Save the Goblin, Kill your Friend?

[Cadfan]

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.

Lets say you're rescuing some hostages. One of your "buddies" (you've really only known him a few weeks) shoots one of them. Clearly on purpose. You say, "What the hell???" he says, "I'll explain later," and shoots another hostage.

I take it you wait and ask him later on what the deal was? Maybe over tea, that would be nice.

In any case, you really were betraying them and they really did make the right call. Your only grief is that you think they made the right call on insufficient evidence. Even if you're right, you really don't look so hot.

 

[Felix]

Lets say you're rescuing some hostages. One of your "buddies" (you've really only known him a few weeks) shoots one of them. Clearly on purpose. You say, "What the hell???" he says, "I'll explain later," and shoots another hostage.

I take it you wait and ask him later on what the deal was? Maybe over tea, that would be nice.

In any case, you really were betraying them and they really did make the right call. Your only grief is that you think they made the right call on insufficient evidence. Even if you're right, you really don't look so hot.

Reservoir Dogs comes to mind; that didn't end too well, either.

 

[FunkBGR]

Hey -

Who cares in-character "who's known who". You're playing a game with a group of people. What SHOULD have happened, didn't. Hindsight, 20/20, you know?

Regardless, you've got to look at now. Dude, if you were having fun, you should go back. You don't have to apologize, but you definitely have to explain yourself. You should ask the DM to talk to the party-killer guy, because who cares whether you've known each other for a day or years - PC Killing is not the name of the game.

If you weren't having fun, or don't feel like you want to game with them, then case closed, drop it.

 

[Technik4]

Lets say you're rescuing some hostages. One of your "buddies" (you've really only known him a few weeks) shoots one of them. Clearly on purpose. You say, "What the hell???" he says, "I'll explain later," and shoots another hostage.

That is a nice scene, but if you've read the above has really little to do with what happened in game. I tried to be as unbiased and objective as possible. If I wanted to, I could've written a biased little scenario like yours to get people to agree that I was wronged.

That is NOT the point of this thread.

If you weren't having fun, or don't feel like you want to game with them, then case closed, drop it.

The whole night was a blast up until my PC got squashed.

 

[Felix]

If I wanted to, I could've written a biased little scenario like yours to get people to agree that I was wronged.

That is NOT the point of this thread.

Your original post was nice and unbiased. But his point should be well taken: you were acting against the stated intentions of the party to the point of killing a helpless character, much like the hostage-killer in Cadfan's example. He tries to remind you that Mossimo's character is reacting to a situation that is getting out of hand, where he sees someone clearly betray the goal of the party, and he doesn't know what that person will do next.

Was the CdG necessary? Absolutely not. A little Use Rope, a little Diplomacy: the party would have gotten things sorted out with no death on anyone's conscience. Was the CdG expedient? Did it remove immediate and possibly future problems, even as it created some moral quandaries? Sure; on balance I think fewer in-game problems were created by the killing than would have been created with leaving the helpless character alive.

Now please note that the preceeding paragraph can be applied to both the CdG that Technik4 performed (while party-mates were attempting to recussitate Anea), and the CdG that Mossimo performed on Technik4. There is absolutely no in-game reason why the reaction to the two different killings should be different: Either they were both reasonably expedient methods to remove a potential future problem, or they were both low-down dirty deeds. In the first case, you've no cause to be upset with Mossimo, since he merely applied the same reasoning as you did to the situation. In the second, both of you should be chastised; but while it may sound grade-schoolish: you did it first. If objectivity is what you're after, then you should feel your act is at least as bad as Mossimo's, if not moreso because yours was the first: you should feel the same way because they're fundamentally the same act.

Now: introduce metagaming.

Technik4 is a PC, Anea is an NPC. In-game the acts are the exact same, so any conclusion stating Mossimo is more at fault than Technik4 must come from this difference. As players, you need to work together, so acts that may warrant death in an NPC may merely warrant a stern talking-to in a PC. OK. But take that principle to heart: you need to work together. This principle that you may hold up as a reason why Mossimo ought not to have killed you is the exact principle broken when you and the DM conspired to have a secret agenda for your character. There wasn't a unified front of players for Mossimo to betray because you, encouraged by the DM, had already destroyed that.

