PDA

View Full Version : Stuff that PCs often do that would be considered social faux pas



elliott20
2013-03-08, 01:08 PM
The recent "paladins should be a restricted class" thread had us talking a bit about how using detect evil on someone unprovoked might end up offending someone.

This got me wondering about what other kinds of actions that PCs take for granted in game should be considered social faux pas.

What do YOU think are some things that PCs often do and take for granted that really should be social no-no's?

Mr. Mask
2013-03-08, 02:17 PM
Depends how fantasticsy the setting is.

Stuff like not wearing your armour while in cities, for example, makes sense for a realistic setting. Armour is oft uncomfortable, so people wearing armour within cities or the like gives the impression they are planning to start some kind of trouble (and the city guard might be suspicious).

If you ever run a session for people who think they know their medieval history/society, try having some people staring at them when they drop in the tavern. When they start conversation, the other people of the tavern will remain polite, but will seem confused. If the players inquire about what's wrong, or outstay their welcome, they'll be asked why they came into the locals' tavern, instead of going to an inn.
-
Historically, travelers and strangers go to inns, where the local people will hang out to pick up and spread gossip. Taverns were for the locals to relax, and were often popular in the evenings when work stopped. Not to say this was true everywhere in Europe--few things are.



As for what's impolite in a fantasy setting where those sorts of details don't apply... That gets harder. Using magic which effects others without their permission is likely to not only be rude, but also assault (assuming magic users aren't considered above those kinds of laws).

Talking about dragons might be considered insensitive, if adventurers have lost friends to them, or locals have been attacked by them and lost family. The exception being if you have slain a dragon--then you might be the toast of the town, providing you can convince people that you really have.

Maybe clerics would receive better treatment from locals than other classes, and would be asked to lend their healing powers to the locals. Even without the benefits of a priest, people might be afraid of offending the cleric's god(s) by not giving the priest of such god(s) hospitality. People who are of the same faith, or interested in the cleric's faith, might also ask to receive instruction while the cleric is staying with them.

A city might have paladins guard the gates, with the power to refuse anyone who is considered suspicious (AKA: They're evil-aligned, and don't seem to be a merchant).

Those are a few ideas for a DnD world's etiquette.

Kaveman26
2013-03-08, 02:29 PM
Lets see...

*Randomly slaughtering a group of people at a bar because things got out of hand.

*Emerging from a days long dungeon crawl and then frantically hitting town to enjoy the spoils of looting. After days of whole scale skewering of orcs etc the group is probably covered in gore now putrified and stinking.

*All high level adventurers must look like the scariest terrorists of all time to the average city guard. Imagine walking down the street in full tactical gear with the highest end military grade technology and armor piercing ammunation "just because" our police would probably react the same way as the average city guard.

*Nonchalance would be offensive to most level zero commoners. "We killed fifteen orcs, and saved a quater of your village!" To the average commonor an orc is a terror beyond terrors and you and your group will ho-hum about taking out a whole legion of them.

Macros
2013-03-08, 02:39 PM
Well, I guess intra party talks in the middle of a discussion with a NPC should be considered quite rude. Nonethess, it's quite common (even if most DMs tend to frown upon that too).

Slipperychicken
2013-03-08, 06:13 PM
Stealing things off corpses is still theft, and illegal. Even if you didn't kill the guy. It's amazing, how we suspend this idea for gameplay.

ArcturusV
2013-03-08, 06:19 PM
I think it's mostly the PC assumption that NPCs don't exist until they choose to acknowledge them. This MIGHT be appropriate if they were royalty or something. But usually it involves something like PCs openly talking about doing something untoward to an NPC right in front of him, planning how they are going to kill him and take their stuff, or lie to him to get something, etc.

Seen that a lot. Can you imagine how rude that would be if someone just pretends you're not in the room and starts talking about how they're going to take you out back, beat the **** out of you, and take your wallet? If that's not a "social faux pas" I don't know what would be.

