One Annoyed God + One Stuborn Player

[Rel]

Re: Spiritual twins

I am not Chris, but I think I know him in spirit.

He plays D&D to be an action hero. He wants to kill the bad guys, pure and simple. He does not want a "real world" issue of having to go through authorities. He likes roleplaying vigilante justice. He will probably be CG (or maybe CN) characters most of the time.

There is nothing wrong with this style of play. It does mean that he will get bored or frustrated if you lead the campaign in a different direction (so political intrigues that require that he cannot immediately go out and kill the bad guy will frustrate him...political mysteries in which he does not know who or where the bad guys are will bore him slightly, but he will perk up when he has bad guys or minions to slay).

If you have the god go after him he will see that as the DM on a power trip, whether you are or not. If you have the church go after him, he will immediately see the church as an enemy to be destroyed/dealt with, now or when he gets the ability to.

The new DMG talks about the style of play called "Kick in the Door". This is Chris. If you can allow him to be the hero, he will be happy. (Think of Rambo, or Arnold in most action movies -- they kill bad guys and never, ever have to worry about consequences or have any doubts that they are doing the right thing).

If your campaign style is fundamentally incompatible with Chris's playing style, then you will have this problem forever. Chris does not play D&D to get into complicated stuff. Chris plays D&D as a release from a complicated world, in which issues are black and white, and in which bad guys can be found and killed, and (rough) justice can be served.

Chris would make a good Holy Liberator (see defenders of the faith, and use the Blackguard template to upgrade to 3.5 on the holy smites/day)

Just my 2 cents.

I am not Chris. But I would be happy to play at his side. Go Chris!

I only quote an entire post when I think the entire post is relevant to the matter at hand. This is one of those cases and I think that Particle_Man's post above would be a good one to read over and think about, Centaur.

I've been DMing for right around 20 years so you'd think I'd be pretty good at it by now. But just last week I read Robin Laws' Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering and it pointed out something that I've overlooked all too often: Not everybody plays the game for the same reason.

You pointed out earlier that this group of players (and the player of the Sorcerer in particular) has a history of defying authority and basically going against the grain. That should probably tell you something.

If this group of folks is generally anti-authoritarian or maybe are very law-abiding in real life but enjoy breaking those sorts of rules in their fantasy world, then you would be best served by either playing to that desire or considering letting somebody else GM for them. Because otherwise you are just going to feel like you're banging your head against a wall.

I'm not saying you should let them run wild through supposedly civilized parts of your game world, with no consequences whatsoever. I'm saying you should throw them a bone on a pretty regular basis.

Let them discover that there are corrupt factions within a given authority structure and try and tear that part down. Or maybe the main body of the authority structure has become stagnant and oppressive and it is the "corrupt" faction that they need to aid in order to bring new vigor to the organization.

In this particular situation, have one low ranking member of the church secretly contact the character and explain that while he thinks his methods were a bit rash, he understands that the BBEG was in fact Evil and unlawful and that their cause was just. Tell him that while many of the clergy want to see the character punished for his affront, there are a few who wish the Temple was more active in it's pursuit of law-breakers like the BBEG and they will continue to try and get the others to see the light.

I guess I'm just saying that all stick and no carrot is bound to frustrate the players when they did something that they percieved as the right thing to do, even if it did run counter to the will of the church in question.

Anyway, good luck. And if you get the chance to check out Robin Laws' book, I highly recommend it. I'm not running my next game until a couple of months from now, but I can already see how much more enjoyment I'll be able to bring to the group and myself with a greater understanding of what they hope to get out of the game.

 

[Centaur]

Thanks all for your input and well thought out comments.

Rel - Your probably right on your comments about the player, In real life, hre runs an businness and is at least periferialy involved in local politics (even has a degree in Political Science). Ever sinse opening the store, he has had no apparent desire to play someone level headed. I guess I just remember the days when he didn't play CN with abandond and the storylines were a little more predictibe.

Barak - Good Point, Hadn't thought of it that way.

Sanackranib - I think that you also have a kindred spirit with Chris, as necromancers are one of his favorite characters to play. Although, while he did ambush the BBEG in the church, that is not were the BBEG was killed, and his character was not present for that event.... It all gets so twisted.

CCamfield - your are correct in that the person did not ask for sactuary in the church. He (or actualy it's a she) only asked for healing. But that means that she is now under their care. They had set out to perform a specific action and were prevented from doing so.

Kastil - Usually it is this player who is telling people to think before they act. Given that, I don't think stating any sort of rule like yours would ever help, as he is always fully aware of what he is doing.

Zogg - it's more like his sixth or seventh. And it's not just being uncoperative with with authority in game, sometimes he is uncoperative with the other players. Although that has been curbed somewhat now after I had a talk with him a few months back.