I think the DM here is the only person who gets out of this with a pass: Mossimo is now a PKer. You're a player who took his dice and went home when his methods were turned against him. The DM, who you say encouraged you to have a secret agenda, also ought to share in the burden for this. Hey, he may have just been trying to make something cool. He may have thought the idea of a secret-agent man in the party who would reveal himself and steer the party towards his agenda would be a great plot-twist. But for all his intentions, he invited discord into his group, and this situation is the fruit of his unadvisable choices.

So:
DM's: Don't divide your party. They'll do that enough without your encouragement.
Players: Don't have secret agendas, or at very least, don't seemingly betray the party in accordance to those agendas in the heat of battle.

Abide by those principles, and your PC won't have to worry about getting CdG'd by a fellow party-member.

 

[Technik4]

There is absolutely no in-game reason why the reaction to the two different killings should be different: Either they were both reasonably expedient methods to remove a potential future problem, or they were both low-down dirty deeds. In the first case, you've no cause to be upset with Mossimo, since he merely applied the same reasoning as you did to the situation. In the second, both of you should be chastised; but while it may sound grade-schoolish: you did it first. If objectivity is what you're after, then you should feel your act is at least as bad as Mossimo's, if not moreso because yours was the first: you should feel the same way because they're fundamentally the same act.

If the game was one where we maintained character roleplay throughout, and truly strived for an immersive game I *might* be able to agree with you. However, this was a game fraught with tangenting, stories, eating food, etc. We were not maintaining character, even during conversations with NPCs. Thus, my "metagaming" that we were 5 people trying to be friends was in effect. Did I obviously have expectations that were too high? Yes. Is killing a PC fundamentally the same act as killing an NPC in D&D? No, sorry, I disagree.

A player put time and considerable effort into coming up with a character (well, the effort depends on the player, but in this case assume it to be true). That time is wasted at the whim of another player disagreeing with their actions. NPCs do get time put into them, but they are ultimately more expendable than a PC. Probably because they get made up of every session and generally do not adventure with the group. My gut reaction was "I can't play with these guys, what if my next character does something Mossimo's player doesn't agree with? Back to the drawing board for me?".

Of course, in no small part thanks to this thread forcing me to continually re-evaluate the situation, I can see many ways I could've roleplayed the situation better. It also helped me gain a lot of different perspectives when it comes to gaming with people who you haven't known for a long time before the game.

Remember we were just going to blackmail and interrogate our "hostage", which I think my character disagreed with morally. We were not the knights in shining armor saving the damsel in distress - we were the mercenaries in chain shirts come to take advantage of a former adversary in a tough spot.

There wasn't a unified front of players for Mossimo to betray because you, encouraged by the DM, had already destroyed that.

This is the same game (session really) where people advocate trying to convert evil goblins that are actively spying on the group into a potential future cohort. I laughed and shook my head at the hilarity of this being "roleplaying". Humorous, very. Immersive, not so much. I think everyone has their own conception of what roleplaying is and the little things that they are willing to overlook to have fun are clearly not the same.

If you can convert a goblin scout, can't you convert an ally (especially if the player wants to be converted)? Granted, I accede that it could've been roleplayed *better*, but from the sounds of some of you it is impossible to start a PC at odds with the group who later joins his friends out of greater loyalty than his opposing group. If you argue that it could work if everything was revealed to the players (but not their PCs), most of the "metagaming" comments go out the window too.

If anyone is interested, I told the DM I would rejoin the group in a couple weeks with a new concept (wandering ascetic - no affiliations!).

 

[Felix]

However, this was a game fraught with tangenting, stories, eating food, etc.

Players eating food has absolutely no effect on in-character motivation. In-game is in-game, regardless of how immersive it is. And in-game, it was the same act.