Secondly comes Paranoia. Things like "All NPCs who offer you food/drink for free are poison". Imagine if you invited someone over for dinner, lay out a spread for them and they shake their heads at it and start nibbling on hardtack from their backpack. Paranoia on PCs part is often huge gaffes as far as manners are concerned.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-08, 06:23 PM
I think it's mostly the PC assumption that NPCs don't exist until they choose to acknowledge them. This MIGHT be appropriate if they were royalty or something. But usually it involves something like PCs openly talking about doing something untoward to an NPC right in front of him, planning how they are going to kill him and take their stuff, or lie to him to get something, etc.

That's just the medium. Often, there's no visual representation of what's going on, which lets you forget much easier. I find it works out better if you have it laid out with minis and such.

Like this NPC healbot in this game I played last year. She didn't talk, and there was no battle-map with her mini on it, so it was very easy to pretend she didn't exist (I assumed she was just silent because the DM wanted heals, but no DMPC. Boy, was I wrong).

Chilingsworth
2013-03-08, 06:27 PM
Like this NPC healbot in this game I played last year. She didn't talk, and there was no battle-map with her mini on it, so it was very easy to pretend she didn't exist (I assumed she was just silent because the DM wanted heals, but no DMPC. Boy, was I wrong).

Why was she silent, then?


Anyway, I've gotten in trouble for trying to use telepathic communication... with other PC's. So, I suppose using anything mind affecting could be a problem. Also, casting spells when others can see you, particularly charm spells.

As for the "filthy adventurer just out of a dungeon" thing: Prestidigitation fixes that just fine.

Macros
2013-03-08, 06:29 PM
I think it's mostly the PC assumption that NPCs don't exist until they choose to acknowledge them. This MIGHT be appropriate if they were royalty or something.

Hilariously enough, there is a better chance of it being done to the royals, by the PCs. I'm pretty sure people have been killed for less.

Devronq
2013-03-08, 06:33 PM
Lets see...

*Randomly slaughtering a group of people at a bar because things got out of hand.

*Emerging from a days long dungeon crawl and then frantically hitting town to enjoy the spoils of looting. After days of whole scale skewering of orcs etc the group is probably covered in gore now putrified and stinking.

*All high level adventurers must look like the scariest terrorists of all time to the average city guard. Imagine walking down the street in full tactical gear with the highest end military grade technology and armor piercing ammunation "just because" our police would probably react the same way as the average city guard.

*Nonchalance would be offensive to most level zero commoners. "We killed fifteen orcs, and saved a quater of your village!" To the average commonor an orc is a terror beyond terrors and you and your group will ho-hum about taking out a whole legion of them.


As far as the Pcs looking like terrorist i think you need to look at it in context. The DND world is much more violent than reality and if people like the Pcs are common place then why would they appear as terrorists? I mean ya if they are in a small town where nothing happens and they come in fully geared i can see how that would look out of place, but if there's war and dragons and demons everywhere shouldn't people expect to see people like the PCs? i mean real life right now ya if i had full solder gear and weapons and walked down the street the police would defiantly question me. But lets say there's a war going on and some solders travel through my town and get supplies, i couldn't see the police going anywhere near them.

As far the looting body things, yes its illegal but it happened. Lets say someone attacks your fort/castle/town and you win, what would you expect to happen to your belongings? The weapons and armor are probably still very good so why throw them away? It isn't really the same as what happens in game but it did happen in real life in medieval times but mostly during war times. I can see how a random thug attacks me in the middle of town and i loot him it would look bad, but in a dungeon or any other place where there isn't witnesses like hey why not right? And who says its against the law come to think of it. This is hundreds of years ago and law were alot different then and sometimes quite silly.

One more ting, the whole casting detect evil on someone I'm a DM and i always rule the person is offended or runs away. I mean if someone is casting a spell on you, (assuming you don't have spellcraft) you really have no idea what spell its going to be and you'll assume the caster is attacking you.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-08, 06:49 PM
Why was she silent, then?


She occasionally told us plot-stuff, but I think it was because she was meek and the PCs were completely ignoring her. She ditched us later and the DM said it was because we treated her like garbage. I had to get a CLW wand to make up for her absence.

JellyPooga
2013-03-08, 07:05 PM
I had to get a CLW wand to make up for her absence.

