Typical Player Behavior, or Bad Roleplaying?

[swrushing]

It's not different than if you told the player of a Lawful Good paladin that he was acting outside his alignment.

(Keeping in mind that this is the only PC in the group who I'm forcing to act under an "alignment"-style code, and that he agreed to it beforehand.)

Jason

Acftually it really is almost totally different.

telling someone their actions are outside of a list of acceptable actions (alignment) or a general code is telling them how "others" would feel about or react to those choices. Its telling him "this might cause your god to take away your paladinhood" or some such. You are basically explaining other people's/god's perspective on what he did.

what you apparently did was tell the guy what HIS CHARACTER THOUGHT about the actions/choices. You are telling him what HIS CHARACTER's perspective on what he did is.

One is describing to him what the actions look like to others, the other is getting inside his head uninvited.

Also, if i read what you said, he agreed to roleplay a certain thing well and get benefits, not to allow you to tell him his character's thoughts for him.

As for alignment, this has seemed to bve a big theme with you so let me explain how i see alignment.

Alignment is DERIVED from character actions, it does not DRIVE character actions.

A character doesn't do ABC because he is lawful good.
He is lawful good because he has done ABC.

A player should run his character based on what his character would do however it fits the character background, personality and circumstance and from those choices his alignment will be assigned, not the other way 'round.

This keeps alignment to being a description, one somewhat useful in some games, not a straightjacket limiting character choices.

Again, hope this works out well for you.

 

[swrushing]

So you're spanking me for using the 2nd person ("you, as a lawful good cleric, would probably feel this way") instead of the 3rd person ("a typical lawful good cleric would probably feel this way").....?

uhh... yes, very definitely so. One is you describing the world, which is definitely a Gm bailywick sort of thing.

the other is describing the thoughtsn of a PC, which is definitely a PLAYER bailywick sort of thing.

if you don't see this difference, or see it as a major thing, i am at a loss for words.

EDIT: I do see that now you claim to have at least said "probably" about how his character felt, as opposed to your first description of what you said. I do hope the second version you report here is the one you did use to the player. It might not help much, but it might help some.

Yeah, it's a little bit of a presumption on my part, but I wouldn't call it a campaign-killer.

It would be for me.

Just out of curiousity, how would you feel if he started telling you how your NPCs felt about things?

(Whoops, I guess it doesn't matter since you're not reading the thread any more....) :/

Jason

OK, cute... I can take a hint. lesson learned!

Hope this all goes well for you and yours.

enjoy your games.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

But maybe your player doesn't feel that way, or his new PC doesn't feel that way. Or maybe he just feels like there's nothing he can do.

But why did he then agree to play a cleric of a God of Supreme Good?

Sometimes priests make bad decisions, just like everyone else, and for any number of reasons... fear of danger, hope for a peaceful solution (or miracle), whatever.

Ptolmey18, I'm just curious about whether you are more annoyed by how the character was roleplayed or by how the player acted:

(a) If the new PC had given a different reason for not rescuing the old PC, like really roleplaying to the hilt the fear of what might happen (and actually showing some real human emotions), would you still find the act of not rescuing the old PC so appalling?

(b) If the new PC had been a wizard (or any other class, for that matter) instead of a priest, and still refused to rescue the old PC, would you still find the act just as appalling?

If you hold priests to a far more rigorous (and possibly ill-defined) standard than other classes, and a priest's every action is micro-managed and second-guessed by an all-powerful god, then the Ultra-Good religion sounds more repressive and tyrannical than even the secular government the PCs are supposed to be fighting.

Finally...

(c) Which would count most as atonement for the perceived sin:
1. if the new PC (in-character) expressed remorse for not having rescued the old PC (regardless of how the player really feels), or
2. if the player admitted to you (the DM) that he/she regretted not rescuing the old PC (regardless of how the new PC is being roleplayed)?

ironregime

 

[sword-dancer]

Complete and total BS. Characters are shaped by the society they are part of. The GM is informing the character how his actions look from the standpoint of a society the player may not be familiar with. .

1 The way Persons are influenced by their society is often not the way society finds positive.
2 That was not the information the GM was giving the player, the GM told the player how his Char feels, this is wrong..

 

[sword-dancer]

Of course. In fact, the interrogators were ALSO Egyptian priests!!!

(Of a different, equally powerful god who happens to support the corrupt, evil government.)

Jason

And what did the the other local temples and their complet clerics do in this case?
Sitting on their thumbs or getting political?
If they do nothing, which chances should a few persons could`ve?

 

[sword-dancer]

It's not different than if you told the player of a Lawful Good paladin that he was acting outside his alignment.
Jason

And? Depends Outside which part of hisalignment he acted under which circumstances, but mostly how this violate his code, IF it violate it.

(Keeping in mind that this is the only PC in the group who I'm forcing to act under an "alignment"-style code, and that he agreed to it beforehand.)

No he agreed to play PC whose class was bound to an Alignment, not that he ust follow it to YOU letter.

 

[ptolemy18]

And what did the the other local temples and their complet clerics do in this case?
Sitting on their thumbs or getting political?
If they do nothing, which chances should a few persons could`ve?

The local "good" temples & people are pissed off, but they haven't done anything openly yet, since that would lead to massive reprisals and possibly a widespread rebellion. Although I've strongly suggested to the players that some of the NPCs would be willing to help rescue the ex-PC if the PCs asked them. ("As the high priestess advises caution, some of the priestesses advocate rescuing their companion, and a tremendous argument ensues. One of the priestesses turns away from the argument with a look of cold anger on her face. She looks in the direction of the prison and start sharpening her knife...")