If you can convert a goblin scout, can't you convert an ally (especially if the player wants to be converted)?

That's the problem: you shouldn't have to convert allies: they're called allies for a reason. And the goblin, for all his faults, wasn't a traitor. Your character showed his true colors and got greased for it.

Look, if you wanted to be "converted", the very least you could have done was to tell the party before you went in that this gal was a BAD GUY and she needed to die. You would have been open and honest both in-character and out, and the ball would have been in their court. As it was, your character was dishonest and got comeuppance.

I laughed and shook my head at the hilarity of this being "roleplaying"

Yeah. "Hilarity". The other players want to make a bad guy turn good and help them adventure and that's airquotes-roleplaying-airquotes. Certainly not heroic to turn bad guys good. Nope.

 

[wally]

If you can convert a goblin scout, can't you convert an ally (especially if the player wants to be converted)? Granted, I accede that it could've been roleplayed *better*, but from the sounds of some of you it is impossible to start a PC at odds with the group who later joins his friends out of greater loyalty than his opposing group. If you argue that it could work if everything was revealed to the players (but not their PCs), most of the "metagaming" comments go out the window too.

I think the idea is that you were already an ally and they didn't necessarily see you as a bad guy that needed to be converted as you were already going along with their scenario. Mind you, it didn't sound like you were overly supportive of their ideas, but you didn't give them any reason to think you were a bad guy and would betray them.

It sounds like they saw the goblin(s) as a bad guy who could be converted. You were already on their side in their eyes.

How would you expect them to react if the previously mentioned goblin had been converted, had acted like an ally for a bit and had been somewhat supportive, and then unexpectedly betrayed the party. Would you have sat back and said, 'he probably has a reason' and let him do what he wanted, or would you have attacked him? The party saw you as a betrayer. If you as a player had let them as players know that you were playing a troubled character, or if your character had let them know that he was a troubled fellow, this whole thing could've gone differently, or at least people would probably see it a little different.

I think that is the general idea here.

-wally

 

[Deset Gled]

Remember we were just going to blackmail and interrogate our "hostage", which I think my character disagreed with morally. We were not the knights in shining armor saving the damsel in distress - we were the mercenaries in chain shirts come to take advantage of a former adversary in a tough spot.

Can you please tell us more about all of the character's allignments and motivations for adventuring (in game, roleplaying)? You have said a lot of things in this thread that seem very contradictory: converting evil beasts is laughable, but killing traitors is unacceptable; loyalty is absolute, but you are a triple-crossing mercenary. I am having a lot of trouble differentiating between what your character is thinking and what you are thinking, and I suspect that is the root cause of a lot of the "metagaming" arguements going on. It actually might be the root cause of the problems that you have with the group as well. Knowing details about the alignment and history of the guy that CDGed you would be enlightening, too.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

I've seen this before... many times. Without fail, the lone wolf sneaky, secret motiviations guy always ends up ganked by the rest of the party. I can't blame you for wanting to play a really interesting character and bring some cool dynamics to the game, but it sounds like you were trying to do so with the wrong group.

For a new group like you described, it's always best to play it simple and straight forward at the start to see what the dynamic is like. You had to have known after 6 hours of playing with these guys what kind of players you were dealing with, so for what happened, I think you get half the blame. For the other half, I blame your DM for not doing a better job of helping you create this character and successfully playing it. Seeing how things were heading, it's his job to step in and take control of situations like this to ensure that everyone is having fun.

What you said a dozen posts back about player metagaming rings very true. No matter how much players will swear up and down that they can separate player knowledge from character knowledge I have yet to find a group of players that can pull this off. Yes, maybe a couple of them or even half of them. But, it's the players that can't that spoil things. So, I don't blame you at all for not revealing all the nuts & bolts of your character to them.

Good luck with your schedule, gaming, and stress. Given all of that, it's probably best that you don't game with this group until your life is calmer. Sounds like it would just end up causing you more aggravation and stress. Not worth it.