Off-handedly replacing peoples' professions with equipment that you consider cheap would probably count as a social gaff. :smallwink:

Especially when that so-called "cheap" piece of equipment could probably feed and house the provider of that service and his/her family, for at least a few months (longer if they're frugal).

Seriously, most PCs throw money around like it doesn't matter. The locals might like being paid ludicrously large sums of money, but it's not going to make them actually like the adventurers for it;

[bad cockney accent]"bloody adventurers, comin' 'ere spendin' their money, taking food out my little'uns bellies, actin' all 'igh an' mighty" *spits* "they can go 'ang, fer all I care."[/bad cockney accent]

Zeful
2013-03-08, 07:42 PM
As far as the Pcs looking like terrorist i think you need to look at it in context. The DND world is much more violent than reality and if people like the Pcs are common place then why would they appear as terrorists? I mean ya if they are in a small town where nothing happens and they come in fully geared i can see how that would look out of place, but if there's war and dragons and demons everywhere shouldn't people expect to see people like the PCs? i mean real life right now ya if i had full solder gear and weapons and walked down the street the police would defiantly question me. But lets say there's a war going on and some solders travel through my town and get supplies, i couldn't see the police going anywhere near them.
Just because the "DND world is much more violent than reality" does not mean the towns are more violent. Or that the real middle ages (or early modern/late medieval which is more apt) were somehow less violent than "the DND world".

Determining the appropriate guard/militia response is derived from two things, the size of the town, and the length of time the PCs spend there. As both things increase the acceptability of them wearing full battle gear drops, quickly. Spending more than a day with full arms and armor in most towns worth talking about is essentially unacceptable, and can get you arrested pretty quickly. And in a capitol, or other seat of governmental power? They only way they're staying in armor with their swords is if they need to be directly brought to whoever's in charge immediately, and the bureaucracy knows this, otherwise they're to find lodgings and disarm immediately.

Divayth Fyr
2013-03-08, 07:54 PM
Just because the "DND world is much more violent than reality" does not mean the towns are more violent. Or that the real middle ages (or early modern/late medieval which is more apt) were somehow less violent than "the DND world".
Perhaps it's not more violent, but the dangers are more diverse and able to strike at any moment. Even in towns you can have things like some monsters coming out from the sewers, undead rising at the graveyard or a dragon (or other flying beast) making a surprise attack.

Amaril
2013-03-08, 08:01 PM
Perhaps it's not more violent, but the dangers are more diverse and able to strike at any moment. Even in towns you can have things like some monsters coming out from the sewers, undead rising at the graveyard or a dragon (or other flying beast) making a surprise attack.

Whether or not this makes it acceptable to walk around town heavily armed and armored depends hugely on the setting. In high-fantasy, high-adventure worlds, including those where adventuring is a recognized profession and adventurers belong to their own social class, it would probably be seen as perfectly normal, since commoners would just assume that anyone who does it is an adventurer. In other settings, where the stuff the player characters do is by no means commonplace, it would be considered completely insane by most people, even if the PCs have a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Fighter1000
2013-03-08, 08:11 PM
One time I was playing D&D and my friends characters were drinking in a tavern. A bard was singing a song called, "No Mercy is the Way of the Fist" so my friend decides to make his character run up to that bard and punch him right in the nuts. Considering that my friend's character was an ASSASSIN I felt like FACEPALMING so hard. Then my other friends character proceeds to run up and kick the bard in the balls repeatedly.
I can only imagine the reactions of all the NPC people in the tavern. Laughter, shock, gasps, maybe avenging the bard's testicles?
I don't know. My friends are idiots and don't take the game seriously enough. I need to find better players, don't I?

Zeful
2013-03-08, 08:22 PM
Perhaps it's not more violent, but the dangers are more diverse and able to strike at any moment. Even in towns you can have things like some monsters coming out from the sewers, undead rising at the graveyard or a dragon (or other flying beast) making a surprise attack.

Which rather than making it socially acceptable to be wearing plate armor as a fashion statement such a scenario would instead make lighter armors which don't have long involved processes for getting into them more acceptable to wear casually, as well as more protective.

And even then, running away would be the better option against most of those threats.

