What would each class do when you give them the finger?

[Noumenon]

This isn't as humorous a thread as the title would suggest. I actually do want to think about what an NPC of each character class would do when the PCs give them the finger. I've come to see that my players don't enjoy scoring points with NPCs and getting their love and respect. They like to dominate my NPCs verbally, make fun of their gods and their combat prowess, and just stick mud in their eye.

After one too many of my quest-givers was left sputtering and gasping at the impudence (ie, I had no response prepared and couldn't think of one), I decided to change how I make NPCs. I was giving them each a secret or helpful ability the players can "unlock" by gaining reputation with them. (The bartender is feeding information to the pirates. The prostitute can show you the back entrance from the brothel to the king's quarters.) Instead, I am going to start making NPCs with an idea in mind of what they'll do when the party gives them the finger.

After generating a couple generic ideas any NPC could do, I decided to get less generic and find a response that would fit best for an random NPC of each class. You could also go by alignment, but I don't use that much.

So the scenario is: "You have an NPC of class X, up to 3 levels higher than the party. The PCs probably don't know what class or level he is. Instead of taking his quest or asking him nicely, the PCs have told him they won't help him... or the horse he rode in on. What does he say?"

• Fighter: "This calls for a formal duel. Bring a healer, we're going until one of us drops."
  
• Rogue: (bluffs) "OK, let me up the ante." (offers fake magic item) [See, a rogue won't fight, because they have no honor, but they are sneaky.]
  
• Ranger: Does the quest by himself instead. [Rangers are independent.]
  
• Druid: Shapeshifts into a bear and attacks you. [I want to try this one first. Don't mess with Druid-Mayor!] Then he shifts back and apologizes for losing his temper.
  
• Paladin: slaps you or moves as if to strike, then says "No, it is not honorable to fight over insults. But we will not speak again until you have done Quest X to atone for your loose tongue."
  
• Cleric: "When you insult the most holy, he withdraws his favor from you. Do not ask for spells from Kord, you will not receive them."
  
• Monk: (closes eyes, deep breath) "You are disturbing my peace. Control your tongue, or I will teach you some discipline." (then he grapples-pins-prevents you from speaking, or uses Stunning Fist as a neck pinch.)
  
• Sorcerer: "You don't know when you're dealing with true power!" (pyrotechnics)
  
• Bard: (angry chord) "Stop this disharmony." (nice chords) Either "A gentle voice is more persuasive." or "I need music when I get angry," and then fascinate and suggest "Now, be civil."
  
• Wizard: "You idiots! You don't understand!" (makes you look foolish, like turning you into a sheep)
  
• Dragon: "Let's talk about this in private." (snatch, fly)
  
• Dragon (2): "Well, you're not too useful. At least you're tasty."

What do you think? Suitably confrontational? Too likely to devolve into full-on combat? Will the players respect my NPCs again? I often put a quote on an NPC's index card to help remember how to characterize him, is this a better way? Or have I just spent the day at work creating some kind of revenge fantasy on my players? Regardless, it was a fun time.

Do you have any ideas to build on the "how does the NPC respond to a dis" concept?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Do you have any ideas to build on the "how does the NPC respond to a dis" concept?

If I wanted to rely on some of the building blocks of game mechanics, in order to ascertain behaviour patterns, I would rather go with alignment than class.

 

[Noumenon]

Alignment doesn't offer me any useful roleplaying material usually. I can't close my eyes and imagine a "neutral good" person the way I can imagine a "fighter," so I can't stereotype what they're like.

Like in real life, if you asked me to roleplay a person, it would be a lot easier to do an actual role like "car salesman" than a philosophy like "macho selfish."

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yeah, that's fair enough. I mean, whatever works.

Sorry, it probably wasn't very helpful of me, I know. And actually, your idea is interesting, and not one I can remember seeing on forums before. Just goes to show though, how different DMs might approach a given thing.

 

[Noumenon]

Sorry, it probably wasn't very helpful of me, I know.

