Save the Goblin, Kill your Friend?

[Technik4]

As DM I think that I would be glad to see the back of both you and your character, sorry.

As DM, you worked with me to help create this background and gave me the order to kill Anea if possible. Just saying.

If you are fairly new to the group, playing the lone wolf is just plain risky and crap like what happened can happen.

The group is fairly new. I have been playing with 1 of the characters for almost a year (the Warlock, who basically stayed out of the whole mess just shaking his head). 2 of the players were joining the group that night (the psion and the flask-throwing factotum). The game itself is only a handful of sessions old, and I previously died in no small part to another party fiasco (bleeding down from -1 to -10 while one PC tried to kite a wounded guard for 9 rounds and the other was chased around by 2 more wounded guards, and went for a UMD wand activation on -9 and failed).

Everygame that I have been involved in, there is an unwritten rule that you never kill a fellow PC without reason or justification. If your guy said "I'll explain after the battle", then in my book that should have been enough to buy your character a moments reprieve of explanation after the battle (which if unsuitable would then have resulted more than likely in summary execution for your character).

This was an assumption I've been gaming with for years, ever since some very juvenile sessions in 2e. As I said, I had been planning on explaining myself after the battle. We had also been gaming for over 6 hours, and I had worked 9 before that so I was tired and a bit weary. The new players (which I didn't know about it until a few days before the game) also confused things a little, as I was planning on revealing my association with my companions soon.

Additionally, keeping secrets from your fellow players hints that you don't trust them to role-play their characters as ignorant of your character's motivations.

I have yet to meet someone who can flawlessly do so. Trust is a central idea to gaming in general, and part of the problem. In hindsight, I probably should have made my intention clear before the battle, even if I wasn't willing to explain it (yet). However, I don't think I was wrong in assuming that I would have time to explain afterwards. Further, it was pure metagaming of the combat rogue, who knew how many hp I had left to attack a raging ally. Had I been at 10 hp higher, his attack would not have likely killed me, and I would have surrendered peacefully. There simply was no time.

Secondly, you carried it too far. Yelling "I'll explain later" in combat doesn't cut it. More explanation was called for, and your character didn't provide it.

I agree, but is a coup-de-gras the correct response? Presumably they want to know the reasons for my actions - killing me hardly seems the course to go for answers.

Clearly someone was annoyed at the unexpected behavior and saw it was coming from you, not a mind-affecting spell. That shouldn't've happened.

Someone mentioned I could be under a compulsion, geas, or some other mind-affecting spell, but it didn't stop the coup-de-gras.

Fourth and finally, it wasn't a good idea to abandon the game group. You created a dorked up situation, it went south, and you lost a character. Ooops. Live and learn. You say "I don't want an apology or anything like that" but I think it's you that owes the group one. You tried to play lone wolf in a social game and when it didn't go your way, you took your marbles home. Meh. It's a game. Work WITH the other players next time you come up with a neat idea and you'll discover that way, way cooler things will happen.

This is probably my own fault. Most of my gaming experience comes from friends that I knew before we gamed together - we were friends first, PCs second. Thus, in game, we didn't knowingly screw someone over (see above). Working under that assumption, I was trying to create a dramatic and memorable scene. I succeeded (I think), but not in the way I intended.

I am not the kind of person that likes everyone to memorize all my capabilities. Yes, we're friends and yes you probably will know them after a time. But at the first session, I don't appreciate someone asking to see my character sheet. For me, it just doesn't jive. After a few sessions you'll be well aware of most of my potential, but have the tact not to expect that as a matter of course from the outset.

I think you've missed out the most important bit - why you're leaving the group.

I am trying to cool off and have told the DM that I may return later. For one thing, there are a number of out-of-game things that I have been neglecting in order to play every week. I work 40 hours a week, just got a promotion, and I'm taking 12 credits at a school that is an hour from where I live. Time is short and my stress level has been high. I don't need any extra pressures or stress from my leisure time, which I think rejoining the group immediately would definitely cause. Raising from the dead, despite being offered by the DM, is clearly out of the question in this case (as most of the PCs have already said, regardless of my "explaining" their characters would not want to adventure with him anymore).

