players assumptions gone to far?

[RandomNPC]

so i've got these two players who constantly compete with eachother, i gave everyone a list of friendly contacts equal to cha bonus +1 and the pallys main contact so far was tied up in the theives guild. Shes a part of a local guard unit, and the order of the chalace (secret group led by pallys working for the bettement of existince) but she was caught off guard and captured.

so in the sewers (theives guild, remember?) they find her guarded by 8 folk, who manage to screw up keeping her captive, and the party managed to take a prisoner to interogate.

while the paladin is placing the prisoner in shackels the other party member who always seems to compete with him unties the theives guild capture, trying to make a charisma check to get on her sweet side. thus the following conversation comes in, followed by my wondering.

Pally: you cant use charisma to get in her pants, shes a preistess, shes celebate.

rogue: celebacy is no match for a natural 20!


so first question:
where did i mention anything about her being a divine spellcaster of any type and did i mention celebacy anywhere in her discription?

second question:
how and when do i break it to the party that she is niether of these things, and actually doomed to be the pallys signifigant other who he always has to save from trouble. (thats why shes got a mostly desk job at the guard HQ) do i tell them there was a mistake before it's mid combat and someone asks her to heal them, or do i let the asumption roll untill it does get pointed out in game?

[togapika]

If she is DOOMED to be the "pallys" significant other, then where does free will enter into it?

[Felius]

Are the characters supposed to know? If so, tell the player and do a retcon on their actions. If not, let it roll.

[tyckspoon]

Pally: you cant use charisma to get in her pants, shes a preistess, shes celebate.

rogue: celebacy is no match for a natural 20!


so first question:
where did i mention anything about her being a divine spellcaster of any type and did i mention celebacy anywhere in her discription?

second question:
how and when do i break it to the party that she is niether of these things, and actually doomed to be the pallys signifigant other who he always has to save from trouble. (thats why shes got a mostly desk job at the guard HQ) do i tell them there was a mistake before it's mid combat and someone asks her to heal them, or do i let the asumption roll untill it does get pointed out in game?

First question: Not that I saw, but if you didn't specify what exactly she was to the players (that is, if all you told them was 'she works with the local guards and is part of a psuedo-holy order of do-gooders') then you can't really be upset when the players make their own assumptions about it, can you?

Second question: I would just run with it. Foisting a romantic interest on a player and/or character who doesn't want one isn't exactly a recipe for good results. Re-cast her into a cleric, or maybe remind the group that religious orders and class levels aren't necessarily associated; she could still be a priestess and have vows of celibacy while having actual levels in Expert or another generally non-combative class.

[Azaul]

Too bad they did not say that in-character. The whole situation would be solved by a blank stare from the captive followed by

Captive: I'm a priestess?

[skeeter_dan]

Wait...why are you foisting a significant other on a PC? You can introduce her as a possible significant other, sure, but there ought to be some choice for the PC.

In any case, this sounds like it could be fun. Let it go; unless they say something in-character that would tip off the NPC that they think she's something she's not, let it go. In my mind, it would be absolutely hilarious if they got knee-deep in a battle with the expectation that she would heal them.

[Prometheus]

I always feel a need to correct factual mistakes that the characters make. It is one thing if they are speculating on a mystery and start down the wrong path, or make an assumption about what is probably true, but in a situation like this I think there would be no reason for them to think that and it would be clear to look at her that there is nothing that indicates she is a priestess. Part of your descriptive responsibility is to indicate when the scene obviously contracts them.

As for "destined to", you could play it three different ways: a) She still is and this just makes it more complicated b) No she isn't, its someone else c) She never was and never will be. Players tend to feel like they don't have options (even bad options) if you use option d) You can't for plot reasons.

Finally a natural 20 on a skill check does not guarantee success even if you are playing with the critical success variant. If you took rolled twenty times to get to the moon via Jump check (provided you had unbounded leap), you should not get there. So for this Charisma check you would set the DC that she would be swayed (considerably less than a celibate priestess but still as arbitrarily high as you like), and she would be interested if they beat the DC, but "very interested" if they managed to roll a 20 and beat the DC. Also, many DMs say you cannot take twenty multiple times to try to get a critical success (this check you wouldn't be able to retry at all).

