| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We play a variant of pathfinder first addition with The Eberon Dragonborn concept loosely. Currently we are level 11. In our GMs world it’s an honor to become Dragonborn (you have to gain the favor or attention of a dragon basically to do so).
One of the characters who is newer to gaming was put in an odd predicament. He is a half orc paladin with an identity complex due to his upbringing and the nature of half orcs. Although we aren’t crazy role playing with the back stories that is part of his characters core identity.
His character privately sent a letter to the ruling dragon who is lawful good (like himself of course) without telling us requesting lordship over the land.
He received a response from an envoy who gave him terms and a white scale (from the white dragon ruler) as part of the terms (which were written out by the GM and handed to the player to review privately).
The paladin read the terms, some out loud against the envoys demands not to read it out loud. The paper spoke about a ritual with the scale (which one of our party members has done previously albeit about 5 to 6 months ago in real life to become dragon born )
The GM at this point has stated a large white scale is being given to him of which all of us (but the paladin and rogue AKA husband and wife on real life) knew was a dragon scale. The paladin and rogue assumed it was a scale (like to weigh items).
The paladin (although advised strongly to think on it) immediately agrees to the terms (4-5 terms beyond the ritual requirement) and accepts the scale and signs his name with 2 of the other party members accepting a geiss saying that we would fulfill the requirements.
Due to him accepting terms we are given an airship and a crew of a good size. We spend about 4 hours outfitting the ship.
As we start our journey a day in or two it becomes extremely apparent the player did not realize this was a dragon scale.
He suddenly becomes irate in real life and in character and decides he doesn’t want to become Dragonborn. I explain to him outside of game that we are going to be in huge trouble if we ignore a promise made to a dragon. He doesn’t ask the GM at this point to stop and reverse anything but says he is Going to find a way to get out of it.
I at this point am questioning why a lawful good character would go back n a contract with a lawful good dragon that benefits the well-being of the land in general. But half the team doesn’t comprehend that He thought the stupid scale was a dragon scale.
I feel like at this point the player should have asked to stop and talked through things with the GM but I think he didn’t because he thought ina. Meta way he could just get out of this.
In character I try to persuade him threatening basically (I play a fighter with high intimidation and rolled a 19 or 20) I assumed the GM would play this out differently than an intimidation against an NPC and merely take the time to explain to the player character WHY he should be convinced to follow the contract -the geiss would start hurting part of his party which a lawful good character should not typically choose to hurt his party for the sake of his pride in my opinion. (My fighter is chaotic good and would very much not want to be handicapped or killed by some magic contract just for the sake of the other characters identity issues)
The GM decides to play the intimidate out as on an NPC and makes the character (to my dismay and his) go through the ritual.
Fast forward to the next session.
Angry angry player. Plays it off as his character having been betrayed by a lawful good white dragon who he says “tricked him and isn’t lawful good obviously” because he forced him into doing this and swindled him basically. But there was not any in game swindling by the dragon, it was just the player himself not understand. By those terms the dragon did not actually do anything wrong. He claims his character feels betrayed and doesn’t trust my fighter anymore and purposefully plays behind my back to change the mission take the ship somewhere else and wants to find a way to get back basically at the dragon who has swindled him. The Gm clearly states that the dragon IS lawful good. That it is an honor in this world to be Dragonborn.
The player tells him that he’s wrong obviously.
This short session seems to go alright after we get over that but unfortunately the paladin has completely run away from the mission which we are about to find out is going to also impose side affects from the active geiss.
Beyond the fact try at the GM and the character obviously need to talk this out, how do you think you remedy this level of misunderstanding? We have 4 young kids that can be loud and distracting and they claim that is part of the issue why they didn’t comprehend the situation.
But other than ending the session or completely reversing things and going back from hours of play, what would you do with this type of situation?
I personally feel bad about the way the intimidation played out as I assumed it would provide clarity or suggestions basically from the GM to the player not force someone into doing something.
But I also feel like reversing isn’t fair to everyone else and the Gm shared with me that he doesn’t really want to give that much of a “give me” to this character cause he feels like he’s just throwing a fit. in the world the Gm created all of us should view this ritual as a privilege anyways, and as a blessing basically (which he explained to us how dragons are the sole rulers basically from the beginning and have a high level of respect from all races). He feels the player is basically pissed by the transformation because of the way it’s affecting his stats and not for valid storyline reasons.
Thoughts? I want peace not fighting. I also get how feeling like you are being forced to Change your character ticks people off.
Yes you pretty much understand the situation and sounds like you have the grasp of the characters/players. It’s always so hard for me to summarize well something that took place over hours.
I like the ideas you have here, I hope I can share with the GM to implement something similar!
Human pride (especially between two certain types of personalities) is so complex. I honestly think that’s the biggest issue here.
Thanks for taking the time to read and share your thoughts! Very helpful
Got a little confused along the way, so I may be missing or wrong on a few points. The player of the Paladin thought the "scale" was a measuring scale and not a dragon scale? You caught this at some point, but the other players, and possibly the GM did not?
