sabbacc108's page

(Carl, Caleb's GM, chiming in again)

When the first confrontation happened and you as a player were out of wits and could not properly verbal defend you actions, did you guys try Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate?

If you character can stay in character (which seems like they can), that could diffuse the current situation for the time being (of course, the other character might feel worse later on if they feel they were decieved). My group who has been gaming for 30 years has used this at times for multiple situations, characters, games, etc.

One of the things I like about the CHA based skills is they can make determinations for our characters where we might not be so skilled, or the character might be completely different from our real world counterparts.

I actually suggested to the Paladin that he do a diplomacy check on Cosimo, but the player refused.

Also, since it seems to have become an oft-misquoted point, I NEVER told anyone that Caleb should keep his character and the rest of the party should re-roll. Never. It is true that Caleb's character is important to the plot at this point, but so is everyone else. Several people have made poorly-informed speculation about what kind of game I run; let me lay it out for you:
My primary concern is character development. We are a very RP-heavy group, and several times have had entire sessions without any combat whatsoever. I always try to integrate individual character backstories into the overall plot, and frequently adapt events to be more meaningful to individual PCs. I also am not averse to presenting my PCs with dilemmas or situations that may be difficult for their character. As far as I have known, this has been both welcomed and enjoyed by the members of my group: the common maxim has been "If it makes your character more interesting to play, it's good."
If anyone had ever come forward to me with concerns about how the game was going, or how other players were behaving, I would have addressed their concerns immediately---but nobody did.

With regards to favoritism, though it hasn't been brought up before, I should explain now that I have been trying to give the other players plenty of time in the spotlight as well. The Paladin has probably had the most attention given of anyone, with numerous characters and side-plots written in to give him a chance to develop as a character---also, his "lawful stupid" actions have put the party in real danger numerous times. The Gunslinger has, due to a character trait, experienced a number of prescient dreams which have given numerous minor spoilers regarding dangers the party is soon to face; though comments by her regarding said dangers have been made frequently, her character has never explained how she has this knowledge (the player finally explained in one session: "character trait," and left it at that).

Re: Alignments
In the current party, there are (to my knowledge) only two explicitly Good characters: the Paladin (LG) and the Magus (NG).
The Druid, as one might expect, is True Neutral. The Gunslinger is "mmmghfNeutralmmmgfh"---and with money (and the continual, unimpeded acquisition thereof) being her prime motivator, some might say she bordered on an Evil alignment. Cosimo's alignment has been much dicussed, though I am in agreement that for a while now it has been hovering in the Neutral Good range---that his past and present business dealings should require him to work amicably with people of implicitly or explicitly Evil alignments ought to surprise no one, especially in a campaign like legacy of Fire, and in a city like Katapesh.

p.s. Re: Giving the Paladin a vision from Sarenrae
That was actually part of my plan, come next session---I unfortunately did not think of it at the moment the conflict began (though I did try to discourage him in other ways, to the point of telling him that he was getting close to falling from Paladinhood if he followed through with certain actions).

p.p.s.
Believe me, I have no intention of letting Cosimo do anything to deceive the party further.

p.p.p.s. @Lune
I never stepped in and controlled the actions of any PC, with the exception of Caleb's character---and that was only when he specifically asked me to do it.---even then, it was only for a few rounds. The reason I let things go so far was specifically because I didn't want to railroad the characters. When I finally stepped in with NPCs, it was because it was clear to me that the conflict was not going to be resolved otherwise. Nevertheless, no NPC ever forced one of the PCs to do anything.

Also, regarding Cosimo's behavior, it is worth mentioning that, early in the campaign (i.e. through much of Book 1) Cosimo did make small threats and derogatory comments toward other player characters. However, after working with the other characters, growing to trust them (and after a little talking-to from me to Caleb about toning down the negative aspects of his character) he has completely stopped that sort of behavior; since it was an important aspect of his character, it was also wholly appropriate at the time, given his inherent distrust of people outside the Ratfolk community. Furthermore, Caleb had apologized to the group about the way his character had been behaving, explained his reasons for doing so, and had assured them that it was at an end.
Even if it could be justified that some of the other characters might still not trust Cosimo (in fact, the Gunslinger freely admitted---in character---that she didn't really trust anyone in the party), I expected that the other players would trust Caleb enough to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Lune, while I can see your point, I want to reiterate that I am generally very open as a GM about what I do. I go to great lengths to let the players know that they can trust me, and that I won't try to trick them or cause them to fail. So, from my point of view, the simple act of allowing the other players to know that there was confidential communication going on should have been enough for them to know that they didn't have to worry. Because if I really was plotting with another player to f@*@ with them, they would never, ever know until it was too late. It would have been all too easy to keep everything completely hidden---in a previous campaign with this same group, the GM at the time (the guy currently playing the Paladin) did exactly that, communicating with another player outside game sessions to plot that player's character turning on the party at a crucial moment. Everyone was completely taken aback then, because there was no visible evidence that anything out of the ordinary was going on.

That wasn't the case here.

