Lord or Tyrant?

Ok, there was an encounter in today's session that raised a few eyebrows while being a lot of fun. Essentially we discussed whether my character was acting like a lord or tyrant.

Back story:

The heroes are 2 years into an epic quest against an evil cult that is the root cause of evil events in the nearby kingdoms and townships. The nearby local town has been over-run by various undead unleashed by the cult and all that remains is the sanctified keep held by a powerful Mage and Priestess (10th level) and about 15 trained militia.

Our 11th level heroes arrive at this town in poor shape, and in exchange for hospitality we pledge to take the battle to the undeads' Vampire leadership. It's a done deal. The Vampires are well fortified in an unhallowed dungeon so it's a case of strike during daylight and then defend the keep at night.

Situation:

After one attack on the Vampires the party has to retreat and is scattered. We regather at the keep and learn the two local lords have teleported away on unknown business. The militiamen seem rather surly and disinclined to let us in through the gate.

Later that day the hero 'Priest' returned from afar (planeshift inaccuracy) by using 'wind walk' and 2 militiamen mistake him for some spirit and fire at him with silver arrows, wounding him slightly. Priest tries to parlay but he's about to be in for another volley when my PC's cohort, Grenwyn the Priestess of Ehlonna (9th level), emerges on the battlements and stops the archers.

She then scolds the archers for firing on (the now fully physically manifested) Priest, and one militiaman in turn returns the anger with interest, telling her this is not her place to be giving orders.

My PC emerges and sees Grenwyn getting aggression from the militiaman and tells him not to dare yell at a priestess. He backchats my PC, so he grabs the man by the tunic and shoves him up against the battlements and tells him to shut up. The militiaman shows little fear, and as it turns out is the leader whom was quite difficult to persuade to open the gate. My PC then tells him to show due respect to a lord and residing champion (my PC is a born aristocrat and self made lord on the fringes of civilisation) or face him in a duel.

The duel is short, and the milita leader is knocked senseless.

The militiamen are now clearly turned unhelpful-to-hostile regarding us and hole themselves up in the lower vaults of the keep when the undead attack. Who knows how the local lords will react when they return?

Anyway, the DM reckons our PC's are becoming more tyrant-like. Whereas in my view, the PC's are merely demanding more respect and deference for what they have achieved and what they have become.


Your thoughts?

FreeTheSlaves said:

Ok, there was an encounter in today's session that raised a few eyebrows while being a lot of fun. Essentially we discussed whether my character was acting like a lord or tyrant.

Back story:

<snip>

Anyway, the DM reckons our PC's are becoming more tyrant-like. Whereas in my view, the PC's are merely demanding more respect and deference for what they have achieved and what they have become.


Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Well, your PCs are theguests in the town, and you're clearly not showing much respect to your hosts.

Your PCs are mercenaries -- you get paid (hospitality in the town) for a service (destroy the vampire nest). The town has been reduced to a sanctified keep by vampires. The militiamen are paranoid. And then a human-shaped could appears among them. If they've been fighting vampires they surely know about their ability to turn into mist.

Then you bully a NPC who wasn't very friendly to begin with. You demand respect, and yet you show none (after all, he is a leader of the militiamen). You're a visiting self-proclaimed lord from the fringe of civilisation, and you're publicly humiliating a leader in his own courtyard, so to speak.

In my book, that's not very noble, considerate, good or lordly. I'm not saying it's Evil, but it certainly won't make you any friends. I'd say your DM is right.

Of course, this is just the feeling I get from reading your post.

I've seen similar behaviour a few times, and IME, it is a "meta-game" thing. The PCs get to mid- or highish-levels. The NPCs at that levels are clearly inferior to them. The players start acting as if their PCs owned the world, because the King is just a 5th-level Aristocrat, and the Guildmaster of a local Thieves' Guild is merely a 9th-level Expert, and the vast majority of their underlings are 1st-level commoners, which clearly present no threat to the PCs.

Point the first: Wind Walk is the preferred method of travel for an entire class of beings (high-level characters) that A can easily level a fortified keep, and B are not going to be put down by a volley of silver arrows. The fact that the militia had standing orders to fire on such a being means that the militia was flatly in the wrong.

Now, given the circumstances, it is conceivable that you could have been a gaseous-formed vampire. Given the circumstances, hostility and even that first reflexive volley of arrows are excusable. However, simply continuing to fire without investigating, demanding proof of your identity, tossing a holy symbol down to you, etc., are not.

If the leader of the militia was not aware of the fact that certain clerical magic exists, then he is too ignorant to be in charge of a military force, in much the same way as a person with no knowledge of explosives and machine guns is too ignorant to lead a modern military force. If the priestess doesn't have the authority to tell the militia "That's a planetar. Stop shooting at him.", the militia needs to reorganize their chain of command toot frakin' sweet.

