Immoral player characters in RPGs

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I don’t know about the Saga specifically and am no expert on Viking tradition but have read that a Viking belief was that if one dies without a weapon in hand one was denied entry to Valhalla. So warriors who were to be executed would be allowed to hold a knife when they were executed to avoid this issue. I think being allowed to die with a weapon in hand was a stipulation of surrender.

When I read that, I immediately thought of Brian Blessed and "There I was - surrounded by ten thousand Turks with only my trusty fruit knife." Hope I got that right from Blackadder

 

[Marc_C]

erased by user. not relevant.

 

[Shiroiken]

This is what session 0 is all about. My group normally doesn't have much (if any) PC conflict, but we did institute a rule that if a player is about to unilaterally take an action that is detrimental to the group, any player can call a time out to discuss it before it's implemented. If the majority of the players present feels it's bad enough of an idea, the action is vetoed.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The following happened in my group's most recent Classic Traveller session:

Alissa's conduct seems to count as murder on any measure: she has broken into someone else's property without any good justification, and then when caught and put on trial has escaped by attacking and ultimately killing that other person and her associates.

When this happened, it was the object of discussion at the table. Vincenzo's player, in particular, was pretty outraged - not necessarily at the player, who is his friend, but at the conduct.

Some RPGers seem to think it is the referee's job to stop or police this sort of action declaration. Are they correct?

To answer the specific question being raised, I'd say it depends on the game being played and how much authority is being extended to the GM (how much GM fiat is expected of them, are action resolutions primarily player or GM facing, etc.), but I also feel that focusing on that specific aspect, rather than the issue of there being mismatched expectations between the different members of the group, is missing the forest for the trees. Rather, I'd focus on the issue of making sure group expectations or clear and all on the same page, as well as the implementation of safety tools for the table to act as a check against play breaking down for whatever reason. Gonna plug the TTRPG Safety Toolkit for this reason.

 

[John Dallman]

Some RPGers seem to think it is the referee's job to stop or police this sort of action declaration. Are they correct?

In general, no. It is the referee's job to play out the consequences of such actions. Those might range from nothing, in a lawless society, to capture, trial and severe punishment.

 

[Umbran]

Hiya!

Simply put: You're the GM, not the Player. It's not your "job" to bend reality and over ride what a Player chooses to have his/her PC attempt/do. You simply adjudicate the results of said action.

It is part of a GM's "job" to help deal with disruptive behavior at the table. That can include action declarations that do not match the table expectations of style.

 

[Einlanzer0]

It is part of a GM's "job" to help deal with disruptive behavior at the table. That can include action declarations that do not match the table expectations of style.

The GM does not have a job other than facilitating games. How they choose to do that is up to them, but should also involve negotiation of such with players. Any or all players can take on this type of responsibility just as much as a GM can.

This idea of the GM as a "big boss" of the game that does everything him or herself while infantilizing players as opposed to actively engaging and finding ways to share responsibility with them is massively outdated and it needs to go.

 

[Maxperson]

The GM does not have a job other than facilitating games. How they choose to do that is up to them, but should also involve negotiation of such with players. Any or all players can take on this type of responsibility just as much as a GM can.

This idea of the GM as a "big boss" of the game that does everything him or herself while infantilizing players as opposed to actively engaging and finding ways to share responsibility with them is massively outdated and it needs to go.

You don't think that stopping behavior that disrupts the game, facilitates the game?

 

[Einlanzer0]

You don't think that stopping behavior that disrupts the game, facilitates the game?

It appears you missed my point.

 

[Maxperson]

It appears you missed my point.

Not really, no.