Save the Goblin, Kill your Friend?

[Kahuna Burger]

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).

Whatcha think?

Hrm, are these your goals?

Help your friends - Your character made a plan with his theoretical friends and then went directly against it. Earlier you had shown yourself to be trigger happy (something is following us, KILL IT!) which is not that helpful to your friends, and stubborn about going along with group plans (the whole covered wagon issue.)

Kill the bad guys - The group had decided that someone wasn't a bad guy and you decided on your own to kill her anyway.

Roleplay interesting characters - there isn't actually anything interesting about making a plan then going against it to anyone but the person doing it.

You may well have a group that has the same goals you are talking about - and thus reacted badly to your behavior. :\

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

...

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 think this is definetally the biggest source of your problem. I'm known other people in the US military, and this is a view shared by just about everyone. However, as you have now learned the hard way, it is not a universal truth. People turn on friends for a wide variety of reasons in both fantasy and real life. Heck, it's not even a universal truth in all armies. Russia in WW2, for example, was trained to shoot their own soldiers if they every tried to fall back from the front line.

And yes, this is a meta-game issue. You obviously played your character assuming that your friends would not kill you because you were an ally. But why would your character assume that, even if you do? Since your character was a barbarian, he shouldn't have been lawful (unless there are some other factors going on here we don't know about), and should not have had a strong belief or expectation of loyalty or honor. As a covert agent of the church, you would have even less expectation of loyalty from the group that you know to be a threat to your home organization.

I would tend to take issue with the one character that CDGed you when everyone else was just trying to subdue you. But the same goes to you as well. Why couldn't you have taken out Anea with subdual damage? You can't expect the party to give you any benefit-of-the-doubt that you didn't give them.

 

[Voadam]

Save the goblin. Save the world.

 

[Technik4]

I would tend to take issue with the one character that CDGed you when everyone else was just trying to subdue you. But the same goes to you as well. Why couldn't you have taken out Anea with subdual damage? You can't expect the party to give you any benefit-of-the-doubt that you didn't give them.

This was essentially Mossimo's player's argument. Subdual damage doesn't seem to be apt in a rage, though I have been rethinking whether or not disabling her then dropping my spear and raising my arms might have been the better option. In previous games, even though we roleplay, we tend to give a higher respect to someone's PC than an NPC - especially an NPC that was hostile to the party previously!

Help your friends - Your character made a plan with his theoretical friends and then went directly against it. Earlier you had shown yourself to be trigger happy (something is following us, KILL IT!) which is not that helpful to your friends, and stubborn about going along with group plans (the whole covered wagon issue.)

I reject that my actions were trigger happy, though that is how the group perceived my character. Something was following us (poorly), we all noticed it. The DM asked if anyone wanted to do anything and no one said anything, so I replied that I take a spot check to get a good look at it. I roll and see a goblin. The party has been fighting groups of goblins since the first session, so I take out my longbow and shoot it (it spent the round I spent spotting it running away). I shot it once and it kept running, so I shot again. During this entire sequence the group literally did nothing, waiting to see what would happen. After it fell to the ground, they surged forward to interrogate it, which I approved of.

Thus, by wounding a goblin spy I was not acting like a psychopath, I was saving us from an ambush up the road. After we had that information, the goblin began pleading for its life and such so I said just kill it (ie- mercy). The group decided to use it as a decoy to try and fool the goblins/ogres up the road. After that battle, the goblin offered up some more information - about a possible alliance with the goblins. The party rejected this idea, but wanted to keep the goblin just in case he could come in handy again. Further, since we we found a letter detailing the appearance of me and another PC, we decided to use a covered wagon to avoid further ambushes. My character objected to being in a covered wagon for hours with a gagged and bound goblin, so Mossimo's PC strapped him to his donkey and explained he would unstrap him at intervals to feed him, let him use the bathroom, etc.

Maybe I was "bloodthirsty" or "trigger happy", but this was an enemy scout not some unknown possibly peace-loving goblin.

Kill the bad guys - The group had decided that someone wasn't a bad guy and you decided on your own to kill her anyway.

She was previously against the group, trying to arrest one of the PCs that my character had known the longest. I had a personal vendetta against her which I admit I should have revealed before the fight. The group was planning on blackmailing her for aid (ie- if you don't help us, we'll kill you). This was a mistake on my part.

