New characters joining a group and issue of trust

[fanboy2000]

Detect Thoughts not Zone of Truth- wizard not cleric.

I'm going to argue this one for just one paragraph longer, then I'll stop hijacking the thread. If this is a 3.5 game, I'd higher a Paladin to cast zone of Truth and ask the questions, becaue I honestly think you'll get better results that way. Sense you're in Greyhawk (at least, it sounds like it) then I'd go with a a Paladin of Heironeous.

how would you (a hopefully good aligned person) react to having someone question you while reading your thoughts looking for lies.

None of the characters I've made for D&D would have a problem with this. I gererally play nutural good or chaotic good spellcasters, and wouldn't have anything to hide unless the DM arranged it somehow.

As a player I don't have a problem with this. I personaly haven't played in a campaign where new people joining required this much up front work, but I'm open to it. One caveat: the DM needs to tell me in advance that the character will be sujected to the test in case I do inadvertantly make a character would say no. There's no point to making a character that won't actually see play.

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

I don't see a problem with that. If a particular campaign dosen't fit your play style, then you'll probably be happier in an other one. If the campaign is the only one in town, then work with the GM to find another solution. For example, maybe the new character has the endorcemt of a mentor or other trusted NPC.

Demands like "fine, I'll do it, but you incure all expences and I get to test you too" are fine as well. After all, you have to have a little give and take in a game.

 

[Geoff Watson]

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.

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.

If you really have assassins after you, why are you recruiting at all?
Shouldn't you not trust anyone, and tell the other players to get stuffed, they died, lusers, they don't get to play anymore?

Sure, it may be realistic to be paranoid to the point of alienating the other players, but it's really a game so you need to be able to accept the other PCs in a reasonably plausible manner.

Or they could come up with characters gullible enough to fall for your crap, or devious enough to outwit you, if you can convince them to join you (sounds like you just want some cannon-fodder anyway).

Geoff.

 

[Bagpuss]

It depends completely on the character I would be playing, and their personality (not their alignment). If you told me you were planning this before or during character creation, then it wouldn't be a problem, since I would come up with a character that could fit into the group that makes such demands. If you didn't then it might be a problem, but I'm sure it could be roleplayed through.

 

[Numion]

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.

I guess it comes down to metagame thinking. You know the DM is going to follow your character - if you don't accept the new PCs in your group, it's new characters for them. So you can force them to be subjected to detect thoughts.

Could you force them to other things? Like (you) having a greater share of loot? Because if they don't, you could always just not accept their PCs to the group ..

So it comes down to principle. PC halo is metagamey, but so is agreeing to subject your PC to practices he's not comfortable with in reality (because that PC would face metagamey negation if he didn't). By PC halo I mean the effect that PCs tend to straight out trust other PCs and such ..

 

[Bagpuss]

By PC halo I mean the effect that PCs tend to straight out trust other PCs and such ..

Last time our group left it to the "PC halo", the new PC turned out to be a doppleganger that used being in a group of trusted adventures to get close to an important royal and assassinate him.

In a Shadowrun game I played a PC that deliberately duped the players into launching a nuclear strike from orbiting missiles platforms accross the whole of the former USA.

We never trust the "PC halo" effect in our games, but that doesn't mean we expose all new characters to an interrogation squad and lie detector tests.

 

[Gez]

Well, it would depends on my character. A chaotic one would probably leave and feel offended. A loyal one would accept more gracefully. A good one would be more willing to comply, while an evil one would have less patience for such tests.

 

[Bagpuss]

I don't think alignment has much to do with it, I could easily imagine a Lawful Good character considering such tactics as an afront to his honour. He has given his word and that should be enough. While a Chaotic Evil one might think, "Well I'ld do the same if I was in their situation". To me it depends much more on the personality of the character rather than being an alignment issue.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am not sure I am getting the point entirely

Is this whole idea of detecting thoughts + questioning the newcomers a DM's idea or a character/player's idea?

Let's imagine it's a DM's idea, or otherwise a player's idea which the DM has already agreed with. Then it is simply a DM's call for making new characters with the restriction that they must not be keen on betraying the party. It is a roleplay restriction of course, and some of the players may seriously dislike it, just like a player may seriously dislike the restriction of not allowing elves or paladins or evil characters... So the real point is if the gaming group is fine with the idea or not. If someone does find it too restrictive, you should discuss about how to change it.

It's clearly more complicated if it's entirely a player's idea. His character has decided to do this, and he pretends to be allowed to, otherwise HE will feel restricted. But if that is not fine for the others, one must accepts some compromise or you'll never play...

It doesn't sound that useful to me to discuss what the characters would do: obviously some characters would refuse the deal and won't join the group, others would agree but fail the test, while others would agree and be accepted by the party. Are you really going to waste time with characters who aren't joining the party at the end? That's simply a player asking the whole group "please make trustful characters or I won't play".

 

[Li Shenron]

By the way, Detect Thought is definitely not full-proof, and Zone of Truth neither.

If your world is not entirely populated by individuals who perfectly know what they want and who they are themselves, they may be answering honestly and saying it wrong at the same time.

Imagine you are given the task of interviewing some canditates for your company to hire. You have them drink a potion which forces to tell the truth. Candidate 1 is an eccellent worker for the job, but he doesn't know it (maybe he hasn't done that same job before, or he's simply very humble) so he tells you that he would not even hire himself. Candidate 2 is a moron who overestimates himself and always think he can sort out every task given to him, and he honestly tells you he's the best you can hire.

If you and the other players cannot find a deal which satisfies everyone, as a DM I would suggest the other players to make characters like Candidate 2.

 

[Gez]

I don't think alignment has much to do with it, I could easily imagine a Lawful Good character considering such tactics as an afront to his honour. He has given his word and that should be enough. While a Chaotic Evil one might think, "Well I'ld do the same if I was in their situation". To me it depends much more on the personality of the character rather than being an alignment issue.

Well, the three characters I have played the most are CN, NG, and LN; and this was based on their personality.