[RandomNPC]

first of all, i think im going to run with it, clerics can wear full armor and what noto divine casters can look like just about anything. the party cleric just got a longsword.

the doomed to be signifigant other thing, if he takes the bait so be it, they get hitched. if not she's following the rest of the signifigant other flaw from BESM (yes appaerntly having a signifigant other is a flaw, remember you got hitched, now its your problem) the idea is they are important (his main contact so far) and always need saved (captured by theives)

the partys got 8 people, 2 of them clerics, then the bard, and the pally. thats half the party thats potential healers. it shouldn't be to hard to get healed in an emergency.

so i think i'mgoing to wait for "Heal me!!!" followed by "what?" but i don't know if she's going to be in combat with them often.



Edit: i'm not upset about the misunderstanding, its kinda funny, i was just wondering if i should nip this thing in the bud or let the assumption grow untill it gets mentioned in character. also i needed an excuse of a reason to put "celebacy is no match for a natural 20!" on the message boards.

[geek_2049]

second question:
how and when do i break it to the party that she is niether of these things, and actually doomed to be the pallys signifigant other who he always has to save from trouble.

DM assumptions gone too far?

Edit:
"celebacy is no match for a natural 20!"

So that's what you kids are calling it these days.

[Tallis]

I say let them keep their assumptions until there's an in-game reason for them to know they're wrong.

Got a new quote for my sig!

[PsyBlade]

My suggestion, remind the guy trying to get into her pants that Natural 20's only work in combat and saves (not sure on the saves part). As for the assumption about her role, have her go into detail on what she was doing, and why she was chosen. If they still think she is a priestess, continue to give small hints, hopefully one of the other players will pick up on it. Of course, only the natural 20 thing needs correction.

[Miles Invictus]

It's spelled "Celibacy".

You should secretly let the Paladin in on the fact that she's not a priestess at the same time you give their relationship a nudge. After every battle, she can take him to somewhere private to "lay hands" on him. Let everyone play up the innuendo for a few sessions, get some good laughs out of it, and allow things to return to normal.

Then let the rest of the party find out that she actually isn't a divine spellcaster.

[Talic]

Simple. Let the players think what they will, and have the "priestess" heh, reveal that she's not a priestess at the appropriate time... While rebuffing the rogue's efforts.

[JackMage666]

Yeah, mainly just tell them that a Natural 20 doesn't really matter with skill checks or ability checks - Not to mention NPCs are not bound to do whatever the PCs say. She's not under compulsion spells, so if it's something that's completely against her nature, she's not going to do it, no matter the skill check.

Now, if the Sorcerer was casting Suggestion, and getting her to do things through that... That's a whole other issue (and you should probably ask that Sorcerer to leave).

[Talic]

Yeah, mainly just tell them that a Natural 20 doesn't really matter with skill checks or ability checks - Not to mention NPCs are not bound to do whatever the PCs say. She's not under compulsion spells, so if it's something that's completely against her nature, she's not going to do it, no matter the skill check.

Now, if the Sorcerer was casting Suggestion, and getting her to do things through that... That's a whole other issue (and you should probably ask that Sorcerer to leave).

Actually, really good diplomacy checks can turn a "Hated" reaction to "fanatical follower".

However, it takes, by RAW, *at least* one minute (10 rounds)... and the easiest way to stop it is to throw a punch before they get that.

[JackMage666]

RAW has some serious issues when it comes to interaction. By RAW, PCs basically can talk their way out of anything, despite the way that people actual react to things.

EDIT - Also, "Fanatic Follower" doesn't mean they're going to sleep with the person.

[Feralgeist]

divine worshippers dont have to be celibate, it's only in OUR world that priests dont have "teh intercourses". some clerics have sex with undead. undead for crying out loud! so yeah, assumptions gone too far.

[Frosty]

Those are typically Mystic Theurges named Tsukiko.