New characters joining a group and issue of trust

[Seeker95]

Probably No Thanks

Depends on my character class, alignment, intentions, etc. Ironically, I am less likely to permit it if I am lawful than if I am chaotic, and less likely if I am good than if I am neutral.

If I am lawful, I would refuse in so far as you have no justification for subjecting *me* to any kind of test. No testing / interrogation until I am accused of something, and I have no interest in joining a group that wants to accuse me of anything *before* they have evidence.

If I am good, I will demand that you take me at my word and my actions. If you cannot or will not trust me, why should I consider trusting you?

However, if I am neutral (ie - not good), I might have no problem with it, since I likely have my wn mistrusts as well, and can understand it. Of course, that you ask may make the formation of friendship a little slower.

If I am neutral (not lawful), it will depend very much on the nature of my desire to join your group. I might consider it the normal price to pay for entering into a cohesive unit.

If I am chaotic, it will depend on how I react to you in general. I am just as likely to say sure as to say hell no. Depends on what it looks like I get out of it -- my reason for joining the group may be all the reward / reason I need to say yes.

If I am evil, and assuming that I have no problems with the answers you might gain, then I will certainly subject myself to it if for no other reason than to solidify my assurance that you will trust me.

 

[Harmon]

Detect Thoughts not Zone of Truth- wizard not cleric.

As far as Alignments and personality. The character that would be doing it doesn't feel that he can afford to have an enemy within his group, he has to know and he has to be able to figure out if the villians are still after him.

As far as the Alignment of the person joining the group- You want to join? We have a problem with enemies, we don't know you and we can't afford to be betrayed, I am sorry, I don't want to do this, but to survive we have to do things we don't want to. You have a choice. You turning me down tells me one of two things- you have something to hide or you believe that you're such a good person that I should see that and I should not doubt you. I am sorry, but this is the way it has to be.

Should the characters disagree and say bye, then bye, to bad so sad, Players make new characters. Same choice.

One of the Players that has made up one of the characters talked about betrayal and that he feels I could actually deal with a campaign that would have a betrayal in it (I would not have been very tolerant of it years before). A couple weeks later he asks the GM to let him switch characters and his character is killed.

Suspious? No. Paranoid? No.

Answer the dammed questions or make a new character.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Answer the dammed questions or make a new character.

Why should your characters be more important than the other players'? If I were one of the players making up a new character, I'd ask you to trust me, or you make up a new character.

And if you (and the DM, who'd have to be backing this,) refused to let me play without going through your little game, then you don't respect me enough as a player to not screw around with me, and I'd probably find another group.

 

[BSF]

Wow, a lot of folks take this very personally on the Metagame level. Weird.

Call me jaded by I have gotten tired, and bored, with the 'bunch of strangers decide to entrust their lives with each other for no apparent reason' schtick.

Isn't that why so many GMs insist that the players come up with a reason why the PCs know each other before the game starts?
Isn't that the reason why so many GMs have to find a heavy handed storyline for the first adventure of a campaign?
The PCs need to have a reason to adventure together, to trust each other. After all, if the guy who is watching your back is less than trustworthy, why are you going to let him watch your back?

I can easily see where many PCs would be suspicious of the interrogators. I can see why the interrogators would be paranoid.

I see a whole lot of potential RP that could be quite cool.

Of course, I have also told my group that I am not going to force them to accept any character into their group. If they have a PC that doesn't mesh, or who is untrustworthy, then they are free to eliminate that PC from the group. I have already tried to tempt some of the characters into betraying the group. In the past, I have also enlisted the aid of players to have a doppleganger replace their PC.

Being an adventurer is a tough gig. If the bad guys know who you are, they will come gunning for you. They may unleash all sorts of sneaky tricks. For the most part, my players know that.

 

[Harmon]

Why should your characters be more important than the other players'? If I were one of the players making up a new character, I'd ask you to trust me, or you make up a new character.

And if you (and the DM, who'd have to be backing this,) refused to let me play without going through your little game, then you don't respect me enough as a player to not screw around with me, and I'd probably find another group.

Wow! Guess I could have used a few more in that one.

Okay- the idea is that the campaign has lost three members- two PCs and one NPC, both hand to hand fighters and our cleric. We have been hunted from one end of the Flanaess to the other for something one of the fighters (actually the Monk) had that she didn't know she had.

We have assassins after us, a monastary (which I think has given up hunting us- thou they arn't very happy with us), a couple of key figures in the Scarlet Brotherhood (thats pretty much a country), a Bard, and well there could be more.

In any case- as I have said, being paranoid is something we need to do to stay alive, not paranoid then we die- plain and simple.

One of the Players mentioned wanting to play in a campaign where he turned traitor then a few weeks later volinteered to off his own character- why? Cause he wanted to play a different character

The other Player is playing a Cleric. While I believe its within her grasp to play the traitor the character does not say "traitor," it says Ally.

As far as me making another character, we would be in the same posstion as we are now- only we would be minus the hook of the campaign. Not sure but the GM has indicated that my character goes and the campaign gets side lined.

So back to the situation at hand- Detect Thought to discover if any of the new recruits are actually bad guys. Note that we have more then a few still standing NPCs and PC so anyone of them could turn- at least one has good reason to.

