Law chaos and honesty in the Savage Tide (no spoilers)

[Kahuna Burger]

Or, "He's not really a doctor; he's more like a degree holding licensed practicing medical physician."

Or, "He's not really a professor; he's more like a senior tenured academic faculty member at an accredited university"

Or, "He's not really the Commander in Chief; he's more like the President of the United States."

Or, "He's not really clergy; he's a Catholic priest."

Or, "He's not really a Captain; he's just the Master of a commecial sailing vessel."

Or, "He's not really a Peer of the Kingdom; he's been made a Duke."

Ect.

A very nice list of strawmen. The effort might have been better expended, though.

If I hire someone to chaufer my car, they are in fact the driver, and at the very basic level, they are in control of where the car goes. I am not going to leap into the front seat and try to take the wheel from them, or yell "use your turn signal NOW! No, not the hand signal, you FOOL!!!!!"

They are not, however, in charge of where the car goes in the larger sense. If they decide to drive me to the Zoo instead of the airport, they are not just exercising the authority I gave them over the car, they are at best getting fired and at worst (depending on how many times I tell them they are going to the wrong location and if I am physically able to leave the car) facing criminal charges. And if I at that point leap into the front seat, I am not interfering with their authority or playing sureal redefinition games.

The "captain" was put in his position with the responsibility and authority to make the ship run smoothly and take it to the locations we as a party agreed to, and to be the figurehead through which the orders we collectively agreed on would be transmitted to the crew. He was never given, and does not have the authority to overrule those orders because he wants to mate the Mate, or take on cargo we as a party think is too dangerous, or exercise any authority over us that does not relate to the mechanical workings of the ship.

It seems from this thread that letting him have the captain title will give him a good chance of commanding some cannon fodder to attack us should things come to a conflict, and for that insight, I thank you all.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If I hire someone to chaufer my car, they are in fact the driver, and at the very basic level, they are in control of where the car goes. I am not going to leap into the front seat and try to take the wheel from them, or yell "use your turn signal NOW! No, not the hand signal, you FOOL!!!!!"

They are not, however, in charge of where the car goes in the larger sense. If they decide to drive me to the Zoo instead of the airport, they are not just exercising the authority I gave them over the car, they are at best getting fired and at worst (depending on how many times I tell them they are going to the wrong location and if I am physically able to leave the car) facing criminal charges.

But if you've set him up as a figurehead - if you've told everyone that he is not merely hired help, but that he is in charge of where the car goes in the larger sense, even though you haven't privately given him the authority to match that public declaration - then everyone who is not privy to the deception will assume he does, in fact, have the authority to drive you to the Zoo instead, because you told them he does.

-Hyp.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

But if you've set him up as a figurehead - if you've told everyone that he is not merely hired help, but that he is in charge of where the car goes in the larger sense, even though you haven't privately given him the authority to match that public declaration - then everyone who is not privy to the deception will assume he does, in fact, have the authority to drive you to the Zoo instead, because you told them he does.

-Hyp.

Yes, I think I adressed that when I said,

It seems from this thread that letting him have the captain title will give him a good chance of commanding some cannon fodder to attack us should things come to a conflict, and for that insight, I thank you all.

I seem to be getting a lot of comments about what he can get away with, as opposed to what my character should be ok with him trying, or conflating the two. Yes, by talking us into the social fiction to keep the crew comfortable with the heirarchy, he may have given himself a major advantage should he try to assert authority over us. Personally, I don't think he's really going to try anything that sinister, but for various other reasons, my character will probably advocate for dropping the social fiction and dropping any crew who can't handle a captain who is not the absolute ruler of everything and everyone on his ship.

 

[MarkB]

I seem to be getting a lot of comments about what he can get away with, as opposed to what my character should be ok with him trying, or conflating the two. Yes, by talking us into the social fiction to keep the crew comfortable with the heirarchy, he may have given himself a major advantage should he try to assert authority over us. Personally, I don't think he's really going to try anything that sinister, but for various other reasons, my character will probably advocate for dropping the social fiction and dropping any crew who can't handle a captain who is not the absolute ruler of everything and everyone on his ship.