ArcturusV
2013-03-08, 08:28 PM
I think a corollary to that is that Players often remained armed in situations that don't normally call for it.

For example, they are granted an audience with the King and show up in full Killin' Mode to the King's Court. Now that might be a social gaffe to be lookin' ready to throw down in that situation, though depending on the court it might make sense for a warrior to go in unarmored but carrying a ceremonial weapon or a "dueling blade" or something else not generally fit for normal combat.

Or they get asked by the wife of the farmer they just rescued to share a meal and sit down at the table armed to the hilt.

Deophaun
2013-03-08, 09:34 PM
For example, they are granted an audience with the King and show up in full Killin' Mode to the King's Court. Now that might be a social gaffe to be lookin' ready to throw down in that situation, though depending on the court it might make sense for a warrior to go in unarmored but carrying a ceremonial weapon or a "dueling blade" or something else not generally fit for normal combat.
If there is any kind of spellcaster in the party, the big sword dripping with orcs blood hanging off the barbarian's back is a more of a concern for the house staff which has to clean up the stains rather than an issue for the guards. Faux pas? Sure. Security breach? Not compared to the strategic nuclear device that is your party member.

awa
2013-03-08, 09:54 PM
this was one that happened fairly recently the pc were visiting a town and just decided to talk to the mayor. So they wait a while in line and finally get in and start asking him every question they can think off his response paraphrasing i'm not an information booth/ why would i know any of these obscure questions.

Ive noticed that pcs rarely think about the social ranking of anyone they meet.

related one having arguments with each other in the middle of a regular conversation

Slipperychicken
2013-03-08, 10:25 PM
Off-handedly replacing peoples' professions with equipment that you consider cheap would probably count as a social gaff. :smallwink:

Especially when that so-called "cheap" piece of equipment could probably feed and house the provider of that service and his/her family, for at least a few months (longer if they're frugal).


I regret nothing! :smalltongue:



Seriously, most PCs throw money around like it doesn't matter. The locals might like being paid ludicrously large sums of money, but it's not going to make them actually like the adventurers for it;

[bad cockney accent]"bloody adventurers, comin' 'ere spendin' their money, taking food out my little'uns bellies, actin' all 'igh an' mighty" *spits* "they can go 'ang, fer all I care."[/bad cockney accent]

Well, spending all their money actually stimulates the local economy, putting food into his little'uns bellies, indirectly. Although it's doubtful that the setting's inhabitants understand economics well enough to know that.

Unless his little'uns are healbot Clerics, they should have little fear of replacement by wands of CLW. Or they could take Craft Wand, a loan for 325gp, and get in on the action. Besides, paying for the spell to be cast directly is much cheaper than using a wand of it (10gp as opposed to 15gp), so local/infrequent consumers of CLW castings would flock to the Clerics, not to Wands.

John Campbell
2013-03-09, 05:20 AM
Stealing things off corpses is still theft, and illegal. Even if you didn't kill the guy. It's amazing, how we suspend this idea for gameplay.

There's a bit in one of the Viking sagas where a guy starving in the wilderness comes across an empty house, and breaks in and raids the pantry. And then he gets a guilty conscience about stealing their food... and so he lies in wait for the owners of the house to come home, and attacks and kills them. Because stealing things is wrong, but if you kill them and take their things, that's not theft; that's plundering, and that's okay.

Don't assume that other cultures are just like ours.

Emmerask
2013-03-09, 09:18 AM
Well some if not most of the stuff depends a lot on the system you play,
in extremely high powered (in comparison to an avg citizen) games like d&d why would the pcs behave like normal beings?
They are practically gods walking among ants should they really acknowledge the existence of each and every one of these tiny beings or consider if they might hurt the ants feelings by doing xyz?

Pcs in such games are not part of the normal social structure, they could wipe out the entire city or could buy it, there is just no reason for them to be confined by normal social rules and well the players realize it and play accordingly. :smallwink:

Kaveman26
2013-03-09, 09:22 AM
As far as the Pcs looking like terrorist i think you need to look at it in context. The DND world is much more violent than reality and if people like the Pcs are common place then why would they appear as terrorists? I mean ya if they are in a small town where nothing happens and they come in fully geared i can see how that would look out of place, but if there's war and dragons and demons everywhere shouldn't people expect to see people like the PCs? i mean real life right now ya if i had full solder gear and weapons and walked down the street the police would defiantly question me. But lets say there's a war going on and some solders travel through my town and get supplies, i couldn't see the police going anywhere near them.