I was happy you posted, I almost gave you XP! And if anyone wants to explain what each alignment would do when you give them the finger, that would be neat.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Sounds like the PCs are just dicks. Your responses are pretty reasonable, other possibilities would be reducing their pay or some sort of curse/geas, not necessarily permanent. If they carry on this way the only quests they are going to get will be clearing otyughs from the city sewers.

Sorcerer: "You don't know when you're dealing with true power!" (pyrotechnics)

Be wary of Monty Python references if you do this.

 

[Noumenon]

If they carry on this way the only quests they are going to get will be clearing otyughs from the city sewers.

That is brilliant! WORSE QUESTS! Sure you can turn down the chance to save the castle from ogres. Now you will be assigned to owlbear pellet retrieval and examination! I'm gonna fork the thread.

 

[NerfedWizard]

How Each Alignment Reacts

You are a mighty, combat-capable NPC of true power and cunning in a game of AD&D or 3rd/3.5. Some snivelling PC has stuck his middle finger up at you, backwards. How do you react, depending on your alignment?

LAWFUL GOOD:- "You cur, by your insolent tongue you dishonour us both, and you insult the gods you claim to serve, and those whose champion I am! Now I shall put you to the sword for your heresy! Defend yourself, scum! Here, take this sword and we shall fight now!"

PURE GOOD:- "You cur, by your insolent tongue you affront the gods you claim to serve, and those whose champion I am! Though I shall look with sorrow upon your death, I know it is for the greater good, for one who looks with such contempt upon the will of the Divine can inflict only evil upon the world! You have but one chance to kneel and repent, or I shall strike! 3, 2, 1 ... too late! Prepare to die!"

CHAOTIC GOOD:- "Taking the mick out of me and my gods? OK, well, screw the rules, you're clearly a servant of evil," >flick trapdoor button, hole opens up beneath PC's feet<

PURE LAWFUL:- "Then let us fight now, that honour be satisfied! Take up your sword, cur, now, and die!"

NEUTRAL NEUTRAL:- "I see. Watch your back." Leaves and arranges ambush to kill the PC.

CHAOTIC NEUTRAL:- "OK, that's fine. No problem at all." Leaves and arranges ambush to kill the PC.

LAWFUL EVIL:- "Draw your sword and defend yourself cur! Ah, too late, I already have my sword at your throat. I suppose you weren't quick enough." >Thrusts<

PURE EVIL:- "I see. Watch your back." Leaves and arranges assassin to kill the PCs one by one.

CHAOTIC EVIL:- "OK, that's fine. No problem at all." Leaves and arranges assassin to kill the PCs one by one, and all their known friends and associates.

And my players think I'm a bastard - I just don't understand it...

 

[Noumenon]

OK, I'm a fan of the idea that Good people you flip off decide you're Evil, especially if you're refusing their Good quest. But only Lawful gives you a chance to fight back.

Suppose there are laws against actually killing people in a situation where the PCs are merely antagonistic. (I'll edit my druid example to have him drop out of bear form and apologize for losing his temper.) The trapdoor idea is a good one then as it ends the encounter, is a punishment, but isn't really that violent. A less cartoony version would be a hold person trap or something.

I see how you have the chaotic characters say one thing ("that's fine, no problem") and do another. That's actually a pretty good roleplaying tip, as lawful characters wouldn't lie. Now what is it about the Neutrals that makes you think they'd set up an ambush?

 

[kitsune9]

This isn't as humorous a thread as the title would suggest. I actually do want to think about what an NPC of each character class would do when the PCs give them the finger. I've come to see that my players don't enjoy scoring points with NPCs and getting their love and respect. They like to dominate my NPCs verbally, make fun of their gods and their combat prowess, and just stick mud in their eye.

After one too many of my quest-givers was left sputtering and gasping at the impudence (ie, I had no response prepared and couldn't think of one), I decided to change how I make NPCs. I was giving them each a secret or helpful ability the players can "unlock" by gaining reputation with them. (The bartender is feeding information to the pirates. The prostitute can show you the back entrance from the brothel to the king's quarters.) Instead, I am going to start making NPCs with an idea in mind of what they'll do when the party gives them the finger.

