Bard: (angry chord) "Stop this disharmony." (nice chords) Either "A gentle voice is more persuasive." or "I need music when I get angry," and then fascinate and suggest "Now, be civil."
  
• Wizard: "You idiots! You don't understand!" (makes you look foolish, like turning you into a sheep)
  
• Dragon: "Let's talk about this in private." (snatch, fly)
  
• Dragon (2): "Well, you're not too useful. At least you're tasty."

What do you think? Suitably confrontational? Too likely to devolve into full-on combat? Will the players respect my NPCs again? I often put a quote on an NPC's index card to help remember how to characterize him, is this a better way? Or have I just spent the day at work creating some kind of revenge fantasy on my players? Regardless, it was a fun time.

Do you have any ideas to build on the "how does the NPC respond to a dis" concept?

I like these ideas, particularly the cleric and ranger one. If PC's are going to mouth off, the church will refuse services and I can the ranger saying, "Ah screw it, I'll do it myself."

Another aspect is that PC's who mouth off to NPC's who are not inclined to duke it out can earn a bad reputation with that NPC and others "in the know" about these mouthy and disrespectful PC's. They find themselves "taxed" higher after they completed a quest. They find out that fewer people will hire on with them, goods and services are charged at 2 or 3 times the going rate, particularly when the PC's have insulted a beloved leader of the town or village.

Another angle is that PC's who save a village but have been total jerks find their welcome worn out. After they save the day, they are asked to leave never to return. They don't get the "feast in their honor".

Another take is that after a while of being mouthy, the PC's find out among adventuring circles that they are the butt of many jokes and jests at their expense for being such jerks. Bards sing baudy songs about them, twist the stories of their heroics into blundering from one encounter to the next.

Simply put, PC's who do not take the NPC's they deal with seriously are afforded the same out of treatment. The NPC's won't take the PC's seriously and mostly will consider them amateurish while real heroes are out there doing their thing.

Of course, there are two roads to take once this quid pro quo starts--1) one side takes the high road and let's it slide or buries the hatch, 2) it escalates to a violent conclusion.

I've seen it go both ways. My typical campaign usually has one of the PC's out of the group who gets mouthy with an NPC but the other PC's either apologize or there is some amends. In a 2e campaign I ran, the PC's wanted to be total jerks and the village elders were not going to tolerate it and tried to arrest them for being a public nuisance. After the PC's killed the village elders and constabulary, the villagers formed a mob and drove the PC's out of the village and word spread and became wanted people by order of the king. They had to actually flee to the more lawless parts of the kingdom in order to escape justice. End of campaign.

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It sounds like you are trying to run a heroic campaign and your players would rather just be jerks. Have you been open and up-front with you players that you are running a campaign focused on them being heroes? I've usually let my players know that the motivations of my campaigns will suit the "good guys" over the "bad guys" nad they usually have accepted that as the campaign style. If they didn't want that type of campaign then we could discuss what they would like.

Assuming you've already had that talk, have the NPC take the high road and bow out. The NPC should tell them he would rather find others willing to help. Then stare at your players blankly and ask them what they want to do. Let them roam around aimlessly in a sandbox environment. Throw other hooks to them that you would enjoy running. Those hooks don't pan out either if they continue to be jerks. If they head down the path of evil because they become bored, remind them that they agreed to a heroic campaign and if they choose evil their PCs become NPCs.

If you haven't had "the talk", then have the talk. Imposing my advice or your own plans on them without the talk will only lead to issues.

[Allegro]

The previously presented options seem very Wild West where everyone is willing to fight and kill. Most NPCs are not going to be inclined or capable of fighting the PCs. To simulate this create a few named factions like Kordite, merchant, beggar, working class, criminals and politico. Every NPC is a member of at least 1 faction. Different people have different strengths in the faction. Angering the mayor will hurt you with the politicos more than angering the town clerk. The NPC can still become indignant and flustered but the actions have consequences and rewards.

• Kordites: healing and services disappear, are available, are free depending on connection
• Merchants: neutral ratings sell at 50%, hostile sell at 30%, and friendly sells at 70%.
• Beggar: if hostile nasty rumors circulate about the PCs, if good warnings about events are given
• Working class: if hostile bars and other stores clear out when the PCs enter. This will generally infuriate the owner. All rumors and other information must be purchased. If positive bars fill up with patrons wanting to hear about the latest adventure.
• Criminals: If hostile the local thief guild will sanction thefts, inn keepers will demand more money because they don’t want trouble. A loud construction project is started in front of every inn the PCs stay in; making a good nights rest impossible.
• Politico: guards will harass them as they enter and leave the city. We need to check the packs to make sure no kobolds are sneaking into the town. Permits and regulations will be enforced. Merchants will require proof of lawful possession to sell a looted sword and other such inconveniences.

[El Mahdi]

A very interesting and thought provoking thread. I also really liked Allegro's ideas. (XP for both.)