Assuming I got those parts correct, my next question is, why does that matter? Except for a little embarassment on the part of the confused party, whichever kind of scale it is, presumably he knows that the "scale" was sent on behalf of the dragon that he himself had chosedn to communicate with.
The player of the paladin sounds confused an unreasonable. However, the GM is not handling things well either. Social skills should never be allowed PvP from a mechanics perspective. You should have the chance to role play it out, and you may use the terminology. But player agency should never be taken away from a social skills die roll. That's your GM's big screw up. The punative attitude towards the player of the paladin now is also unhelpful.
All that aside, the paladin player needs to explain what he thought he was agreeing to when he signed the contract, and what he's objecting to now. Arbitrarily deciding the good dragon isn't just because the player is mad isn't going to fly.
There's going to need to be a session (probably a good deal out of character) where everybody gets on the same page. If, once all points are made clear, and the paladin still wants out. The only honorable thing I see to do, is to undertake a quest to find an acceptable replacement canidate to assume the contract. The paladin will also need to do some type of atonement to make up for either his brash actions and/or violating his sworn oath.
This is going to require alot of tact, and probably several one on one conversations. But, if everyone still wants to play, then they're going to have to pull on their big kid pants and work it out. Obviously, that phrase should probably be avoided ;p
The half-orc Paladin player is in the process of becoming a Dragonborn Paladin, right?
Was the player aware that this would change his stats? (It sounds like that's what's happening.)
It sounds like his character is changing in ways he didn't expect and doesn't want that to happen.
Whether it's for "valid storyline reasons" or not, suddenly having your character change (and likely not as optimally as the player wants it to be) when you're not expecting it can suck.
Talk to the player, see if that's what the problem is, and see what they'd think of the situation if their race was changing but not their stats, as that might be a really easy solution. And then, obviously, talk to the GM about it and see if they're good with that compromise.
Has the player indicated what he thinks the dragon has done to swindle him?
If he misunderstood it was a dragon scale then he may have misunderstood something else of the situation as well.
If the dragon is extending an honorable transformation to a person who clearly doesn't want it, why can't the dragon just rescind the offer and cancel the geas?
It really sounds like the player was confused by the circumstances happening to his character, and some bad decisions were made all the way around. Agree with other posters that you should not have social dice roll affect PCs when roleplay is involved.
Time for GM and player to have a chat and decide if the game should pursue this if the player really doesn't want to change his character. If he doesn't, then have a roleplay session with the dragon (or its envoy, or whatever) where the offer gets rescinded. I don't know that the dragon wants these other people to choose for it who gets the offer or not. That seems weird to me. The dragon should choose who gets the offer. Maybe another party member is worthy, so the GM doesn't lose all the prep time for whatever adventure they had in mind? Good luck!
1. This issue exists outside of the game and should be handled outside of the game.
2. Anyone who's not having fun or is being made to feel uncomfortable needs to speak with any of the other players that are involved/the GM.
3. A CHARACTER'S misunderstanding can be an interesting story element. A PLAYER'S misunderstanding cannot. I'd hit rewind and make sure everyone is on the same page from then on.
4. I disagree with the above comments on social skills not working on other players. Intimidate improves the target's attitude toward you now and then worsens it later. Okay. So someone successfully intimidates your character. You're inclined to view them more favorably (in a sense) for this scene, and can be surly and sulky later. There's very little loss of agency there; just an outside stimulus changing what you may be inclined to do or say. No different than an enemy braced for a charge "takes away your agency" in that maybe you don't want to charge them, now.
Granted, that's all fairly advanced TTRPG stuff, and it takes reasonable, mature players in a safe space to do it.
The Intimidate skill works on PCs because its use to demoralize gives the victim the shaken condition, which imposes well defined mechanical penalties. I don't think I would have a problem with the GM telling a player whose PC is successfully intimidated that he must either do what is demanded or become shaken.
|
Agree with all said above: this has to be solved off-table by person to person talk (not character to character).
Also if the Dragon is LG he would be probably being reasonable and if the character explains that this was a mistake, the dragon would cancel the contract (he is still Lawful GOOD, not Lawful neutral/evil - and pressing someone into something against his will, is definetly no good action^^)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like we always say: Kill the characters, raise them as undead.
Regardless of whether this works, kill the players (and GM) and raise them as undead.
Wasn't quite sure if'n everything got resolved peacefully (or not) at the table... but mebbe one reasonable change to the Half-Orc's Oath might be that one of the Half-Orc's direct future progeny hasta go all "Dragonborny" instead... ;p
Yikes, ShadowcatX.
All this talk of alignment and oaths doesn't fly with me. You swore an oath. Keep it. That's how oaths work.