 

[Harmon]

Wow, a lot of folks take this very personally on the Metagame level. Weird.

That was kinda my fault- I guess I came off to brash. Its okay, I find people read my writing all wrong 90% of the time- its not their fault its poor writing skills.

Call me jaded by I have gotten tired, and bored, with the 'bunch of strangers decide to entrust their lives with each other for no apparent reason' schtick.

Ditto- the group is comprised mostly of friends now (a half drow with questionable alliances), a greedy dwarf, and a questionable relationship that I don't feel the table will allow for proper RPing (my character has a love interest, but the campaign has been so frantic that I can't seem to get around to my character romancing the NPC). These people have to trust each other, but there is more then a few that one should question Good gaming, love it.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Answer the dammed questions or make a new character.

Or pick a new campaign. If the folks who want to ask the questions are okay with extending the same courtesy, and buy the potion for me as well, then no problem. If the Players or GM add your little codicil without giving the same concideration then'it's 'bye folks, have fun.'

The Auld Grump

 

[Saeviomagy]

Why should your characters be more important than the other players'? If I were one of the players making up a new character, I'd ask you to trust me, or you make up a new character.

Well, I think it's pretty obvious here that there's an ongoing campaign. Given that the existing characters are already part of the campaign, and already have backstory and involvement, it's pretty obvious that if anyone goes, it's the newbies. And being an arse about it won't help anyone.

And if you (and the DM, who'd have to be backing this,) refused to let me play without going through your little game, then you don't respect me enough as a player to not screw around with me, and I'd probably find another group.

If you genuinely want to join the group, and genuinely are not going to screw the party over, then you'll go through with this.

Otherwise you're just not committed enough, or you're actually out to get me and frankly, you're not the sort of person I want covering my six.

That's the in-character justification. It's perfectly fair.

What you're saying is "Hey buddy, I'm a PC, let me into the group, or I'll whine and bitch about it"

 

[Geoff Watson]

Sounds like your saying "Hey Buddy, Put up with our stupid crap, or we won't let you play."

How are the characters finding the new PCs anyway?
Do the new PCs just appear out of thin air?
Do the old PCs ask around, or what?

Geoff.

 

[BSF]

That was kinda my fault- I guess I came off to brash. Its okay, I find people read my writing all wrong 90% of the time- its not their fault its poor writing skills.

Oh hey, I didn't notice that you are new. Welcome to EN World!

Back on topic, I just think that any introduction of a new PC into a group should consist of heavy RP. Many groups keep it very RP light and just "accept" the newcomer because his player is sitting next to you. A certain amount of metagaming has to happen, but I think a lot of groups take it too lightly. Then when the player plays the character true and something less than cool is the result, people take it personally.

As an example, a normally cautious party accepts the new PC that is a barbarian who likes to charge and kick in doors. This results in a scenario where the combat starts before the rest of the party is done prepping. Bad things happen. The unbuffed paladin dies trying to save the silly barbarian. Tempers flare around the table because the paladin player has been lovingly growiing his character and he was almost to the point of reaching one of his major RP goals. But the paladin also believes that once he leaves the world, his time is done. In short, he wouldn't want to be raised, if the player stays true to the character. So now one of the major PCs is dead because he played his character true by not abandoning a comrade, and not wanting to come back from the dead. The player is torqued.

Why? Because nobody thought to ask a few simple questions. "Let's just accept the new PC because Bob's character died last week." Nobody realized that Bob has been looking to RP a reckless character. Bob didn't realize that Paul's paladin wouldn't want to come back from the dead. Poor communication OOC and IC and now everyone is upset.

Complete silliness. I've seen it happen and surely somebody else here has as well. Sure, the players should know each other well enough that Bob should have screwed over the group by bringing in a reckless character. Sure, Paul shouldn't be playing a character he is deeply invested with that doesn't want to be raised. Sure, the DM was wrong for making an encounter that was too tough. The finger pointing can go all around. Why didn't the existing PCs bring up their cautious approach to combat in-character? Why did everyone feel the need to gloss over the PC introductions?

For me, character introduction should be important and memorable. First impressions and all that. The players should have a good idea what the group likes, and it shuoldn't be a matter of jumping through 3 hoops and rolling over just to get a PC into a group. But is there something wrong with maintaining a little RP during the process? Is it wrong that PCs with assassins on their tail might be a little suspicious of anyone that approaches them? Would it be any more intrusive if the PCs had sought out a church with a Forbiddance and a Hallow (with an associated Zone of Truth) in which to do their questioning?

Call me jaded, but I see no reason to feel offended by the PCs remaining in-character. Paranoid as hell and hoping they can fend off any future problems by making sure they get trustworthy allies from the outset.

The players with the dead PCs already know the campaign situation. They know what to expect. There is a lot of potential for RP here. It could be a wonderful moment in the campaign. I would have a blast as a player in that situation. Especially if I were trying to get a ringer into the group. What I would suggest is handle the whole situation online. Try to get the questioning process handled with multiple PC candidates and have it relatively anonymous. Heck, even forward it through the DM. Have each player come up with a couple of PCs. Have the DM toss a few other options in there. See what the incumbent PCs decide on. (Yes, I have done something like this in the past.) It could be a lot of fun.