In any reasonably realistic naval setting, that category is likely to include "all the crew".

If you tell the officers and crew that their captain doesn't have authority over the ship, they're likely to lose a lot of faith in both him and you, because it means they basically can't tell who's going to be in charge of the ship during a crisis, or rely upon their fellows (you and the other PCs) to act in concert with the rest of the ship when necessary.

A far better approach would be for the PCs to be clearly designated as the owners of the ship, with the captain under their instruction as far as the general course of the voyage is concerned, but leave full operational authority firmly in the captain's hands, with the rest of the PCs as first-class passengers. That way, the captain is working for them, but not following their orders.

Basically: Devolved authority and naval vessels don't mix, and no crew wants to be commanded by committee.

 

[Celebrim]

I seem to be getting a lot of comments about what he can get away with, as opposed to what my character should be ok with him trying, or conflating the two.

I can't play your character for you. You should do what you think is entertaining.

I have played a Chaotic Neutral before in similar situations, for example with regards to a character in the party who was of noble blood. Most of the time, we were just a party of adventurers, but in a context where birth and station mattered publicly deferring to the person who was legally your better was not only the smart thing to do, it could be suicidal to do otherwise. Not because the character would have done something to my character, but because it would have been dangerous fatal to our chances of success as a group as well as socially awkward and likely to have made my character enemies outside of the group.

Personally, I don't think he's really going to try anything that sinister, but for various other reasons, my character will probably advocate for dropping the social fiction and dropping any crew who can't handle a captain who is not the absolute ruler of everything and everyone on his ship.

Frankly, I would wanted to make clear the social status of everyone aboard from the beginning with just about any character I would conceivably be playing. However, I'd be inclined having been put in this situation, to respond to a characters overture to 'put me in my place', to step down from my responcibilities and let the offended character run the ship. Putting into thier place someone who is useful to you in the place that they are in is not particularly smart in my opinion. If you don't think the character is actually working against you or the party, what's the problem? My advice would be to play along unless your character has charisma or wisdom as a dump stat and you are trying to create conflict deliberately.

 

[Celebrim]

In any reasonably realistic naval setting, that category is likely to include "all the crew"...Basically: Devolved authority and naval vessels don't mix, and no crew wants to be commanded by committee.

The reason that naval vessels and rule by committee don't mix is that sailor is about the most dangerous profession one can have. The fatality rate per 100,000 US sailors exceeds just about any other profession, and that includes say US soldiers - even in these 'interesting times'. It's a dangerous job, and if the outing is at all non-trivial, sailors do not like to have anyone aboard a boat that doesn't know how to handle themselves much less take orders from someone like that.

And the death rate among sailors would have been much higher back in the age of sail.

Even if you charter a boat, it isn't like hiring a servant. Master Mariner is a learned profession, especially during the presumed period. You'd accord respect to ship's Master similar to what you'd accord a Priest or Doctor. In fact, about the only person who can pull rank on a ship's Master is the ship's Doctor, and they are the only two members of the ship's complement entitled to thier title when aboard.

 

[Umbran]

It seems from this thread that letting him have the captain title will give him a good chance of commanding some cannon fodder to attack us should things come to a conflict, and for that insight, I thank you all.

Not if he is smart, no. Because without the sailors the boat doesn't go. And, presumably, you need the boat for something, or this wouldn't have come up. It is an important resource, and he has control.

If you give someone the party's food supply, and there's a disagreement, yes, that person might choose to throw the food at you. If he's smart, however, he'll withhold it, or otherwise use it as a baraining chip. When you need the food more than you need your freedom of choice, he will have power.

If that weren't the case, if you really didn't need the boat, then the issue of who is really in control of the boat would be a non-issue. Control of that which is worthless is never an issue.

A far better approach would be for the PCs to be clearly designated as the owners of the ship, with the captain under their instruction as far as the general course of the voyage is concerned, but leave full operational authority firmly in the captain's hands, with the rest of the PCs as first-class passengers. That way, the captain is working for them, but not following their orders.