I guess that for your basic, realatively no-name npc's, a pre-set response based on a certain criteria (such as class or alignment) will more than suffice. Or, an approach based upon their role or profession (like Allegro's) works really well (I liked his the best for your no-name generic npc's).

However, for more important, "named" npc's, I prefer a more personalized and organic approach.

My rule of thumb is: "If this were the real world, and a PC responded to me that way, what would I do?"

I know that, in the real world, and whether I may really want to or not, I'm not going to threaten someone to a fight, especially one where the possibility of severe injury or death may occur. Now I know that D&D isn't the real world, but even D&D has at least a loose origin in Medieval Europe. Even in Medieval Europe, people didn't walk around killing eachother every time someone looked at, or said something cross to them (emphasis on every - I know it did happen, but I doubt it was an every day occurance).

Also, unless you're running more of a sandbox campaign where you are just letting the chips fall where they may (which is perfectly OK if that's your preference), you probably have some sort of plan or plot that you're running the pc's through. Character death happens, but a high occurance of character death due to unplanned and unfavorable run-ins with npc's, makes the game about that, rather than your campaign plot. Also, if your important npc's start experiencing unplanned demises, that can seriously screw up your campaign too.

So, since you have a group where this seems necessary, I'd suggest coming up with an individualized response for each one of your major npc's. One that avoids creating or forcing a violent confrontation, and one that's based on the specific character of that npc. However, again I'd only suggest this for important, "named", npc's. Not the nobody npc's. Doing it for every npc in your campaign would just be a phenomenal amount of work, and probably not worth it.


To give you an example of what I'm talking about:

I once DM'd a high level campaign of The Labrynth of Madness. It was kind of a one-off with high level characters made up just to run through that specific adventure. I set it in the Forgotten Realms since it was the campaign setting I was most familiar with.

Now, since the characters were so high level, I had to use a high level npc to interact with them and give them the hook for the adventure. So, I settled on Elminster.

Now, people being people, and since players are people also, the players were wont to test their boundaries. Of course that ended up being in the form of taunting Elminster. Now, Elminster being Elminster, that means that he was capable of out fighing or out fireballing any one of the pc's, and probably all of them at once. But where would the fun be in that. Not to mention it would probably result in the end of the adventure/campaign.

So, I needed a response to their taunting that; 1) put an end to the taunting in no uncertain terms - 2) did it without forcing a confrontation that would result in the injuring/maiming/death of a pc - 3) did not affect the plot line of the campaign.

I did some quick thinking and rememberd some of the articles that Ed Greenwood wrote in Dragon Magazine. Ed Greenwood had a series of articles about Elminster and other famous D&D wizards (such as Mordenkainen, Dalamar, etc.) coming to his house (Ed Greenwoods) on modern day Earth, and having a conference or meeting (while Ed Greenwood hid in a suit of armor, or some such). There were always some funny jokes about Elminster wanting some modern food like twinkies or hot dogs. So, I decided that since Elminster had been to our Earth and was familiar with a good bit of it, when the pc's wizard started taunting El, this is what he did.



With a wave of Elminsters hand, the all-powerful (in his own mind) PC wizard found himself suddenly teleported somewhere else. Once he got his bearings, he realized he was in some sort of small open cart, sitting in a seat, and restrained by a metal bar locked over his lap. There was the ominous sound of a chain being cranked, and the slow movement of the cart as it seemed to be climbing a very steep incline. Looking around he could tell he was at a fairly significant height, and climbing higher. Ahead of the cart was some sort of track climbing ever upward, with nothing but sky beyond it's summit. As the cart continued to clank upward, a growing fear began to grow in the wizard, until, at the top of the hill, it turned into full blown terror. As the cart crested the peak, the wizard realized he was at a height greater than any he'd ever been at, and before him the track continued into a decline that looked as if it was close to vertical. Then, when he thought his terror was at it's limit, the clanking stopped - and the cart began to accelerate. At first it simply felt like gravity had ceased to work, then the wind started to increase as the cart picked up speed. Faster and faster the cart went, until it was moving faster than the wizard thought was possible (at least faster than anything he had ever experienced). Down the cart plummeted until the wizard thought that only certain death awaited him at the bottom of this fall. Just before the inevitable happened, there was a flash of light, and the now somewhat incontinent wizard (formerly all-powerful) found himself once more seated in front of the campfire with his companions, and across from a mischievously smiling Elminster. His companions noted his pale complexion and sudden wind blown hair, and enquired as to whether he was alright. Not wanting to further anger Elminster, he simply croaked out a weak "Yes". And then wisely remained quiet for the rest of the night.


Everyone at the table laughed at the player of the wizard, and even the player of the wizard was grinning from ear to ear. Once I had dealt with the players wanting to test their boundaries, and did it with humor and cleverness, and without forcing a confrontation that could only end badly, I never had to deal with the pc's not realistically roleplaying their interactions with npc's again. From that point on, there interactions with npc's were always on-point, related to the campaign, and never confrontational just to be confrontational. If they were confrontational, it was always suitable to the circumstances and the story.

