PDA

View Full Version : Advice on RPing with conflicting loyalties



Talakeal
2010-07-05, 02:52 AM
Need some help dealing with morality and character motivations.

I am currently playing in a campaign set in an absolute monarchy beset on all sides by evil nations who are directly controlled by cultists and their devil masters.
My character is a knight who is especially fanatical in her devotion to the queen.
We encountered another knight who was on a mission to recover a powerful magical artifact and return it to the queen, however he was killed and we agreed to take up his mission for him.
The nation we belong to has long been at war with a neighboring nation of elves, and we find that the artifact is in a tower controlled by said elves and is currently under siege by a host controlled by demons.

The party (myself included) obviously wants to kill the demons. I bring up the possibility that the elves, being at war with our nation, might turn on us after (or perhaps during) the fight with the demons, and if they don't we might want to think about taking them out instead.

The rest of the part immediately get mad at me and act like I am derailing the whole campaign for even bringing it up. So I drop it.

We kill the demons, and the elves who survive are in no position to fight us, and they claim that they are no longer capable of protecting the artifact, and give it into our hands. They happen to hand it to the party mage (the game master didn't attach any significance, she was just the closest person to said elf at the time).

Then I get ready to return to the queen's castle to deliver the artifact, when the mage announces that she is instead keeping it. When asked why she says that the artifact is too dangerous to entrust to the queen.

Out of character I inform the player that my character has sworn an oath to punish all enemies of the crown, and if she is directly refusing an order from his queen and keeping a dangerous artifact from her then I will likely have to attack the mage to fulfill my vow, which I want to avoid as I am enjoying the campaign and PvP fighting will likely ruin it.

He then tells me my character concept is stupid because one should not blindly follow others. I tell him that the queen is both smarter and wiser than my character, and in the past has never been anything but a paragon of law and good, and thus without strong evidence to the contrary I have no reason not to do exactly what the queen orders. He tells me that a monarch is by definition evil because absolute power always corrupts, and feudalism is a form of slavery, and thus if a queen is not evil then the entire campaign world is "retarded".

So what do I do know? How can I continue playing my character? If I back down on my principals I will lose my knightly status as well as my character concept, but if I don't I am risking an out of character conflict that will end the game. Anyone have any advice?

FelixG
2010-07-05, 03:13 AM
Well, i would ask him what makes him honest or worth of the artifact, when he was sent on a mission to retrieve it only to turn his back on the person who sent him to do it for his own benefit?

Doesn't sound like a person worth of holding such a thing to me, one point in favor of killing the mage.

The second point is that a monarchy isn't necessarily evil, if that ruler lives for her people, to protect serve and enrich their lives they are a noble monarch and are obviously not evil. Secondly a feudal system is how the people live, if they are happy with their lot and not forced into their work they are not slaves.

It was common in the setting for DnD, are there examples of democratic republics for this mage to compare to for a better example of a "good government," If not it sounds like the player is meta gaming. another point to kill the mage

Are there guards forcing the people to work? making sure they dont flee their Thorps and Townships in search of a better life? No? Not slavery.

It also sounds to me like the person is trying to subvert the queen as well, now if i swore an oath to a lord or lady i wouldn't stand for that kinda talk. :P

Also as an aside, the mage has no reason to say that YOUR character concept is flawed or stupid, if anything yours is interesting and has back story, where as the mage made a character who is apparently conniving and backstabbing, a combination that will likely cause inter-party tension. (kinda like this!) So he should likely rethink which character is flawed.

Marriclay
2010-07-05, 03:20 AM
Try to talk the mage down first. Ask him why he thinks that the artifact would be better positioned in his hands. If the player hasn't thought of anything, he will likely sputter and grasp at straws for a good answer. Out of character, you can tell him that this is the kind of move that kills campaigns, since it is - Inter party fighting is a bad, bad idea, and he's forcing your hand. Discuss it with him, try to get him to back down from this position. If not, then kill him, which the rest of your party will likely support you in, since your queen sounds like the kind of person who would use this artifact well. Don't be too hasty to draw steel though - a character who has been working alongside you for a long time (as most players are) will be inclined to speak with the other player first, to try and maintain the relationship without something insane happening, like this. only fight him as a last resort.

cheezewizz2000
2010-07-05, 03:29 AM
Out of character solutions:
1) Talk to the player, ask him to go along with the quest you've been given and that he suspend disbelief. Ok, so he believes all monarchies are evil. I doubt you will change his mind on this one, but for the purposes of the campaign, ask that he entertain the idea that there could be a good one. People don't fly and shoot lasers, but that doesn't stop DBZ from being entertaining. It is biologically impossible for turtles to grow to human-size and weild swords, but TMNT is still fun. Why? Because we suspend disbelief and allow for the possibility of the impossible.

