TheRPGSite

Background, short version: A player feels he got treated unfairly by my resurrection requirements.

long version: The party consists of one good and four neutral characters. I'm playing the Dungeon Adventure path, as I mentioned elsewhere. The party came upon a greater basilisk and got turned to stone. All of them except one neutral character whose player arrived late. Now, they pleaded to me to think of something, anything. And so I brought in an NPC they know, a celestial, who is quite invested in their quest for her own reasons. I told the players that there would be a way, but not without payment.

So the angel offered to de-stone the three neutral characters if they pledged to follow the path of good from now on (an atonement-like effect). One player, who plays a neutral assassin (possible IMC), didn't agree to these terms, so his body was made flesh, but his soul departed – death. Which, of course, meant that the cleric could raise him.

However, we treat resurrection as something special (and for the record, we use Andy Collins's system where you don't lose a level, but gain a negative one until you complete a quest or gain a level). So I basically gave that player orders from his patron god. Orders that he very much liked, I might add. However, part of these orders was that he had to always identify himself as this god's follower. I gave him the choice of having a prominent tattoo (forehead, palm, lower arm) or a heavy chain around the neck. In any case, one magic item slot would be used up.

(Just to tally: 2 players get de-petrified and turn from neutral to good / 1 player gets raised (negative level, already lost), a cool quest (in his own words), and loss of one item slot.

The point of this post: Just now he complained on our group's forum that he feels he's being treated unfairly, since the other players didn't lose a slot, and since the angel actually killed him, he's even thinking about going after her. I told him that being good not only means that the players have to change their characters, but that spells like Unholy Blight now can be really dangerous to them. I've got a feeling he won't listen.

So, the question: What would you do? I like this player, and I also like that he usually plays his characters to the core, even if most of his characters are as indecisive as he is :) He's the role-player to our tactician, and as we got a great mix in our group, his presence would be surely missed. So "kick him out" might not be the best road.

I'm always in danger of being too soft on players, though, so here I am, turning on you to mock me and still reinforce my decision.

(In case you want to know the full requirements: The character (even before) was on the verge of becoming a fanatical Helm follower (god of guards). I now told him to always wear Helm's badge, to punish those who defy Helm's will and leave Helm's mark behind, and to only follow orders from Helm's own. I'll try and turn him into a maniac assassin killing everybody the high priestess points at over the course of the campaign, but he doesn't know that yet. Oh, and despite loving the idea of an eye branded into his palm (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/FR_ART/HolySymbols/Helmsymbol.jpg), he didn't want to lose his gloves of dexterity, so he chose the chain.)

I just had an idea myself. What if I took his chain and instead turned one half of his face into a scarred landscape resembling a gauntlet. He wouldn't give up a slot but take, say, -2 to bluff, diplomacy, (spot?)...

but I don't want to encourage him any more than I already did. And believe me, I did. (in the past)

So the options were: accede to angel's demands and become good, or be ressurrected (and take a hit). He knew the rules for ressurrection, he knew that there would probably be a penalty for not giving into the angel. Plus, he got a quest which he feels to be cool tailored for his character.

Given that, I'd tell him he's being lame. His negative level is based entirely on his own decision and if anyone else had made that decision, they would have a negative level too. He also got a quest out of the deal which fits his character. Everyone else, however, has to wrestle with a new alignment, is vulnerable to certain spells now, and may be handicapped in what they can do later.

I wouldn't kick him out immediately but the most I would do for him is explain that the ruling is fair. I mean, if everyone except him had decided not to go in on the angel's request and they all got a negative level, would he expect that his character would get a negative level "just to be fair"? If he continued to complain.... *shrug* How desperately do you need him for your campaign, and how much do you want to antagonize your other players by catering to him?

Edit: Misread and thought he was complaining about the level, not the slot. Do you plan on having "cool quests" tied to "problems on your character sheet" consistently? If so, then leave it as it is. If not.... Then he has a legitimate complaint.

Well, I always look for the most interesting outcome.  The player feels like he's being treated unfairly - so let him react how he wants to react.  What if he says "I don't care, I'm not going to be Helm's toady anymore" and throws the symbol away?  Maybe Helmites would come after him, or Helm would inflict a curse on him?  Most importantly how does the player character feel about the situation?  Does he want to play out his character rebellion against his god because he feels forced into service?

