Is he roleplaying or just making intimidate rolls?
You should ask him to roleplay how he does it before rolling to see what he says to people and making NPCs react properly. An intimidate check might be the character threatening the NPCs but it might also be more subtle. Depending on what he's doing NPCs should react. Even if they are too scared to do something at that moment it doesn't mean that the NPC doesn't tell others about the PC's behavior or try to have that character punished.
Intimidating is not necesarily unlawful. Actually, many leaders rule with fear. But openly doing it has consequences. Just be consequent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the behavior is bothering you, you should definitely talk about it. And talk about it before instituting in-game consequences. Given that he's new to tabletop RPGs, trying to "punish" him is probably just going to backfire. In fact, trying to "punish" players in general backfires.
I would leave alignment out of it for the time being (alignment arguments are rarely productive).
"After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities."
Point out that line to your friend. Suggest that eventually, he's going to provoke the townspeople to the point where no one will do business with him--or worse. Since you can't intimidate multiple people at once (with a few exceptions), once they get fed up, they might form a mob. That would end the campaign right quick.
And even if they don't form a mob, eventually the sheriff or all the merchants are going to hire somebody to deal with this guy--somebody who is much more powerful.
Not only that, but you might also point out that he and the party might need the townsfolk to be helpful (or at least not unfriendly) somewhere down the line. Adventure Paths tend to be written so that the more friends you make, the easier time you have of it. You don't want to be fleeing back to Sandpoint from an army of goblins, only to find the sheriff has decided to bar the gates to you for being a greedy thug...
One really important thing with GMing (IMO) is setting expectations. Your friend might not realize that in Pathfinder this kind of behavior will have negative consequences--in many video games, you can bully everyone you meet, and they respond with the same canned phrase every time anyway.
Lastly, I'd frame it as a choice--rather than dictating his actions, make sure he knows that bullying via Intimidate will have campaign consequences. And let the past actions be past actions, if he wants to change his approach. And point out how he can demoralize enemies in combat as well, using Intimidate--maybe even look up a few of those feats that help with that in combat. That way he can flex his muscles to scare bad guys, instead of the locals.
Sometimes players feel rewarded when you are trying to punish them because you are giving them a good fight. My advice is, if you want to be consequent, start with roleplaying options. I had characters kicked out of places for being rude to the wrong people: «you are not welcome here». They had the chance to apologize, if they didn't they missed some scenes just because their characters weren't there because of their actions.
He might be intimidating so many people because he feels like it's the easier way to get things done. Don't make it be the easy way.
He might get some effective response at first time, because they fear him, but when the intimidate effect is gone, they won't be happy and that characters are going to be unfriendly after that.
Edit: Ninja'ed with a much better answer than mine.
There are many interesting builds around intimidate if he wants to go that way, even though they require many feats and I'm not sure it's a good option for that character mechanics wise.
And if he really enjoys intimidating people, you can just let him do it from time to time as long as he chooses wisely when to do it.
This is not the behavior of a lawful neutral character. This is the equivalent of a person in the real world going into a liquor store and pulling a gun to get his booze at half off. If I had a character in my game who did this the merchant would be going to the authorities reporting a robbery.
Also using intimidate to change a person’s attitude takes a full minute. During this time their attitude has not changed so they can act any way they want. Unless the target of the intimidate is for some reason unable, or unwilling to act they can still do so. So when he tries to intimidate the sheriff, the sheriff cans still deicide to attack the character. This would also fall under the modern charges of threatening an officer of the law and resisting arrest.
While a lawful character does not have to obey all local laws they do have to follow a code. What code is the monk following? I doubt he is following a code that allows him to rob people and completely ignore local law enforcement. I also doubt that the sheriff would be considered an enemy which is a common out for a lawful character to disregard local authorities.
I disagree with what Tableflip McRaguit says about ignoring alignment issues. I think what you need to do is to have a talk with your player about what is and is not lawful behavior. Monks have an alignment restriction so unless you are house ruling that away he should be adhering to it.
the Sheriff is something like a Fighter 4 with some grunts. Why wouldn't he just arrest the monk for insulting a law officer. A night in jail should make the player reconsider.