2) Talk to the DM. Ask him to either prove the mage right and make the Queen a coniving despot that can't be trusted or get the queen to send you a missive that entrusts the saftey of the MacGuffin to you. If the high priest needs it for a ritual, get him to make it something the mage can do. If it's a weapon powerful enough to level cities, get the DM to scale it back a lot and entrust it to the fighter (the rules for legacy weapons may be appropriate here so that a low level fighter doesn't get a +5 flaming-burst vorpal sword right away, but that it will scale with his levelling and start out as say, +1 flaming and keen).

Beyond those two solutions, I can't see a way for this to end well, other than changing your character to be someone more... mage friendly. Inter-party conflict will be far less fun than you adapting to your jerk-ass mage so you can continue playing, but both of those scenarios are a significant hit to the fun-quota.

Vitruviansquid
2010-07-05, 03:37 AM
Now, I'm willing to bet the out-of-game conflict arises from something entirely different from the game, so just being able to solve the in-game crisis isn't going to help all that much.

That said, you might resolve the in-game conflict in several ways.

1. Tone down the fanaticism. With most adventuring parties, we're talking about a group with some kind of common allegiance and which has been through hell and back (or is preparing to go through hell and back) together. Unless there's already an "I don't like you and you don't like, but..." dynamic, I find it hard to believe a party would kill each other over something like this.

2. Use some kind of in-game way to settle the matter that's not killing each other. Perhaps decide out of character that the in-game debate over whether or not to keep the relic would be settled by an in-game roll of some kind.

3. In a decision like this, I don't see why you can't put it to the group's in-game vote. Have each character argue, in-game, why the party should keep/give up the artifact and the other characters vote in-game.

Lastly, remember that, unfortunately, Roleplaying is a social activity, so even if you do everything right, it could still go wrong because of the other people.

Engine
2010-07-05, 04:13 AM
The party (myself included) obviously wants to kill the demons. I bring up the possibility that the elves, being at war with our nation, might turn on us after (or perhaps during) the fight with the demons, and if they don't we might want to think about taking them out instead.
The rest of the part immediately get mad at me and act like I am derailing the whole campaign for even bringing it up. So I drop it.

You have to weigh alignments and personalities of your party members, but it's not a dumb idea. They're enemies, right?


Then I get ready to return to the queen's castle to deliver the artifact, when the mage announces that she is instead keeping it. When asked why she says that the artifact is too dangerous to entrust to the queen.

Oh, how unexpected. Ain't it funny how PCs never trust NPCs when magical items are involved?


He then tells me my character concept is stupid because one should not blindly follow others. I tell him that the queen is both smarter and wiser than my character, and in the past has never been anything but a paragon of law and good, and thus without strong evidence to the contrary I have no reason not to do exactly what the queen orders. He tells me that a monarch is by definition evil because absolute power always corrupts, and feudalism is a form of slavery, and thus if a queen is not evil then the entire campaign world is "retarded".

The only stupid character concept is the concept who doesn't fit in the setting. And while I agree that blindly following orders is not so smart (but this not means your character concept is stupid) if you have no proof that your rightful liege is a good leader why you should turn your back on him/her?

And again, leaders are utterly evil when artifacts are involved. What a surprise.


So what do I do know? How can I continue playing my character? If I back down on my principals I will lose my knightly status as well as my character concept, but if I don't I am risking an out of character conflict that will end the game. Anyone have any advice?

It happens everytime you play a character who's not so flexible in his morality and loyalties. Do you play a Paladin? Some guy will commit a really evil act in front of you. Often.

By the way, we should really hear what the Mage's player have to say. I should answer basing my words on what you said.