To all others who I havn't quoted to answered, your insite and comments are greatly appreciated.

Of course, the whole story isn't here. The PCs were able to present their arguments to the church before the BBEG was resurected, but the church didn't care. The city guard was unware of anything going on because the BBEG wsa unsing 'Dominate Person' to control people in the city, including members of the city guard. However, the General of the Army was aware of what was going on and was backing the PC's actions. He however, arrived to late to prevent the clergy from taking the body and her possessions from the evidence lockup.

Needless to say, there is some political and legal fallout for the church with the city, but they are the biggest supplier of healing magics to the city's armory for use by the army and city guard..... it goes on an on and is not something the PCs will be getting involved in.

What's even more interesting, is that while the church in general is annoeyed with the PC, one of it's memebers (a multi-class Cleric/Rouge/Sorcer) is continuing to have a secret afair with the PC. Could maybe have that develop into something interesting.

I like the Idea of a random Zealot taking action some time down the road. He could even be a member of a Fanatical Splinter group that the regualr church doesn't approve of, but havn't done anything about as they are "Convieniet to have around"

I'll post again down the road when more things develop.

thanks all once again.

 

[Bauglir]

OK establishing a few assumptions here

Firstly in standard adventurous form the adventuring PCs go out and slay BEGs big and small on a daily basis; therefore I would assume there is no law against such vigilanteism, or that the PCs have some enabling official position, as otherwise the situation would prove quite dramatically counterproductive. (The PCs would be swept up and arrested for mass murder after clearing out their first den of marauding goblins)

Secondly I would assume that the sorcerer does not follow the god of magic (a fair bet based on his actions)

Thirdly I'm assuming that the area is regulated under civil law, rather than a theocracy run by the church of magic.

Now for a question: Were the players prewarned about this clergy's unusually heightened sense of propriety with regard to sanctuary?

If not, then what I would see through the eyes of the player is a group of people with whom I have no link or shared belief first of all taking a completely unreasonable stance - the circumstances involved were not considered in the slightest, and secondly acting as a self appointed authority over my actions, apparently without ANY legal precedent.

In other words I would see this church assuming the role of the big kid at school, demanding lunch money from the kids he (more or less arbitrarily) decides he doesn't like.

Worse still (depending heavily on how the situation was handled) it might look a lot like the DM is deciding to throw his weight around, and show the players who's boss, which is always destructive to the mood of a game. If in the next session some very high level cleric comes along and drops an irresistable, unremovable curse on the sorcerer it'll look a lot like railroading, particularly if the cleric does not in turn suffer consequences for his actions under civil law. At worst they should probably withold their services, and even this they do at their own risk. The sorcerer, charasmatic chap that he is can paint them in a very bad light under the public eye, hinting at links between their church and the atrocities committed by the BBEG.

On the other hand, if this faith has some kind of theocratic authority, and the players had some warning that they might react this way go nuts. Even in this situation though keep in mind that the clergy may be wary of public opinion.


I may be way off base, but that is the picture I'm seeing.

 

[GMVictory]

Centaur I've also seen the original thread where this was discussed as well.

Even if the BBEG was there to pray for his soul and not healing, the PCs actions were disrespectful to the church. Though the actions may not have been criminal, there should be consequences.

I recommend that the church does nothing directly to or against the character. No one is to deal with or aid the offender. Nor are they to act against him, unless it would be proper to do so (defending yourself, protecting others, etc.)

Other churches would probably do the same since they wouldn't want someone who would show such disrespect to the largest faith around them either. Does the character have some distinctive features or equipment because that description would get around and business people and others start turning him away or charge outrageous prices.

The social wheel can grind just as much or more than direct punishment can accomplish. I prefer going the indirect route first, then adding on more (and becoming more direct) if the player keeps provoking it.

Btw, it appears you've got a player who wants to kill things, take their stuff, and to heck with consequences. This seems to be contrary to the kind of game you want to run. There are several fine video games for the PC, PS2, X-box, etc that could accomodate him. If he wants to get away from home since he can't hog the TV or computer playing those kind of games, maybe you could hook him up that way?

 

[Particle_Man]

Btw, it appears you've got a player who wants to kill things, take their stuff, and to heck with consequences. This seems to be contrary to the kind of game you want to run. There are several fine video games for the PC, PS2, X-box, etc that could accomodate him. If he wants to get away from home since he can't hog the TV or computer playing those kind of games, maybe you could hook him up that way?

1) It ain't about killing things and taking their stuff, it's about killing BAD guys and taking their stuff, emphasis on the former. It's about being the HERO!

2) Videogames just ain't the same. I can't explain it exactly, but they don't give the same feel of destroying the forces of evil that a pen and paper, see the DM's and players' faces, rpg can.