You said he's the roleplayer, so don't worry so much about slots and stuff.  Give him some consequences and choices to play out and he'll be in hog heaven.  Don't just wave it away or lessen it to stop him from whining, give him some real conflict over it.

The solution that I would use would be this:

Give the tatoo/chain some kind of in-game effect.  You could also change it to have some kind of plot effect instead.  By giving the 'slot' some kind of significance apart from the actual resurrection it will probably be more worthwhile to the player.  Also, he probably won't feel like he's lost something in the trade for having 'played his character' properly.

Quote from: Lady LakiraEdit: Misread and thought he was complaining about the level, not the slot. Do you plan on having "cool quests" tied to "problems on your character sheet" consistently? If so, then leave it as it is. If not.... Then he has a legitimate complaint.

Some players get quests, others don't. Two of my players don't want any quests or character-specific stuff, so they don't get it. The other three do. Our Tyr cleric had to judge on several cases, make nice with the nobility and somehow gain his church some followers. The wizard was resurrected as a kobold and stumbled upon a kobold warren in the city (with goblin servants) he's now trying to wrest control of.

The in-game solution is cool.

Quote from: FinairaThe solution that I would use would be this:

Give the tatoo/chain some kind of in-game effect.

I agree, give the tattoo an in-game effect that offsets the lack of a magic item in that slot. It could even grow more powerful as he levels up.

Huh. In game effect = cool. Though I wouldn't make it a "level up" kind of thing because then it has the potential to become more powerful than the magic item that would normally use that slot, unless it was well-designed.

If the in-game effect reflects the characters devotion/lack of devotion to Helm, you could make it more apparent as he begins to follow the teachings of Helm more closely.  Or perhaps it could change into a sign of Helm's displeasure if the character messes up.  It would sort of depend on the kind of control you want to have over that player's character.

This is begining to sound a lot like rewarding a player for getting his character killed (in either a good or bad way).

Not my way of doing things. Frankly I would have left him stone when he turned down the Angel.

Not true, I would have left them all stone and sent the Angel off to find better proxies.

Given all the decisions in the first post, I'd stick to my guns.


Note: I don't know the players involved or the GM. I wasn't at the game table. So the only opinion I can give is one of my own that I would use in my groups.

So the characters are turned good, what's to stop them from turning back to neutral again?  If there is nothing to stop them then whatever cruelty you've inflicted on this player should also be temporary.  If their turn to good is perminent then so should his affliction for not going with the celestials wishes.

Personally, I'd look at the player and ask what he was on about.

Over here is the stuff he got.  Over there is the cost he paid.  If he wants to shed that cost, he can, with work.  The work will be cool.  He loses a mechanical resource to gain spotlight time.  Either it's worth it, or it isn't.  Maybe he can explain why they don't balance, and if he can, great; work with that.

If it's the divergence between balancing spotlight and mechanics, fine.

Change the cost to basically being something that costs spotlight time - he pays for it all by taking a vow that he will support the will of Helm in silence when it is done by others in the party, instead, or whatever.

I dunno, I think having to make that choice is a bit cheesy.  Then again, I'm not really a fan of alignment systems - so maybe that's my hangup. :)

-O

I get what you're saying. Gleichman, especially. Appreciate it.

Weak attempt at defense:
[sblock]Yeah, well, I had to come up with something, and I don't think I handled the situation really well. Technically, they were all petrified, leaving the barbarian stranded on another plane. They wanted to continue the characters, and I was happy to oblige because bringing in four new characters at once could get messy, but I also wanted them to take some hit for the lost encounter.

And since the whole being neutral thing is something I already stress in my campaign, with questions as to whether something like neutrality really exists, it does fit the theme. It does fit the story, too, since the angel is likely to interfere as written (and especially as I rewrote it). It fits mechanically, I think, because some encounters they had so far and some they'll have feature alignment magick (see Unholy Blight), and because one player yearns for his dead (good) daughter, and the other was a LN cleric of a LG god.