The Mage's player is acting in a childish and selfish manner. He probably knew what type of character you're playing, so his character. He should really foresaw that you would try to fulfill your character's duty. While I'm not saying that he have to follow the queen's orders, he could stay true to his character without forcing an in-party conflict. He could act in a sneaky way, stealing the artifact. He could try the diplomat way, asking you to wait to retrieve the artifact so both of you could discover the queen's true nature (if she's really evil or is a good person, or whatever).
But no, he's forcing you to choose. Bad call, really bad call. Smack his character (well, he's a Mage, so this could prove difficult) won't be useful. So I think you should talk to your DM and ask him to settle the matter. Maybe he could convince the Mage's player to change his character plans in the short term (not taking now the artifact, but trying to do that later). Maybe not.
Surely the Mage's player is the type of player who regularly ruins games with in-party conflict that could be easily avoided, so just ask you if it's not the case to change gaming group. If you stay with them, you'll probably see more of this scenes.

Talakeal
2010-07-05, 04:32 AM
Some further clarification:

The artifact in question is a mirror which we don't know the powers of. From what we can tell it can be used to observe or summon outsiders. The queen plans to use it to observe the movements of the demons which are manipulating our nation's enemies, while said enemies are planning on using the artifact to summon up a legion of devils to destroy the kingdom.
We know that the mirror is very dangerous, as several hostile outsiders have emerged from said mirror and attacked the party while we carried it.



At first we didn't know where the artifact was and the mage had a prophetic dream that led us to the tower. The mage has declared that they never agreed to help the other knight or had any intention of doing so, they were merely following their visions, and as the elves gave her the mirror it is her property to do with as she wishes and neither the queen nor the other party member's have any claim to it. Thus she is not conniving, stealing, or backstabbing, quite the contrary, she is merely following the will of whatever supernatural power delivered the artifact into her hands.


The mage says that the mirror is too dangerous for anyone to use, especially a corrupt monarch, and thus she will destroy it or hide it away once she is able to safely do so, but in the mean time will not let it off her person.


My character's personal back-story is that when I was a small child my village was destroyed by monsters and that the Queen and her entourage of knights drove them off before they could kill me and the other children. As a result I saw the queen as an almost divine figure, and from that day forward did everything in my power to become one of her knights, pledging myself into her service once I was old enough. My character is extremely loyal but not too wise. When the mage asked me in character why it was so important to follow the queen I used classic medieval arguments such as divine right of kings and circular logic such as "morality stems from justice, justice stems from the law, the ruler makes the law, thus anything the ruler does is by definition moral". This has further convinced the mage that the queen must be evil as she only employs brainwashed minions who follow her blindly.
This is of course not the case, my character simply extremely naive and overzealous, not typical of the people of the kingdom.

Engine
2010-07-05, 04:54 AM
At first we didn't know where the artifact was and the mage had a prophetic dream that led us to the tower. The mage has declared that they never agreed to help the other knight or had any intention of doing so, they were merely following their visions, and as the elves gave her the mirror it is her property to do with as she wishes and neither the queen nor the other party member's have any claim to it.

The Mage probably knew how your character will react. So the Mage's player. This course of action is screaming "in-party conflict".

You're playing in a party, so it's the duty of all party members to play in a manner that get all involved in what's happening. Do you know how unnerving could be a Paladin who tries to forces the others in behaving like he does?
Same thing here.


Thus she is not conniving, stealing, or backstabbing, quite the contrary, she is merely following the will of whatever supernatural power delivered the artifact into her hands.

Conniving and stealing could at least avoid in-party conflict, if did properly. The Mage's saying "I believe Fate has put this artifact in my hands, so only I have to decide what to do with that. You just have to follow me around, helping me in what I want to do".
Ehi, what she were saying about absolute power and corruption?


The mage says that the mirror is too dangerous for anyone to use, especially a corrupt monarch, and thus she will destroy it or hide it away once she is able to safely do so, but in the mean time will not let it off her person.

Really noble. But knowing that some will disagree, the Mage could at least try to be less conflictual in her behaviour.

hamishspence
2010-07-05, 05:05 AM
He tells me that a monarch is by definition evil because absolute power always corrupts, and feudalism is a form of slavery, and thus if a queen is not evil then the entire campaign world is "retarded".

Might be valid in some settings, but in D&D it's fairly common for monarchs to be of Good alignment, even in a moderately feudal system. Some are even paladins.

"Monarchy is evil" and "feudal system is evil by definition" don't really apply to D&D.

FelixG
2010-07-05, 05:16 AM
In my opinion the mage looses her arguments based solely on the fact that she calls the campaign world retarded and another character concept stupid just because either happens to disagree with her own (in this case) flawed world view.