As Cosimo pointed out to his teammates in-character, he had never actually done anything that wasn't to the benefit of the party; he had, on the contrary, put himself at considerable risk of loss of life in order to help the other party members.
While the Gunslinger and Paladin expressed concerns that Cosimo might be being influenced by some evil force, they found no evidence of that; furthermore, their proposed solution was having Caleb roll a new character; the Paladin went so far as to say (though it wasn't clear whether it was in or out of character) that he "saw no real reason to continue adventuring with Cosimo," and this sentiment seemed to be echoed by other players.

I don't know about you, but telling someone that they should "be prepared to roll a new character" is not a call that players should be making---that is strictly a GM call in my world, but they overstepped that boundary without consulting me first.

Again, I should shoulder the brunt of the blame, since I chose to let the other players know that there was something secret going on.

Well, I guess it's time for me to step in.

Hi, my name is Carl, and I'm CalebTGordan's GM.
I should come right out and say that I'm at least partially to blame for the situation that occurred during our last gaming session; though some of the people on this forum seem to find it hard to believe, CalebTGordan has been running everything he has planned for his character by me ahead of time---and I have been, in turn, giving him suggestions as to things which he should try, and as to which things he has planned will and will not work.
CalebTGordan is probably the most knowledgeable and experienced player I know, and it goes without saying that I trust him completely both in and out of game. Because of that, I have been using him to help me in directing the plot of the campaign---entrusting him with information and responsibilities beyond what the other players are expected to handle. Again, I did this because I trust him---trust him to keep player knowledge and character knowledge separate; trust him to sacrifice what he might want for the good of the game. I know that he would never willingly do anything to jeopardize a friendship.

Of course, anyone can make mistakes.

That being said, the very minor mistake that CalebTGordan (as Cosimo) made in NO WAY justified the actions of the other players. In spite of what some of you may believe, He was in no way being a jerk; perhaps his character had some attitude, but it was completely in character for him to behave as such, and the other party members presented little reason for him to do otherwise. I was genuinely shocked at the lengths to which the other players stooped---particularly the Paladin. Within the space of a few minutes, there was a sharp turnaround as two of the players completely ganged up on another, and once they had turned down that path, nothing that was said or done gave any indication of swaying them from the unspoken consensus they had clearly reached.

Probably the most disturbing part of the whole scenario was that for a portion of the session, CalebTGordan actually handed control of his character over to me; since it was made fairly clear that this was done for plot reasons, the fact that the other players not only continued but dramatically escalated their behavior indicated that they not only didn't trust CalebTGordan---they also didn't trust ME as a GM.
If a player starts causing a problem, it's the job of the GM to try and fix it as soon as possible. I assume that any player worth his salt knows and expects this. As has been pointed out, we've been playing with mostly the same group for a long time now, and given my history with these players (particularly my penchant for painstakingly setting up mind-bending plot reveals), I would expect them to have a certain faith that I'm not jerking them around for no reason (and that I won't let legitimate character-driven decisions cause them to "lose").
So, the fact that neither player caught the cue to back off when I stepped in the first time bothered me a bit---but I let it slide, since they were just roleplaying their characters.

Except that they really weren't. Not both of them, at least.

If anybody had justification for what was done, it was the Gunslinger. I'll admit that certain aspects of her character background made it more likely to act the was she did. I certainly didn't anticipate it, but in hindsight I probably should've.
However, the Paladin of the party stepped far outside the bounds of appropriate behavior---I can honestly say that a Lawful Good character (and a paladin, especially) had no right or reason to behave the way he did. The worst part about it was that the player seemed to see nothing wrong with his actions, even when the specifics were pointed out to him---there were even a number of off-color and even sadistic comments made (passed off afterward as being out-of-character or "jokes") which did absolutely nothing to alleviate my concerns over the growing tension in the room.

I believe it has been said before, but I'll say it again: the characters had no real evidence to hold against Cosimo; they had suspicions, yes, but ones based mostly on drastic (and possibly willful) misinterpretation of in-game events. No one tried very hard to find out any real information; lack of evidence against Cosimo was interpreted as evidence in itself, a rather slippery slope. Players were also making a great many decisions based on things they personally could observe---primarily the passing of notes and out-of room conversations. However, instead of trying to ask me about things I was clearly influencing, they attacked another player---another player who, honestly, had only a slightly better understanding of what was going on than anyone else did, but who was willing to go out on a limb because of trust.

I could go on, but I don't think it will be very productive; suffice it to say, the actions (or inaction) of every player and character in our last session are going to have consequences. That includes myself. I don't believe there was any way anyone could have foreseen what happened; some forum members here may feel otherwise, but YOU WEREN'T THERE. This was an important learning experience for me, and reminded me how much I still have to learn. In the end, I don't think that any lasting harm was done; there won't be any friendships threatened here---or if there are, it won't be on CalebTGordan's head. The one thing I can say for certain is that I probably put too much weight on one player's head---I did it because it was easy for me, and because I didn't anticipate it causing any problems. Apparently, I was wrong, and everybody suffered for it. Still, there are a lot of possible positive building blocks which can be taken from this, and a lot of character development which will now be pushed to the forefront. If nothing else, this is good to have been gotten out of the way, because I can't imagine having a worse session, so there's nowhere to go but up.

If any of you here feel the inclination to further criticize CalebTGordan, I suggest you reconsider, and leave such matters to the appropriate authority (in this case: ME), and direct any concerns to such.

Thank you.