3) I don't think this subtle social stuff will work. Either Chris will be blissfully unaware of it, or he will get frustrated. But I could be wrong.

4) Is it possible to leave Chris alone and let him have fun without serious consequences, or would that reduce the fun of others? Personally, I don't see the point of laying divine, political, legal or social consequences on Chris, since it will reduce his fun without noticably increasing the fun of others. But perhaps there is a lot I am missing, since I am not part of your gaming group.

 

[LuYangShih]

I see nothing wrong with what this character has done. It simply seems to be a matter of Chaos Vs. Law. Perhaps you prefer Lawful types in your campaign, but the fact of the matter is refusing to acknowledge authority is part of a Chaotic characters very being. Assuming this players character is Chaotic, his actions fit perfectly. The Church, in his mind, was protecting an evil opponent that needed to be dealt with, and he took the matter into his own hands.

 

[Graf]

Probably coming a little bit late here. Anyway...
I concur, relatively strongly, with Centaur's desire to punish the PC.

While I think a lot of people feel like this is sudden and unwarranted the other PC was fully prepared to do a minor penance and be done with it -before- the DM said something. So it was fairly clear that their action would have repercussions.

Lets be clear:
1. A person was murdered
2. The perpetrators used deception and guile
3. They flaunted inviolate rules of the church
4. There seems to have been little reason to have had to have killed the BBEG right then. Was he in the middle of casting a powerful spell that would have destroyed the city? Slaughtering innocents? No. He was getting healing.

So the PCs basically wandered into a major metropolis, killed someone without recourse to the laws that (I'm assuming) are designed to punish the guilty. I'm sure there are plenty of evil people in the city. Just going around and slaughtering them is probably not OK.

So this guy plays an action hero type? So what. If I play an evil blackguard and slaughter a kid because I think it'll make my god happy does that mean that the DM can't have repercussions because "I'm playing my character"?
Bull ing he can't! That kind of I-always-have-to-get-my-way-and-the-rules-should-never-apply-to-me "roleplaying" is lame. The character went out and did something that they knew was against the rules, and now he's going to get in trouble. He made his choices and that's that.

The idea that a god won't do anything is also weird. Gods provide customized spells on a daily basis to their clergy in D&D. Many worlds, including FR, have something like Mystra's Curse: Break a rule (in FR I think it's using another wizards symbol) and bad things happen to you.
Breaking the sanctuary of a LN god of magic for no particular reason* is going to have repercussions. Everybody knows about the rule, people who break it get the curse. It's not the god appearing directly in your game it's the side effect of living in a magical world.
*=As more than a few people have pointed out the god doesn't care about the character or the situation. So from the god's standpoint while the mortal feels it has a very good reason for breaking the sanctuary the god wouldn't see it that way. Arbitrary? Sure. It's a LAWFUL god.

The PC should have 24 hours (or a week or whatever the appropriate period of time is) to repent and get the clergy to do intervene on the gods side. Otherwise an appropriate magical effect naturally occurs as a result of the PCs action.

I suggest 1. His spells suffer a -4 DC to saves or 2. Must make concentration checks every time casts spell. Other more general curses are possible, but why not be specific?

Last point: If the church is a powerful organization in your world, and 99% of the people on your world take the Sanctuary of your church seriously then it undermines the sense of verisimilitude of your world if people can openly break this Sanctuary rule whenever they want. As long as something is a rule that applies equally to everyone it strengthens and enhances the feeling that a world is real.

 

[Tsyr]

Graf, the reason I (And others) say the god shouldn't get involved is it sets a NASTY precedent, and opens up some tricky logical questions.

If the god gets involved for something like that, why doesn't every adventurer who slays the cleric of an evil god get cursed with a horrible curse?

If the god gets involved for something like that, why do they give clerics spells to do things for themselves? The clerics can handle this on their own.

If the god gets involved to punish the player, why didn't he just prevent it from happening? It was surely within his power.

And there are more questions. And you can put up an answer to each one, if you wanted two, or just blanket say, "Because God's don't have to make sense!", but for many people, particularly in a situation like this one, it's just going to sound like "Because I'm the DM and I'm punishing you because you threw me a curveball!"

 

[silburnl]

An interesting debate. Personally I don't think Centaur should be thinking of this situation as a problem - rather its an opportunity to launch a sub-plot centred upon Chris' character and his falling out with the church.

Firstly I think there has to be be some form of negative consequence for the PC - they have offended against all sorts of legal, religious and societal norms and it is flat-out not plausible that the church could let this pass; the PCs have been given a relatively painless way to make ammends by the church and if the PC throws this back in their teeth then they *have* to escalate to retain credibility and authority.