Also she is sounding more like a tyrannical dictator than the Queen, she refuses to let it leave her possession until she can destroy it (yah destroying an artifact, that will make some god soo happy with the party) or hide it... She could well be saying this as a bluff from a purely in character stand point.

Also visions she alone has...thats not so trust worthy from a purely in character standpoint, i could say i had visions of any number of things and whos to know whats true and whats false?

Also sort of reminds me of Gollem in a way.

huttj509
2010-07-05, 05:40 AM
Are there only 2 characters in the party?

What's the others take on this?

Heck, mage not wanting to deliver "mirror that spawns demons to eat us"...are you supposed to keep carrying it round wherever?

It seems like after comments of derailing the game when it came to the elves in the tower, the mage is doing the exact same thing.

Again, how do the other players feel about this?

Math_Mage
2010-07-05, 09:44 AM
Tell the mage's player that monarchy is not evil, certainly not in a D&D campaign setting. Point to Azure City if you have to--it's not a perfect example, but close enough that he can't complain. Ask him to point to any examples of evil in this nation resulting from the monarchy. Tell him that jeopardizing your welcome in the only good nation around for the sake of one item is counterproductive. Point out that carrying around a mirror of devil summoning is likely to backfire on the party at the worst possible time.

And tell him that this pointless betrayal of the mission is detrimental to the campaign setting and, retarded or not, he has some obligation to the DM to respect party cohesion.

rat-morningstar
2010-07-05, 11:15 AM
punch him in the face (in-game, irl isn't really recommended, unless you can take him)
he can't have that much HP, should be KO in a round or 2
and i don't mean kill, just unconscious


and what does the rest of your party think about the mage acting like a dictator?

Venerable
2010-07-05, 12:30 PM
It sounds like you've got not one but two problems: character conflict, and player conflict. They're not the same.

As for the character conflict, why not treat your differences as a challenge, rather than a campaign-stopping problem? Instead of squabbling, try to create a compromise that both of your characters would accept. In your specific case, would your character accept the party keeping the mirror if the mage produced a letter from the Queen saying that she fears some of her guards have become untrustworthy and would steal the mirror, so she is entrusting it to your group to keep it safe until she sends for it? That could offer a nice RP opportunity for you and the mage ([mage creates illusory letter] "See! She said we should hold onto it." You: [rolls to see whether you disbelieve the illusion, fails] "Why didn't you show me this before?" [or succeeds] "Wait, this doesn't bear the royal seal. Hey, you're trying to trick me! You just want the mirror for yourself!" etc). You could even twist this around a little and add a condition from the Queen that even though you're to protect the mirror, you're not to use it on pain of death. So what the mage's player thought was a quick path to goodies becomes a burden. And so on. The point is that when characters clash, there's usually a solution that satisfies both players. Your job as a good RPer is to find it.

But you also have player vs. player conflict, as evidenced by the mage's player calling your character concept "stupid". That's a different kettle of fish. I can't offer much advice other than to be flexible and to be prepared to give some ground to preserve the group's fun. But also be firm enough to ask the conflicting player to yield to an equivalent degree if need be.

So I recommend asking the other player to collaborate in coming up with a compromise that's acceptable to both of your characters. If the response is yes, great, you've got an interesting creative challenge. If not, you at least know what to expect if you choose to continue playing in that campaign.

Susano-wo
2010-07-05, 04:36 PM
a few starter questions
What's the established PvP agreement?(I do not agree that its always a bad idea to have intra-party conflict) IF there is not, then you're gonna have to figure out what everyone is comfortable with, unless there is a compromise that can be worked

Also, assuming that the player is *not* being misrepresented, saying your concept is stupid because your character doesn't do the things that this player thinks is good to do IRL, is, well, stupid. It's a character! He/she has attitudes that you (gasp!) might not agree with!

And I really would disagree that monarchy is necessarily evil. The tricky part about monarchy is not that its inherently evil, but what do you do when an evil monarch comes along--its kinda hard to tell the person holding all the guns to play nice :D

Now, serfdom is pretty hard to justify, even if the serfs are "happy." However, a fantasy Monarchy does not necessarily have to have serfdom in the same manner that the real world did/does.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 04:57 PM
The mage is wrong as a player. He immediately attacked you personally, and then the setting as a whole. If he thinks it's retarded, he's more than welcome to remove himself from it.

Until the player stops being a passive aggressive jerk, there won't be much progress with your campaign, at least from a player entertainment point of view. Even as a player the queen(which has no player) is more entitled your allegiance than the mage.