Now, there are all sorts of nuances to personal power, social standing, and the obligation to show deference to those higher than you on the social scale, but what it boils down to is this; in a sane society, the militia should be obligated to listen to the priestess on matters of holy magic. This was a matter of holy magic. The militia didn't listen to her. The militia got it wrong. Calling him out was the exact right thing to do, from a macro-societal perspective; you reinforced the fact that there are people flatly better and more capable than the militia-leader in the world, and that ignoring them has consequences.

Sadly, on a micro-level, the militia leader is more concerned with his own dignity and personal safety than on actually destroying the undead. I wouldn't really consider it that much of a concern; having a contingent of archers would be nice, but isn't strictly necessary at your level. Consider having the casters at your disposal pull down a few celestials (specifically, ones with ranged attacks such as lantern archons) with Planar Binding and Planar Ally. After all, nothing says nobility like "We drew reinforcements from the very forces of elemental Law and Good. They kicked undead ass. You should learn from their fine example."

FreeTheSlaves said:

Anyway, the DM reckons our PC's are becoming more tyrant-like. Whereas in my view, the PC's are merely demanding more respect and deference for what they have achieved and what they have become.

Click to expand...

Well, there is little difference between lords and tyrants. Demanding respect and deference rather than commanding it is one of those differences.

A lot depends on info we don't know and (which is usually the case) probably hasn't been thought out by the GM. How are lords treated in whatever kingdom you're in? Is it death for a low born to strike or backtalk a 'lord'? Who was in command of the keep when the other lords were gone?

As to the priestess, it depends on what place she and her cult/religion has in the kingdom heirarchy and how respected the clergy are. It's unlikely that strange priests can give orders to the military and expect to be obeyed, but again it depends on the social dynamic the GM has set up. I've been in settings where it was death to backtalk clerics of certain religions because they held a great deal of power in the kingdom. In other settings, the archers would have laughed her out of the courtyard for presuming to give them orders counter to the defense of their keep.

Honestly, it sounds a lot like an 11th level PC getting pissed off because a mere NPC had the temerity to question him. That being one of your hallmarks of tyranny or evil, when you think the personal power you weild makes you better than everyone else.

I would likely leave the militia to fight the vampires by themselves.

WayneLigon said:

Well, there is little difference between lords and tyrants. Demanding respect and deference rather than commanding it is one of those differences.

A lot depends on info we don't know and (which is usually the case) probably hasn't been thought out by the GM. How are lords treated in whatever kingdom you're in? Is it death for a low born to strike or backtalk a 'lord'? Who was in command of the keep when the other lords were gone?

Click to expand...

The party is level 10/11, in a setting in which architecture is a significant aspect of defense (an E6 world, basically). They can set social mores about the treatment of lords, if they choose.

As to the priestess, it depends on what place she and her cult/religion has in the kingdom heirarchy and how respected the clergy are. It's unlikely that strange priests can give orders to the military and expect to be obeyed, but again it depends on the social dynamic the GM has set up. I've been in settings where it was death to backtalk clerics of certain religions because they held a great deal of power in the kingdom. In other settings, the archers would have laughed her out of the courtyard for presuming to give them orders counter to the defense of their keep.

Click to expand...

Two points, here.
One: Regardless of her social status, this is a 9th-level priestess. That Hallow enchantment that's the only thing keeping this keep still standing and vampire-free? She can cast that spell. She can hop to Celestia and politely request permission to fill up a few barrels of holy water. She can, Wall of Stone by Wall of Stone (and with a Stone Shape or two in there), build her own damn keep all by herself. She can raise the dead. With the possible exception of saving all of humankind from original sin, she is Jesus.

When she speaks, people whose claim to fame and competence is the ability to stab things should listen.

Two: She was right. Shooting people who appear as expected for a slowly-fading Wind Walk effect is a bad idea. It is the polar opposite of defending your keep. If a person who can cast Wind Walk has arrived at your keep, you are nice and polite and remove any motivation for him or her to want to destroy your keep, because if they decide to make your keep go away, it's going away.

Honestly, it sounds a lot like an 11th level PC getting pissed off because a mere NPC had the temerity to question him. That being one of your hallmarks of tyranny or evil, when you think the personal power you weild makes you better than everyone else.

Click to expand...

Well, he is better than the guards; he's trying to defend the keep, and the guards are hunkering down and keeping their heads down. He's an adventurer; it's expected that he be better than most of the people he encounters. This doesn't mean that they're bad people, or deserving of chastisement or punishment.