...but you should understand what's going on, as you swear it. Maybe the player wasn't paying close attention. Maybe the GM was unclear. Whatever it was, it was an issue at the table, not within the game. And come on, the idea of "oh, you misunderstood the oath you swore? Too bad/okay never mind." -- either way, it's lame. Whatever epic, fantastic-ness the story had a moment ago, it's gone now. Because we're trying to fix a table issue within the story. Time to cut and take 2.
As for the "PVP" of intimidating another player, I can see how that's not acceptable at some tables, but I think making such a harsh judgement like the above is a severe overreaction. I don't know your table and we don't know the OP's. At mine, that sort of thing would be fine. My players are mature, sensible and know how to create a safe space for each other.
Also, I just have to say: I disagree completely about a LG dragon. I would tend to view dragons as more pure examples of their alignment, and a lot more "might makes right". A lawful good dragon is Good, but it's also Lawful, and "nice" is not part of either axis. I feel it would be totally acceptable for such a creature to value the big picture and structure over an individual's comfort or preference. But that is neither here. nor there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...if someone leaves an abusive marriage they can't possibly be lawful good because they broke an oath? That doesn't fly with me.
Nor I. This feels like a presumptuous and passive-aggressive straw man.
The real world could not possibly run under an alignment system like Pathfinder. Good and Evil are not tangible forces that help make up the structure of reality. If someone is going to say "this guy, GOOD, that guy, BAD", then they have automatically simplified the concept of good vs. evil pretty substantially.To add to my original statement, oaths can be absolved in some cases. So there's that. But just "I signed on the X, but I didn't read all the fine print and now I have regrets, I call takesies-backsies" doesn't "fly with me" in a sword and sorcery-style game any more than your example does in real life.
I would argue that mature players would respect one another's decisions and not try to force others to play the way they demand by using PVP, and specifically misusing skills to do so. But that's just me and my games.
First: picking up on a lot of passive-aggression again. Second: as I said earlier, the Intimidate skill was not used correctly, so you have no argument here in that area. Third: players can respect each other's choices while also understanding that a character is not a player. I've had characters lie/persuade/threaten and even physically strike one another because it felt like something that they would do (being a bunch of emotionally unstable vagabonds who have become desensitized to violence, have endured countless pains and horrors and have spent Way Too Much time in close proximity to one another), and the players on both ends (a) felt safe enough to portray that and (b) had enough sense to know not to take it too far.
Viewing the "big picture" by forcing others to make sacrifices they are not okay with is not lawful good.
It could be. Alignment is a vast sea of grey mud. I'm not here to try and shove My Version of the alignments down your throat. But your version isn't necessarily the same as the OP's or their GM, and it certainly isn't the "right" or "best" way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, you're picking up on passive aggression? I agree. I started sensing it with "yikes" and then went on to talk about how his mature players can handle things that I set off limits like having pvp is a mark of maturity. It came through super loud in the last paragraph.
I don't want to derail the whole thread, but I would like to address this. First, I apologize for coming across as passive-aggressive. Such was not my intent. "Yikes" wasn't me trying to take a shot at you without seeming like I was. That was me going "whoa, this seems a little harsh". That's all.
And when I said a mature player can handle some of the more complicated/delicate elements of the game, I wasn't saying "mature=good" and "immature=bad".I've played this game with a vast array of people, mature and immature, young and old, fantasy nerds and people barely interested at all. It can be an age thing, a personality thing (both of one person or how two or more interact) or a mess of other stuff, and sometimes different people will be more or less mature at different times in different situations. It's just another trait that influences the kind of games a player wants and enjoys, along with system mastery, acting ability, etc.
And finally, my "lecture" on my standard group was an illustration of my point, which is simply that player-vs-player CAN and HAS worked for some of us, so hostile and sweeping statements like "the next time you roll dice against another player character you're out of the game, no ands, ifs, or buts; just pack your stuff and go" feel unnecessary, give just how little we know about the OP's table.
Honestly? I agree, for the most part. Just because PVP can work doesn't mean it needs to be present in a game, just like any other story or game element. And for most tables, it's just easier to avoid it and keep things running smoothly.
It's a game, real world stuff doesn't apply is such a cop out.
I would generally agree. Argumentum ad Fireballum.
Rapists, child molestors? Yup, those people are evil in game and out of it.
This is a very simplified view of the world. I don't disagree with the core of it, but it's just too watered down to be of any real use to anyone.
But more importantly, it has nothing to do with what I was saying. Again.Pathfinder is a game that rigidly defines Good and Evil, within its setting. Angels are Good. Devils are Evil. They're pure and uncomplicated.
I'm not saying you can't have some very area in a game like Pathfinder, but it's definitely a LOT easier to draw a line in the sand than it is in real life. Morality is a subject humankind has been discussing since it was humankind. It's not one that's easily pinned down, you know?
Except in a fictional world where we're definitively told what Good and Evil mean.
At any rate, I stand by what I said: PVP has its (niche) place, and this is a problem that occurred outside of the narrative of the game, and should be handled accordingly.