I don't really get this argument that the PCs shouldn't be the ones who feel obliged to do something because they should rely on NPCs to do it. I guess NPCs should explore all the dungeons too so the PCs don't have to explore them. The whole idea of "heroic roleplaying" should be that the ***PCs*** should be the primary ones who do the heroic stuff. Not because the NPCs are cowards or lazy but because, out-of-character, the players get first dibs on the heroism!

In other words, if there's gonna be a rebellion & jailbreak, the most exciting option is if the PCs start it. Otherwise, who cares? It's offscreen. If the PCs don't step up to the plate then I have to decide whether the ex-PC gets rescued or executed, but it's not nearly as interesting.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

Sometimes priests make bad decisions, just like everyone else, and for any number of reasons... fear of danger, hope for a peaceful solution (or miracle), whatever.
Ptolmey18, I'm just curious about whether you are more annoyed by how the character was roleplayed or by how the player acted:
(a) If the new PC had given a different reason for not rescuing the old PC, like really roleplaying to the hilt the fear of what might happen (and actually showing some real human emotions), would you still find the act of not rescuing the old PC so appalling?

I guess it wouldn't be so bad.

(b) If the new PC had been a wizard (or any other class, for that matter) instead of a priest, and still refused to rescue the old PC, would you still find the act just as appalling?

If you hold priests to a far more rigorous (and possibly ill-defined) standard than other classes, and a priest's every action is micro-managed and second-guessed by an all-powerful god, then the Ultra-Good religion sounds more repressive and tyrannical than even the secular government the PCs are supposed to be fighting.

It's only because he's playing a Priest of the Supreme Good God. In my campaign there are only a few True Religions, and only the followers of those religions have to operate under any kind of "alignment code." Both the player and I knew this when he made the Priest character.

I already told the player, however, that there wouldn't be any "divine interference" regardless of what they chose. So now it's up to them.

(c) Which would count most as atonement for the perceived sin:
1. if the new PC (in-character) expressed remorse for not having rescued the old PC (regardless of how the player really feels), or
2. if the player admitted to you (the DM) that he/she regretted not rescuing the old PC (regardless of how the new PC is being roleplayed)?

Option #1 would be better. I can understand out-of-character why the player might not want to rescue the former PC -- I just wish he would come up with a better in-character justification for not doing so.

But ultimately he's going to role-play the character the way he wants to, so che sera, sera, I guess.

Jason

 

[sword-dancer]

The local "good" temples & people are pissed off, but they haven't done anything openly yet, since that would lead to massive reprisals and possibly a widespread rebellion.

I´ven`t meant the "Local" Temples alone, but I couldn`t understand why they don`t arrest the magistrate for crimes against Clerics, Church and Pantheon, or excommunicate the involved persons(which put them practically out of authority and community) I´d meant the church of egypt.
Like not the local Highpriest, but the "Archbishops" and "Popes" of the gods.
To put at least an example for political reasons.

Although I've strongly suggested to the players that some of the NPCs would be willing to help rescue the ex-PC if the PCs asked them. ("As the high priestess advises caution, some of the priestesses advocate rescuing their companion, and a tremendous argument ensues. One of the priestesses turns away from the argument with a look of cold anger on her face. She looks in the direction of the prison and start sharpening her knife...")

Okay, forget it i don`t meant the charge in spells blazing, i meant go to top and order it under pressure of divine and church retribution.

I don't really get this argument that the PCs shouldn't be the ones who feel obliged to do something because they should rely on NPCs to do it. I guess NPCs should explore all the dungeons too so the PCs don't have to explore them.

First this isn`t a dungeon or a band of robbers or something out of civilazation.
The local administration and the priest of this temple had created a political turmoil, and a religios for that.
So alone from political reasons the local churches should make pressure, making clear they wanted the priest back, the folls who arreted and chasined him put for a court and then punished etc, which meant tortured to death, with the message and if you local administrator don`t do that you will be also on the block.
I´ve a priestes of a Paladin godess, she wouldn`t storm in spells and blade blazing, she would go to the chief of law enforcement or local administration and order him flatly to give a member of her clerus to her and arrest him.
Then he would see them arrested and judged, but she would work with the law and use the law accordingly.
If this not worked they would use force if need would cut their way to a dozen inquisitors, but none the less must and will face church court and bring the Grand inquisitor to face retribution for this.
If the local churches together aren`t capable to do this, they´re staffed with cowards or are outpowered.

The whole idea of "heroic roleplaying" should be that the ***PCs*** should be the primary ones who do the heroic stuff. Not because the NPCs are cowards or lazy but because, out-of-character, the players get first dibs on the heroism!

Did the Players know they were in heroic roleplaying and not in high action roleplaying.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

It's only because he's playing a Priest of the Supreme Good God. ... I already told the player, however, that there wouldn't be any "divine interference" regardless of what they chose.

Thanks for answering the questions! I'm glad you're not doing the divine retribution thing. I think it's okay to have logical consequences come back to haunt characters based on their in-game actions; just don't single out priests (or only characters with an "alignment code").

Here's another couple of questions:
- Can there be a corrupt priest serving in the temple of the Ultra-Good god?
- Can there be a PC priest of a not-so-good church, who is basically good-hearted and sometimes disagrees with church dogma?

Option #1 would be better. I can understand out-of-character why the player might not want to rescue the former PC -- I just wish he would come up with a better in-character justification for not doing so.

Ok, in that case, I guess my advice boils down to 'consequences derive from actions, not intentions'. In other words, the events in your game world should react to what the PCs do, not why they did it.

If the PCs are seen robbing a store, they will be considered criminals, whether they did it for the cash or to get food for their starving families. If a priest gives money to the poor, the poor will be grateful, whether he did it for good intentions or because his church demands it.

ironregime