Really, as noted, if the people of this campaign world do not accept that there are certain people who are better than most people, and that listening to these people on matters arcane and divine averts death, then being a lord is being a tyrant; you need to rule with a measure of hardness to prevent the average person's stupidity from killing him.

robertliguori said:

The party is level 10/11, in a setting in which architecture is a significant aspect of defense (an E6 world, basically). They can set social mores about the treatment of lords, if they choose.


Two points, here.
One: Regardless of her social status, this is a 9th-level priestess. That Hallow enchantment that's the only thing keeping this keep still standing and vampire-free? She can cast that spell. She can hop to Celestia and politely request permission to fill up a few barrels of holy water. She can, Wall of Stone by Wall of Stone (and with a Stone Shape or two in there), build her own damn keep all by herself. She can raise the dead. With the possible exception of saving all of humankind from original sin, she is Jesus.

When she speaks, people whose claim to fame and competence is the ability to stab things should listen.

Two: She was right. Shooting people who appear as expected for a slowly-fading Wind Walk effect is a bad idea. It is the polar opposite of defending your keep. If a person who can cast Wind Walk has arrived at your keep, you are nice and polite and remove any motivation for him or her to want to destroy your keep, because if they decide to make your keep go away, it's going away.


Well, he is better than the guards; he's trying to defend the keep, and the guards are hunkering down and keeping their heads down. He's an adventurer; it's expected that he be better than most of the people he encounters. This doesn't mean that they're bad people, or deserving of chastisement or punishment.

Really, as noted, if the people of this campaign world do not accept that there are certain people who are better than most people, and that listening to these people on matters arcane and divine averts death, then being a lord is being a tyrant; you need to rule with a measure of hardness to prevent the average person's stupidity from killing him.

Click to expand...

My whole issue with most of your post is that it comes across as since the PCs are high enough to be really powerful they have the right to be bullies.

Yes I think if a cleric tells the archers that no that is a good guy stop firing they should listen not because she has the power to all the things that she can do but because she is a cleric and knows what is going on. They should listen to her even if she was only first level.

Just because someone can wind walk does not mean they are good and that you should just submit to them. This is one of my issues with high level DnD it becomes unrealistic. A high level character is surrounded by guards who fire their crossbows at them and they all miss and if they do hit it does not do much damage to their hit point total.

Just because he is an adventurer does not make him better than most people he encounters it may make him more powerful but not better. And that is the problem I see with this. A lot of players when they get to higher levels develop this attitude that they can ride roughshod over all the NPCs because the NPCs can't stand against them.

In my game if a party of high level PCs acted like bullies eventually they would meet someone who had the power to lay the smack down on them.

Elf Witch said:

In my game if a party of high level PCs acted like bullies eventually they would meet someone who had the power to lay the smack down on them.

Click to expand...

A reasonable point of view.

More importantly, the players are treating the militia as game pieces or at best servants to be ordered about.

The DM, instead, is doing his job and playing them as self-aware, average intelligence, inexperienced people.

Your village has been destroyed by strange magical creatures of darkness and fear. While your leaders are gone, a misty creature comes flying right at the battlements! Whaddya do? Umm, fire silver arrows!

The sheriff of what remains of your little fantasy Wild West town is assaulted by the vigilantes for "not showing enough respect". Do you:
a) "I, for welcome our new overlords." Cooperated fully and grovel at lot to their exaultedness, giving your meagre lives to protect them.
b) Grumble, sulk, and hope the new bad guys get and the old bad guys kill each other off and leave you alone.

Treat NPCs are people . . . the DM here obviously does.

I think that's there's 2 basic perceptions here. One is the folk thinking of the situation from a game perspective. ie: This is a game and these NPC's are her to make my fun better. WHich is quite true.

The other (and my own preference) is to go for the game immersion. NPC's are people with their own lives/goals/beliefs etc.

Neither way is right. They're just different.

Freetheslaves: I think you and your GM should chat about the preferred style of play. Reach some understanding. Many GM's prefer the immersion style. From my experience it's because this is the GM's chacne to role-play. Many GMs (home brewers esp.) probably consider their game-worlds as players consider their characters and want to play them accordingly.

cheers.

The problem I have with the situation is that the adventurers are (supposedly) there to help with the vampire problem. The captain of the guards acted like he didn't want their help and he wanted them all to leave. If I was in a situation like that I'm not sure I would stick around. The priestess identified the person they were shooting at as a friend, and they should have trusted her since she had been helping them fight against the vampires.

That said, the justification was a bit (unbearably) arrogant. High level doesn't automatically mean that they don't have to treat people with respect.