There's just nothing like a healthy dose of "Consequence" to get the players back on track. But, I've found that humorous consequences work a lot better than threats of violence. Once you have an npc threaten violence, there's really no where to go but to fight. You've painted yourself into a corner, and that rarely ends well.




(p.s.: For those that didn't figure it out, it was a roller coaster.)

[roguerouge]

Bard: "'Kay." (Goes forth and destroys your reputation with a series of parody songs)

Barbarian: "You're my kind of stupid. I LIKE you!" Party is now saddled with a gregarious violent person with no social graces. Alternatively, he might rage and snap that finger OFF.

Cleric: Nods. Acts wise. Understands. Spreads the word to his confederates and you get charged "unbeliever" rates on all healing items from the temple until you get back in their good graces.

Druid: Guess which party's going to "lose" its rations in the middle of the next forest? You are!

Fighter: Medium level fighters tend to be the City Watch or connected to mercenary companies. That's a real bad person to irritate.

Paladin: Your basic challenge to a formal duel.

Ranger: Same as the druid, only less effectively.

Rogue: Oh, I imagine he'd get the Mob after you for showing disrespect.

Sorcerer: Charm Person. Geas. Dominate Person.

Wizard: Flesh to Stone. He now has a statue for the pigeons to crap on.

[Noumenon]

Have you been open and up-front with you players that you are running a campaign focused on them being heroes?

More or less... they know they aren't supposed to pick evil alignments. On the other hand, I definitely want them to feel like they can pick and choose which NPCs they listen to.

The previously presented options seem very Wild West where everyone is willing to fight and kill.

I was trying to craft my list of options to avoid full-out lethal combat or objectionable mind control -- using only fascination, nonlethal attacks, politics, quest roadblocks, etc. Basically things the PCs could forgive if they were charitable. But I bet my players would be quick to take offense and probably would attack some people. I'll have to see.

# Working class: if hostile bars and other stores clear out when the PCs enter. This will generally infuriate the owner. All rumors and other information must be purchased. If positive bars fill up with patrons wanting to hear about the latest adventure.
# Criminals: If hostile the local thief guild will sanction thefts, inn keepers will demand more money because they don’t want trouble. A loud construction project is started in front of every inn the PCs stay in; making a good nights rest impossible.
# Politico: guards will harass them as they enter and leave the city. We need to check the packs to make sure no kobolds are sneaking into the town. Permits and regulations will be enforced. Merchants will require proof of lawful possession to sell a looted sword and other such inconveniences.

You are a master of coming up with consequences. I copied these down.

On the other hand, it doesn't fit my DMing style that well. I like to think in terms of scenes, so I'd have to actually plan and set up some kind of "townsfolk are restless" encounter." It seems like offering resistance at the time of irritation would be a faster feedback mechanism than time-delayed consequences, hence more effective. And it just seems more dramatic and fun to have the conflict right there.

I often feel like I'm playing my monsters and NPCs as though I were running player characters; maybe that's why I want them to be able to take direct action. When I make the whole world unpleasant for the players, rather than the NPCs, I feel like a bit of a jerk. Like for example, "Rocks fall, everyone dies" feels like bad DMing, but "Villain drops rocks, everyone dies" feels like good DMing. That's also why I don't have super-powerful quest givers -- though I am a little tempted by the roller coaster example.

My players would actually like me to be harder on them with consequences, but I don't like ragging on them and making things unnecessarily difficult and unpleasant.

"You're my kind of stupid. I LIKE you!" Party is now saddled with a gregarious violent person with no social graces.

Ah ha ha ha... I forgot the Barbarian, but that is perfect!

Guess which party's going to "lose" its rations in the middle of the next forest? You are!

I like that one, too. Great deniability. Also, the pigeons crap on their head.

[Noumenon]

I also made up some "any NPC could use this" strategies for responding to antagonistic opponents. I made them at work and I need to type them up, so here they are:

• The NPC gives up, goes and leans on someone you love till they beg you to help him.
• Reverse psychology -- "You're not worthy of the treasure, I can see that!"
• (calls in intimidating bodyguard/shield guardian/teleporting demon) "You were saying?"
• "Leave now!" and keeps an eye on you with hidden rogues
• trap door (could be portal)
• gives you something that triggers hold person
• "Look, when I want the opinion of a scruffy-looking nerfherder, I'll ask my apprentice!"
• Swallows pride and begs
• Becomes overfriendly and helpful --> later betrayal
• "The force is stronger than you realize, my child."
• "You don't know what/who you're dealing with!
• "This interview is over." Leaves, may send intermediary to parley later.
• You hear in a bar, "X dissed Y -- what a slight! Y is never going to give them (reward) now!"

I'll just keep this list in my folder, ask for time to think and pick the best response.

[Noumenon]

It occurs to me that this would also be a good go-to list for when the party tries to charm person and fails. Not lethal consequences, but unwanted consequences.

[jaerdaph]

Giving a class the finger is much better than giving a class the shaft.