So, let's see if this sounds reasonable. Your patron has been hinting that Anea shouldn't necessarily be considered an enemy. And the party agrees (including you, apparently) that you'll all let her live and try to make an ally of her. Meanwhile, you show yourself to be a bloodthirsty "kill-em-all" type. Then you disregard the party agreement and charge in and slaughter someone that they're trying to save.

We all agreed we would clean up the mess, whichever side won we would take as allies. Somewhere along the way it turned into helping the cleric because we didn't want goblins as allies, but we didn't break out a contract and sign it. We had 5 players and tangents and bathroom breaks going. I freely admit that I should have revealed my intentions before the battle, however I don't think the correct response to slaughtering an NPC is to kill your ally, especially if there is a forthcoming explanation.

I think both y'all's reactions are a little strong, but as far as the party is concerned it certainly looks like you set out to screw them. Depending on the character I was playing, I might have been interested in hearing an explanation but in most groups I've been in, something like what happened there would basically be you signing your own death warrant.

Today's Moral: Secret cross-purpose motives within the party never work out unless the players, not nessesarily the PC's, know about it as well.

I didn't set out 'to screw them'. As I said, I was trying to create an interesting character. The raptorans in the campaign are allied with the church, though for political not religious reasons. Having someone who can get information from the church can be highly beneficial to an anti-church organization, or vice-versa. Nor was I trying to "steal the limelight".

Some last food for thought:

Had I already revealed everything to the players, but nothing to their characters, do you think this would have played out the same way?

 

[Nifft]

I think you could have tried to convince the other PCs that you had secret information which indicated she was NOT a friend at all, and that she needed killing.

Then you could have killed her in good conscience.

But really, if the group (including you) discusses the situation and decides to take a specific course of action, and you don't object at the time of discussion, you really don't have the right to do exactly the opposite of what you'd planned.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Aeric]

In this case, I think the problem is more with the execution of your character's hidden agenda than the fact that he had one in the first place.

He was told to "take out Anea if it was convenient." I can think of a dozen different ways to acheive this without the other PCs realizing it was you who did it, or at the very least being able to justify your actions and get off scott-free. Suddenly switching sides in the middle of battle is not one of those ways.

Which is not to say that the response to your actions was reasonable. I agree that they completely overreacted. It would be one thing if they had killed your character in the process of protecting Anea from you, but to coup-de-gras you after the deed was done? What purpose did that serve?

In my opinion, it was a case of "two wrongs don't make a right."

 

[Cadfan]

You keep going on and on about trust, but, I mean, you WERE betraying the party, right? You keep listing alternative explanations for your actions that you feel they should have investigated, but the one they hit upon, the betrayal thing, was the right one, wasn't it?

Also, you mention that the rogue was metagaming, but your "trust" argument boils down to metagaming as well.

Live by the sword, die by the sword, I guess.

 

[Technik4]

Also, you mention that the rogue was metagaming, but your "trust" argument boils down to metagaming as well.

No, not really.

Let's say we've known each other for a few weeks, worked together, fought together, killed things together. I was in the military, by the way, and played a lot of d&d with my fellow comrades. You do NOT attack a friend, regardless of what they've done. Granted, not everyone was in the military, but this has been hardwired into me. It's not a metagaming thing, its a "this is what you do in life, in battle". You do not shoot allies. Friendly fire is unacceptable.

If you've played RPGs, sometimes your party members betray you, but then later come back on the right side. Sometimes paladins save lost souls. Redemption and all that. Point is the combat rogue and my character had worked together for some time. I had been fairly integral in a few of the fights, tanking carrion crawlers, ogres, and whatnot. I wouldn't say my character has saved his life, but he was unconscious in the fight the day before and the rest of the party beat off the monsters and resuscitated him.

Not attacking someone you've worked with because they spaz out is obviously not something that everyone agrees with, and I won't take it for granted again. I also admit that there are many ways I could have worked with the group to use my idea and not have it be quite such a surprise. The point of this thread is not to get everyone to say I was wronged (because I made some mistakes too), it's just to see what different people think about the same situation.

Live and learn.

 

[hewligan]

I would have saved the goblin if my "friend" was being a psychopathic, disruptive element. In my opinion, you should go back to the group, with head lowered, and learn how to say sorry. You were wrong. It is not a big deal. Apologise and move on.