Personally I would suggest that there should be a process of escalating ostracism - starting with simple withdrawal of clerical services to the PC. As time passes this ban should extend (allied churches withdraw favour, associates of the PC included in the interdict, sanctions applied by the secular authorities), intensify (paladins and similar zealots make life unpleasant, curses imposed) and the penances required to put things right should become more onerous. Mix and match with political divisions and splits within the offended church, their allies and enemies and the PC's allies and enemies and you've got a storyline chock full of opportunities for skullduggery, intrigue, moral quandries and (eventual) PC triumph.

We now turn to issues of play style and maximum gaming fun. As others have suggested it could be that a 'kick down the door' player might become frustrated and annoyed by this sort of thing happening to their character; certainly this is a consideration, but the wider group is also an issue here - if I was playing in this game then Chris' character literally getting getting away with murder (or whatever you call a killing reversed by a Raise Dead) would break my WSoD in a major way. I like to play in a world which is somewhat plausible and where actions have consequences - piss off a major church, expect to be in a world of grief. If another player is able to break this internal consistency simply by threatening a sulk then that player is ruining *my* fun and that isn't something that I should have to put up with just to keep the peace.

The answer, as usual, is communication. The GM needs to talk some of these issues out with Chris and the other players and separate the IC issues from OC issues. Is Chris so recalcitrant because *he* thinks the situation is whacked and unjust or is he actually role-playing an outraged vigilante? Do the other players expect to see consequences flowing from this dispute? Are the group as a whole comfortable with potential splits (say if there's a player cleric or paladin who is going to be pulled both ways by this feud)? A dialogue whereby the GM lays out what he thinks should be happening, why it should be happening and what the potential consequences are for the characters (and the gaming group) is usually very useful for making sure everyone is on the same page and identifying potential play-style conflicts before they manifest in the game. Some players can find this sort of troupe-style play uncomfortable (especially if they have mostly played in 'old-school' adversarial games) but on the whole, once they get over the weirdness of being *consulted* by their DM, they like having the opportunity of getting a longer term steer on the direction and themes of the campaign.

Regards
Luke

 

[ZSutherland]

Centaur,

As Particle Man pointed out, there are two possibilities here. One is that your player, Chris, simply has a gaming style, a reason to come to the table, that differs from your DMing style. If this is true, then I'd tread lightly on the issue. I certainly wouldn't let things slide without consequences because that damages your verisimilitude and may reduce the fun of the other players, but I probably wouldn't go so far as to curse him horribly, removing his effectiveness at the game, and thus his fun entirely. I'd have the church refuse to serve him for his behavior and lack of decorum, but if he's playing CG or CN, I'd probably give him an RP award for taking his lumps by playing in character. Then, have the BBEG take some action such that when the PCs finally vanquish him, the church is indebted to all of them. Perhaps begrudingly, they let the PC off the hook, maybe because he's become a local hero and they don't want to be at odds with their worshipers. In this way, consequences occured but in the end, the PC's hero manner is rewarded, he gets to beat the bad guy and learns the lesson that sometimes doing the right thing brings about negative consequences in the short term, but as long as you continue doing the right thing, it works out in the end.

If it's not the player, but rather he's just really playing up his character, I'd still give him an RP bonus and see how far he's willing to take this story line. Then ramp up the pressure from the church to something you're both comfortable with. I doubt they'd take any direct, mechanical action, such as cursing him, but would almost certainly work in an indirect manner. They're the largest church around, so presumably many citizens in the area are adherents to their belief. Perhaps the word goes out that none of their believers are to associate with this "vigilante maniac," so he has trouble getting a place to stay as no inn will rent him a room. Magic items (since it's the church of magic) become hard to obtain with cash, people glare at him and just general isolate him. Others, however, stand to profit by this, but perhaps their morally lacking individuals. Opportunists and whatnot, and the character is faced with a decision, repent, relax my moral standards, or sleep out in the cold. He gets to play the misunderstood hero, which can be a fun role. Not to touch a sore subject, but look at the popularity of the Drizzt Do'Urden novels, a misunderstood hero if ever there was one. In the end, the PCs still manage to vanquish the BBEG and are rewarded with hero status. The local populace and the LG members of the church welcome the PC back with open arms. The LN members recognize that the PCs ended a threat and so forgo further punishment, but the LE members (you did say the diety was LN, so presumably some, maybe even one of the most powerful three clerics you mentioned, is LE) resent the PC for defying their authority and "getting away" with it and see the people's acceptance of his Chaotic behavior as a threat to their order. One of these could even become your next BBEG.

Talk to the player, figure out which is the case, or which is more the case, and that should give you a better idea of which way to go. Don't approach the talk as a "DM talking to" but as a DM asking his player which path would give him the most enjoyment as a player. Obviously, however, don't let the cat out of the bag, whichever you decide to do.

Good luck,
Z