I'm a new DM, my first session was roughly a month ago. Started off playing with 3 friends at first, and then 2 more eventually jumped on board. One of the newer additions decided to make a monk, this is his first time ever playing any sort of table top game but he is very familiar with video game rpg's. Monk has always seemed to be his default since Everquest.
Anyway to the point, he's a LN monk and uses intimidate every chance he gets. Running Rise of the Runelords and the first thing he did upon getting to Sandpoint was intimidating every merchant he encountered for a better deal. The Sheriff would like to talk to them? Nope he intimidates the Sheriff with a high roll to shut up. Now it seems like this is going to continue, I feel there should be some negative consequences for this. Would constantly intimidating affect his Lawful alignment?
Keep in mind, this is also a very good friend of mine. I realize this is all new to him and maybe I should sit down and talk to him about it. Or maybe there isn't even an issue at all, like I said I'm a first time DM. Any input is appreciated. Thanks
Intimidate to force someone's attitude to "friendly" on a temporary basis requires 1 minute of conversation, after which they resent you. Exactly like the merchants in your example did. And they called the guards to deal with the monk afterwards.
Where you made the mistake is that the guards showed up, and you allowed the player to use intimidate to change attitude again. That's not what happened. What happened is the guards came and attempted to arrest him, giving him no time to try to intimidate, or if he did it was to demoralize not to change attitude.
NPCs don't have to stand there and listen to his speech.
So, do it again. Except now for intimidating the local guard the entire town's guardsmen come to arrest him and throw him in jail for a bit.
It's heavy handed, but it will teach the player a lesson.
If you want slightly more subtlety with your friend, explain out of game this issue as you see it. You are running how intimidate works incorrectly, and the player is trying to use it incorrectly. Explain to him his actions have consequences, and if he continues this sort of action he's going to get himself run out of town/arrested. Also explain to him that this type of action (not necessarily intimidate itself) intimidating merchants into giving a discount and intimidating the local sheriff into leaving him alone are unlawful acts which will jeopardize the lawful nature of the character which would prevent him from taking further levels in monk (if he continues to do so).
Since this is new to the player it is likely he just isn't thinking about it or thinking it through. A lot of video games don't have this kind of connection between player actions and response of the game world so some players simply don't think that their actions have real consequences. They're used to a NPC saying something about them being mean but nothing else happening. They're certainly not used to the entire town trying to arrest/imprison/kill them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with what Tableflip McRaguit says about ignoring alignment issues. I think what you need to do is to have a talk with your player about what is and is not lawful behavior. Monks have an alignment restriction so unless you are house ruling that away he should be adhering to it.
I said "for the time being."
My point in postponing a direct confrontation over alignment issues was that alignment spawns arguments that don't address the immediate concern. Also, alignment debates can lead to a GM vs. PC mindset, wherein the GM is seen as a moral arbiter, "punishing" the player for violating the GM's interpretation of ethics.
How many heated, vehement alignment threads are there on these messageboards? And how many of them resolve anything to anyone's satisfaction?
It seemed easier (and more practical) to start the conversation about the use of Intimidate, rather than wading into the contentious and judgmental field of alignment determination.
Additionally, alignment is a holistic concern that is too easily mapped to real-world morality--and can therefore trigger all of those reactions (defensive and offensive) that being confronted with moral admonishment can in the real world.
It just seems more constructive to me to say: "Hey, your use of this particular rule mechanic is going to potentially cause RP issues in this particular game. Here's how."
Instead of: "Your character is ethically compromised and should lose all his class abilities. I've prepared a list of things you can't do without becoming a commoner in a gi."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's heavy handed, but it will teach the player a lesson.
And who is this fun for?
I don't mean to keep harping on this, but the original poster made it clear both they and the player are new to their respective roles in the game. And good friends. Why jump right to "Imma punish you miscreant!" at-table behavior, when you can talk about it away from the table.
Once you go down the road of "punishing" your friends for playing the game wrong, it becomes hard to de-escalate the situation. Why not try a friendly conversation out of character first?
Did you notice my suggestion for the more subtle approach?