The players are really happy with how it was handled, too. Except for the one being rezzed.[/sblock]

My initial response, upon reading the thread title and before reading the thread: smack him upside the head and tell him to quit whinging like a little bitch.

After reading the thread, my initial instinct stands.  :D

I dont allow resurrection that often in my games, so he would have to be happy with the results he got or roll up a new character.

I would give him the chain amulet, but let it be enchanted if he propriates his God properly (i.e. spends the magic item in question's market cost on sacrifices, incense, what have you.)

That way -- cool effect, non-gimped character.

yrs--
--Ben

You asked him to change his character's fundamental concept in exchange for a perk. It's a tricky thing, but now that the deal is done, I'd offer him something special in the followup quest to compensate.

I think he has a valid complaint.  You gave him a mechanical penalty (losing an item slot) for a roleplaying perk (spotlight time and a special quest).  Mechanics don't balance fluff, and vice versa.  If the other neutral players agreed to change to good, then great for them-- their characters are alive and now they have a powerful incentive to stay good with a cool roleplaying hook to build off of.  The assassin--- well, neutrality is his choice.  It seems like you've essentially blackmailed the other players into being good and you have one who won't stand for it so you've penalized him for not playing along.

Resurrection can be cool, and the extra obligation to Helm is all well and good, but don't forget that this is a colaborative and cooperative game.  Look at it this way-- instead of losing an item slot, he could have lost an item.  I know you're using variant rules for raise dead type spells but that doesn't change the fact that other priests of other gods can cast them too and all it takes is a little gold or whatnot in exchange.  You could keep things the way they are until he completes his quest, at which point the character's devotion to Helm is proven and the item slot opens back up again--- sort like he's passed his "magical item slot" probation.

I'd flay him alive and nail his head and skin to your front door as a warning.

According to the current rules (I'm assuming here that that is what we're talking about) when you're turned to stone you're not technically dead per se unless your stone self is shattered. You were wrong to begin with unless you're houseruling or making them up as you go along. Plus, I completely disagree with the way the bargain was handled, forceing them to be another alignment is treading over some serious railroading taboos. A better in game way to handle something like the entire party getting turned to stone would have been to teleport them to the middle of the desert or something they wake up back to flesh with a note that says "see me when you're worthy" or something to that effect. Or deal with it for what it is, a TPK and start over.

Alright, I know petrified is not dead. In fact, it's the current name of our group's message board :)

But it was a TPP nonetheless (total party petrification), and one character stranded on another plane.

I told the players out of game that I could get the characters back, but not without payment – the price being not for the turning to flesh, but for losing the fight with the basilisk and walking away.
The alignment thing was relatively free. The only one who was forced to become good was the cleric, since he in turn could have brought back everyone else.

I realize what I did is not in the rulebooks, but that doesn't faze me at all. I don't care, and neither do my players – they actually told me to forget the rules for this instance.

The only question was, since we played for two years in this same campaign, whether they wanted to continue the campaign, and whether they wanted to keep their characters or not. If they wanted to play on, I'd make it happen.

From this thread, I took the idea of opening their choices, and i already told them they didn't have to act good; however, if they didn't, then there could be consequences (but not certain death).

Radu has a good point, too. But the mechanical benefit was "getting brought back to life" (by the cleric, not the celestial), and the price was for the same as above – losing the encounter, since in our campaign raising the dead doesn't cost a permanent level.

It also seems the player forgot about spells like Unholy Blight and similar that now will affect most of the party save him. He already said he was fine with the necklace now. Though we haven't played yet, and won't until May 27th.

What is important is that you have fun.  You gave the roleplaying guy a game mechanics penalty.  I don't disagree with your ruling, it's your game.  Alignment changes aren't necessarily permanent.  The only modification I might consider in your shoes, is to give the mechanic a possible roleplaying outcome.  A certain amount of killing in the name of his god, or pronouncing the retribution of his god, whatever is required to a certain limit, to have the albatross removed.  At that point it may be a badge of honor to wear, or something to adorn his shield, or gain a weapon proficiency with.  To get imbued with holy power at a later date.  All in all an interesting situation.

GW

Good idea! It's not that I'm not listening to you guys/gals. It'll just take a while to simmer in my head. I'm not too good at spontaneity, which did not come in handy in the given situation. :)