Roleplay interesting characters - there isn't actually anything interesting about making a plan then going against it to anyone but the person doing it.

Really? What about the motivations that led to such aberrant behavior? I would be curious if something like this happened in a game for the reasons why. I think character motivations can and should be involved in the story, integrally if possible. Was it risky and a little underhanded? Yes. Uninteresting? Not in my opinion.

You may well have a group that has the same goals you are talking about - and thus reacted badly to your behavior.

I don't think CDG a PC over an NPC most of the party has never met and has little to no reason to trust qualifies as "help your friends", but that's just me.


Thanks for all the responses, by the way. I am feeling better about the whole situation and the continual reassessment is making it easy to see ways I could have accomplished my goals in a more friendly way.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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. My motive was not to ultimately screw over the party, but create a believable character that would ultimately screw over the church after his friends (ie- the other PCs) find out about the dual allegiance. The church had told me to take out Anea if it was convenient in my last communicate.

So, let's put it into the same perspective: If Leo DiCaprio in The Departed (haven't seen the movie, just the trailers) knocked off someone who the gang he infiltrated was trying to make a deal with, do you think they would let him explain himself, or would they just take him out?

Sounds like your character got what they deserved. No room for double dealers in my party, since I'll never know when they might change sides again.

 

[Technik4]

Sounds like your character got what they deserved. No room for double dealers in my party, since I'll never know when they might change sides again.

Except, since I was a PC that ultimately wanted to have friends turn me against the church, it seems unlikely I would "double deal" again. If I had told you all the secret stuff out of game, and we were playing together, would you think its interesting or a horrible idea and you'd kill me if I didn't explain myself before the fight?

Just curious.

And I wasn't infiltrating a gang, it was a group of adventures, most of whom spent a lot of the time explaining how they were good to me.

 

[Forrester]

Save the goblin. Save the world.

You are The Man.

Re the OP's post -- actually, I thought about it awhile and I've reconsidered a bit. I think he could have done a lot of things to not put himself in this position, but Mossimo's coup-de-grace was over the top. You weren't a threat, the party wasn't actually allied with Anea, and you're a PC, not an NPC.

I think you played in such a way to put your fellow party members in a weird and uncomfortable situation, but for him to kill your character like that was a dick move. There's probably some minor apologies that should go both ways on this one.

 

[darkloki]

Hmmmmm.... strange

Save the goblin, save the world! ROFLMAO!

By the way, I had some questions on this when i read this post. Where did the group get the impression you were being "blood thirsty"? Maybe they thought your character was a maniac.

It just seemed like a really random thing to do. It probably gave them the impression that you had something else going on that wasn't in the groups best interest, and it is a major assumption that another PC wasn't going to react the same way your PC would to another sentient creature, regardless if it was an NPC or PC.

The theory that its a PC vs. an NPC is a little metagamey if you ask me. You are roleplaying a fictional character in a fictional world in a fictional sitution. What authority does another player have to tell another player how to play? Unless someone is doing something ridiculous ... then it is the DM's job to step in.

Besides all the talk about trusting others in the group and all that and you make a character that secretly works for the organization they are opposed to? Again, it is an assumption that "you are going to be saved".

I would just think about the expectations you have of the group vs. how the group actually plays. But i definitley recommend talking to the Mossimo player about it and not quitting the game.

Lastly, if you have something else to do other than D&D with your friends, don't throw it in their face. If you have to say "you know, i could be doing this instead of D&D..." or "I should be doing this other than D&D..." than go do it. But don't be a martyr.

 

[cougent]

Maybe he too has a secret motive that you do not know about and he was just fulfilling that part of his character. Maybe he too is working for the church, but as a "cleaner" and did not want you to explain why you did what you did. Better a dead mystery than a live informant.

THIS is an excellent case study in why secret motives are always a bad idea.

 

[Felix]

Maybe he too has a secret motive that you do not know about and he was just fulfilling that part of his character. Maybe he too is working for the church, but as a "cleaner" and did not want you to explain why you did what you did. Better a dead mystery than a live informant.

THIS is an excellent case study in why secret motives are always a bad idea.

Well said.

and you're a PC, not an NPC.

This only washes down with a healthy gulp of metagaming.