Admittedly, I did suggest the harsher punishment first because I just woke up a little while ago and my initial instinct when I see a player being an ass is to kick them from the game/punish them. Of course, that is for experienced players who should know better. I did initially miss the part about the player being brand new to table top RPGs and only read it as the GM being new. I really hate when experienced players try to take advantage of inexperienced GMs.
However, I stand by my initial suggestion if this was an experienced player. They should know the rules, know that actions have consequences (unlike many video games), and sometimes need a good in character reminder of this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...my initial instinct when I see a player being an ass is to kick them from the game/punish them.
This kind of loaded language seems unhelpful and unwarranted based solely on the original post. Why go right to "the player is being an ass" when you have only this single piece of evidence? Why not give everyone in the situation the benefit of the doubt?
And how did Tableflip McRagequit become the calm voice of reason and effortful empathy?
...my initial instinct when I see a player being an ass is to kick them from the game/punish them.This kind of loaded language seems unhelpful and unwarranted based solely on the original post. Why go right to "the player is being an ass" when you have only this single piece of evidence? Why not give everyone in the situation the benefit of the doubt?
And how did Tableflip McRagequit become the calm voice of reason and effortful empathy?
As I said, early morning. I'm not a nice person when I wake up.
As I said, early morning. I'm not a nice person when I wake up.
Breakfastableflip!
Also being a friend doesn't get you out of trouble. A police needs to arrest his friends if they break the law. Plus as mentioned, it takes to long to intimidate.
This character is not a paladin so violating his alignment will not cause him to lose any class abilities. I am not even saying that his alignment should shift, but rather saying the player should be warned that if he keeps this up his alignment will shift. And if his alignment shifts to something that is not lawful he will not be able to gain anymore level s in monk.
What the GM needs to do is to have a serious discussion on alignments with the player. This does not have to be a bad thing and the player may not even realize what he is doing is not what his character should be doing. Since the player is new to table top gaming give him the benefit of the doubt and don’t punish him anymore for what he has done. But having a serious discussion about this type of behavior is something that has to happen or it will continue. This is not picking on the player but helping to understand what the game is about and to grow as a player. The way I look at it is that experienced players have a responsibility to newer player s to help them learn.
I agree with Claxon that if this was an experienced player a much tougher approach would be warranted.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with what Tableflip McRaguit says about ignoring alignment issues. I think what you need to do is to have a talk with your player about what is and is not lawful behavior. Monks have an alignment restriction so unless you are house ruling that away he should be adhering to it.
I said "for the time being."
My point in postponing a direct confrontation over alignment issues was that alignment spawns arguments that don't address the immediate concern. Also, alignment debates can lead to a GM vs. PC mindset, wherein the GM is seen as a moral arbiter, "punishing" the player for violating the GM's interpretation of ethics.
I agree with Tableflip McRagequit, that conflict over alignment issues is rarely helpful. One way to raise the issue without confrontation or accusation is to ask the player to define their character's "code." What does their alignment mean to them, and how do they embody that.
That way, the player can set expectations, and the GM can point out when the character isn't meeting those expectations with a "Would [character] really do that here? You said earlier that they..."
Getting into arguments about alignment conflict is a lot different than having a discussion. When a player is playing a class that has alignment restrictions on it both the player and the GM should agree beforehand how that alignment will be handled in the game. That is the best way to avoid conflicts about alignment.
I have no problem with a lawful character having their own code of conduct they follow that may differ from others. But I cannot think of a lawful neutral code that would allow for a person to threaten a person with violence unless they give them a discount. I could possibly see a lawful evil code allowing this. But in any case that does not look to be what happened. What looks like did happen is the character went into a shop and threatened to beat the shop keeper up if he was not given a discount.
It is also best to handle any conflicts between the player and GM when the first happen. The worst thing you can do is to let it slide until it becomes a problem. If you let the situation build up it often becomes a lot worse than if it were handled right away. This way the player has not invested a lot of time and effort into something that is going to have to be changed. It is a lot harder to change an established character than a new one. I have had situations were a GM has made a ruling on a character that pretty much made it so it was no longer what I wanted to play. If he had told me at the start of the campaign I could have easily changed that aspect of the character. Changing it at 10th level was just too much so I brought in a new character instead of trying to use the original character.