After generating a couple generic ideas any NPC could do, I decided to get less generic and find a response that would fit best for an random NPC of each class. You could also go by alignment, but I don't use that much.

So the scenario is: "You have an NPC of class X, up to 3 levels higher than the party. The PCs probably don't know what class or level he is. Instead of taking his quest or asking him nicely, the PCs have told him they won't help him... or the horse he rode in on. What does he say?"

• Fighter: "This calls for a formal duel. Bring a healer, we're going until one of us drops."
  
• Rogue: (bluffs) "OK, let me up the ante." (offers fake magic item) [See, a rogue won't fight, because they have no honor, but they are sneaky.]
  
• Ranger: Does the quest by himself instead. [Rangers are independent.]
  
• Druid: Shapeshifts into a bear and attacks you. [I want to try this one first. Don't mess with Druid-Mayor!] Then he shifts back and apologizes for losing his temper.
  
• Paladin: slaps you or moves as if to strike, then says "No, it is not honorable to fight over insults. But we will not speak again until you have done Quest X to atone for your loose tongue."
  
• Cleric: "When you insult the most holy, he withdraws his favor from you. Do not ask for spells from Kord, you will not receive them."
  
• Monk: (closes eyes, deep breath) "You are disturbing my peace. Control your tongue, or I will teach you some discipline." (then he grapples-pins-prevents you from speaking, or uses Stunning Fist as a neck pinch.)
  
• Sorcerer: "You don't know when you're dealing with true power!" (pyrotechnics)
  
• Bard: (angry chord) "Stop this disharmony." (nice chords) Either "A gentle voice is more persuasive." or "I need music when I get angry," and then fascinate and suggest "Now, be civil."
  
• Wizard: "You idiots! You don't understand!" (makes you look foolish, like turning you into a sheep)
  
• Dragon: "Let's talk about this in private." (snatch, fly)
  
• Dragon (2): "Well, you're not too useful. At least you're tasty."

What do you think? Suitably confrontational? Too likely to devolve into full-on combat? Will the players respect my NPCs again? I often put a quote on an NPC's index card to help remember how to characterize him, is this a better way? Or have I just spent the day at work creating some kind of revenge fantasy on my players? Regardless, it was a fun time.

Do you have any ideas to build on the "how does the NPC respond to a dis" concept?

I like these ideas, particularly the cleric and ranger one. If PC's are going to mouth off, the church will refuse services and I can the ranger saying, "Ah screw it, I'll do it myself."

Another aspect is that PC's who mouth off to NPC's who are not inclined to duke it out can earn a bad reputation with that NPC and others "in the know" about these mouthy and disrespectful PC's. They find themselves "taxed" higher after they completed a quest. They find out that fewer people will hire on with them, goods and services are charged at 2 or 3 times the going rate, particularly when the PC's have insulted a beloved leader of the town or village.

Another angle is that PC's who save a village but have been total jerks find their welcome worn out. After they save the day, they are asked to leave never to return. They don't get the "feast in their honor".

Another take is that after a while of being mouthy, the PC's find out among adventuring circles that they are the butt of many jokes and jests at their expense for being such jerks. Bards sing baudy songs about them, twist the stories of their heroics into blundering from one encounter to the next.

Simply put, PC's who do not take the NPC's they deal with seriously are afforded the same out of treatment. The NPC's won't take the PC's seriously and mostly will consider them amateurish while real heroes are out there doing their thing.

Of course, there are two roads to take once this quid pro quo starts--1) one side takes the high road and let's it slide or buries the hatch, 2) it escalates to a violent conclusion.

I've seen it go both ways. My typical campaign usually has one of the PC's out of the group who gets mouthy with an NPC but the other PC's either apologize or there is some amends. In a 2e campaign I ran, the PC's wanted to be total jerks and the village elders were not going to tolerate it and tried to arrest them for being a public nuisance. After the PC's killed the village elders and constabulary, the villagers formed a mob and drove the PC's out of the village and word spread and became wanted people by order of the king. They had to actually flee to the more lawless parts of the kingdom in order to escape justice. End of campaign.