Quite. Everyone here seen Muppet Treasure Island? Fozzie played the moneybags - he (and Mr. Bimble) hired the boat, and the sailors. But Kermit was the Captain. Even if they weren't all cutthroat pirates, nobody on the boat would have listened to Fozzie about where the boat went, except if the matter of wages came up. Short of getting paid, any disagreement between Fozzie and Kermit wasn't the crew's problem. They listen to the Captain while at sea.

Thus, if you wanted authority with the crew, you should have established yourselves as the funding for the whole thing to start with. Otherwise, you're mutineers

We cannot tell you what your character will allow him to try. It is your character, so you decide. However, we can talk about what the reasonable consequences of thinking of this too late might be. At this point, what he can get away with is part of the equation, because your actions ought to have consequences.

 

[Baron Opal]

But the interesting thing about this is, the "captain" is Lawful and is maintaining an elaborate charade of lying to multiple people for very lawful reason of wanting to maintain a heirarchy that tradition requires. My character is Chaotic and is wanting to just tell everyone the truth and let them cope with it or work on another ship. It seems to contrast a little with the stereotypical allignment assumption that law is truthful and chaos more likely to lie.

Someone has to be the captain. It's best if they know something about seamanship, but there has to be a final authority.

From what I understand there are two people in control of a boat / ship: the owner and the captain. The owner is in control when the boat is docked; the captain is in control when the boat is sailing. If the owner is on board the ship when the boat is sailing he is supposed to follow the captain's orders, even to the point of being subject to discipline. He must even ask the captain's permission to board the boat unless it's drydocked. The crew is likely to follow the captain's orders in defiance of the owner because the captain is charged with bringing them to port safely. The owner likely doesn't know his masthead from his yardarm. The captain's actions at sea, however, determine if he is still captain after the ship makes port.

If you're not the captain, and the person accorded the captain's title isn't an irredeemable ass, stirring the pot is going to get you in trouble. Mutiny is punishable by death.

Is lawfulness actually more honest, or just more likely to maintain social falsehoods to prop up traditions rather than tell personal lies for personal reasons?

Correct. IMO, lawful alignments put society and culture above the person, and vice versa for chaotics. A chaotic person may find society useful for the services it provides but ultimatly the person, usually the character's own self, is paramount over any other organization or even other persons. For a lawful good character, he would follow the spirit of the law to maximize benefit for society as a whole and as many individuals as possible. Lawfuls tend to be more truthful as truthfulness enhances society and interpersonal relationships more the falsehood. As a trend, anyway. But, it's reasonable for a lawful to lie if it preserves the cohesion of the group.

So, if I was playing the first mate and an obviously wealthy and potentially powerful person came up to me and said "Fred over there isn't really the captain. We're all pals and he runs the ship just because we say so." then the first mate would think something like this:

Yikes!

Is this person just a rich passenger? Make note as a troublemaker.
Is this person a rich and powerful passenger? Report to captain.
Is this person an owner? Check with the captain.
Is this person part of the crew? Toss in brig.
Is this person rich, powerful, have many similar friends with similar outlook and I'm really unhappy with the captain? Consider mutiny.

 

[S'mon]

A far better approach would be for the PCs to be clearly designated as the owners of the ship, with the captain under their instruction as far as the general course of the voyage is concerned, but leave full operational authority firmly in the captain's hands, with the rest of the PCs as first-class passengers. That way, the captain is working for them, but not following their orders.

Basically: Devolved authority and naval vessels don't mix, and no crew wants to be commanded by committee.

QFT. You have a captain PC, and a bunch of passenger PCs who are co-owners but not co-captain. They ought to work as above.

 

[D.Shaffer]

I'm really not seeing where the conflict is.

A ship NEEDS a Captain. A Captain has control over the crew. A ship crew without a captain is in trouble. Unless he's using his rank as 'Captain' to order the rest of the party around in anything BUT proper ship action, why the big need to tell everyone that he 'isnt really the Captain' when he more or less is? It's just going to confuse them about who to rely on in times of trouble. If you dont want to be considered part of the crew, make sure you mention that to them before hand, in which case (IMO) he cant really order you around unless it's directly related to the running of the ship.

What is he doing as Captain that is causing you issues? From the sound of it, you seem to be having problems with the title and not any actions he's done. If he HAS done something that's given you pause, you need to explain what it is.