 

[amethal]

Not using coup de gras on fellow PCs is so basic to the way I play D&D that I wrongly assumed everyone did the same.

I'd leave the group if it happened to one of my characters, but it would be because of the difference in play styles rather than any feeling of being hard done by.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

As DM I think that I would be glad to see the back of both you and your character, sorry.

The Auld Grump

That seems a little harsh.

Is there more going on here that what is being explained by the OP? Just yes or no will do, you don't have to air everything (or anything for that matter). This just seems a really weird set of circumstances - I can understand the frustration from the OP as well as the frustrations from the rest of the PCs. I can't yet understand the frustrations of the other players nor you the DM. Maybe I'm just a busy-body, but this whole situation just seems very... unfortunate.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Rvdvelden]

Even if your character wasn't coupe-de-graced and got a chance to tell his story, he probably wouldn't have continued in the group anyway. Turning against a group agreement is only second to killing a fellow PC, and the party wouldn't have trusted him to accompany them anymore.

As a military man, you should've realized that trust is everything in a group that is constantly in battle, even when it's fiction. How people react to "betrayal" of that trust is apparently not straightforward, but one way or the other you would have had issues with the group.

 

[delericho]

It turns out the goblins are attacking Anea out of retribution. The party agrees that we should go, watch the fight and clean up the mess. So, even though Anea has been our enemy in the past, we will come in the middle of the battle, kill the goblins and save her, with the prize being a potential ally and the risk being low... I charge in, attacking Anea!

The party is in uproar, not knowing if I'm trying to be a frenzied berserker, emulate the world-famous Belkar, or am just trying to roleplay a sociopath. I shout out that I'll explain after the combat... I coup-de-grae her. At this point my rage was on its last round and the Psion steps behind me and uses his Boots of Stomping, dealing subdual damage and knocking me to the ground. The combat rogue Mossimo declares that he is coup-de-gra'ing me and does so, which kills me since I was at -6 with 3 subdual after my rage ended (being at 0 before the rage would have ended).

Okay, that's a huge mess right there, with plenty of blame to go around.

Firstly, if you were really intent on explaining after the battle, you absolutely should not have applied the coup de grace to Anea. At that point she was helpless, and you could deal with her at your leisure. So, explainto the group, and then kill her.

On the other hand, Mossimo committed exactly the same failing - once your character was helpless, there was no need to finish him off. Bind his wounds, tie him up, then revive him and let him explain. And then execute him if necessary. As others have pointed out, you could have been under compulsion.

Now, this has been quite long, but there is still a little more information. When I made my character I told my dm that I thought it would be interesting to play a character with a different allegiance, like Leonardo DiCaprio in The Departed. I said it would be neat if I was working for the church in secret, since the party up until then had been working for a faction working against the church.

While that's quite a good idea, the implementation was poor. If you're going to work against the goals of the group in secret, then be subtle about it. If, on the other hand, you decide the time is right to reveal your dual alliance, the time to do it is not while the group is in the midst of a life-and-death struggle. Furthermore, if you're thinking of revealing your dual alliance, and therefore betraying the church, why would you do so while at the same time carrying out the orders of that same church?

Dual agendas are fine, and can make for a really good game. But the players and DM have to discuss the matter up-front, so that everyone involved knows that such a thing is possible (although they don't have to know who has the hidden agenda, or what the agenda is). Suddenly springing such a thing on the group can lead to wierd feelings of betrayal, odd behaviours, and dead PCs. As, indeed, you found out.

I say goodnight and leave, and tell the dm when he calls that I won't be coming back to the group.

So, for now I'm not playing with the group. I don't want an apology or anything like that, I'm just reassessing what type of game interests me and trying to find a group with like-minded goals (help your friends; kill the bad guys; roleplay interesting characters).

That's your choice, but I think it's an over-reaction. You handled the situation poorly, and the consequences fell out badly. Frankly, I think you should go back to the group, you should apologise, and your next character should very distinctly not have a dual agenda.

Whatcha think?

D&D characters in general are far too prone to solving every problem, and especially intra-group interpersonal problems, with the application of violence. They're also far to quick to deal out death and judgement.