I think others have already hit the point of what I was getting at. I wasnt saying it was ill advised...just to an extent a social faux pas. I also used the wrong word in the midst of throwing up a hasty response. Terrorist was the wrong term.

Surfnerd
2013-03-09, 01:04 PM
Teleporting. I just feel like teleporting would cause paranoia, fear, and confusion. Whether into or out of a group or social situation.

I'd imagine some groups are savages with no respect for any societal graces even if they are pointed out by the DM.

There was a post up here the other day concerning a portable super shop the PCs can carry around with them..... I'm pretty sure that is how PCs view towns anyway. We have all seen how people behave in Wal*Mart, basically adventurers are just gun toting hillbillies that love their wal*mart.

Coidzor
2013-03-09, 01:58 PM
[bad cockney accent]"bloody adventurers, comin' 'ere spendin' their money, taking food out my little'uns bellies, actin' all 'igh an' mighty" *spits* "they can go 'ang, fer all I care."[/bad cockney accent]

At the prices adventurers typically pay there's no food being taken out of anyone's little one's bellies unless the adventurers are the sort that literally are opening up the townspeople. In which case the bad cockney accent guy wouldn't have time to complete that spiel. :smallconfused:

The Giant's comic on the subject makes a lot more sense, actually.

JellyPooga
2013-03-09, 02:47 PM
At the prices adventurers typically pay there's no food being taken out of anyone's little one's bellies unless the adventurers are the sort that literally are opening up the townspeople. In which case the bad cockney accent guy wouldn't have time to complete that spiel. :smallconfused:

The Giant's comic on the subject makes a lot more sense, actually.

Yes the adventurers pay a ludicrous amount of money, but there is only so much of any given commodity in a locale. The food that the adventurers buy (in this particular example) will likely not be replaced for at least a few months, whether that be waiting for the next harvest or taking the time to travel to the next town over to spend the money put into the local economy by the adventurers.

Given that most of the peasantry are not likely to be able to afford the time to travel; after all, they have work to do, it's unlikely that they'll be able to actually make use of that money for some time, unless a traveller of some description passes through.

Handy, then, that there's a bunch of adventurers in town, who might be willing to take a message to the next town over when they leave, but it's not likely that they'll do it for free and it's not an instant fix.

So, our cockney villager is eating short rations because there's not enough to go round and is having to pay the person who, in their eyes, took the food from them to go and get more.

Not a situation that's going to breed an air of compassion and understanding. Yes the villager is at fault for accepting the ludicrously overpriced deal, but he's not likely to be happy about it. Not after he realises the consequences, anyway. Especially when the adventurer doesn't acknowledge, or even realise, the hardship he's imposing by doing something that he considers generous and further feels insulted because the villagers aren't exactly being friendly with all the surly glares and short answers.

Misunderstandings and hurt feelings all round? Sound like a social faux pas to me.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-09, 03:12 PM
So, our cockney villager is eating short rations because there's not enough to go round and is having to pay the person who, in their eyes, took the food from them to go and get more.

1. You don't sell off your food if you think you'll starve as a result. You sell the surplus. Besides, adventurers buying ~3 weeks rations for 5 people is hardly going to starve a village.

2. Even if you do sell almost all of your food, you can just buy some more from a merchant. You've also got cash to buy lovely consumer goods from that merchant as well.

snoopy13a
2013-03-09, 03:23 PM
Shouldn't the adventurers be paying the same price for food and lodging as villagers?

Second, unless a town has heavy adventurer-traffic, it shouldn't have sellers of magical items or even weapons and equipment*. You simply don't see a Prada shop or a Mercedes dealership in the boonies.

*Even if there is adventurer-traffic, it is probable that the merchant is connected to producers in some city and remits most of the money to them.

ArcturusV
2013-03-09, 03:45 PM
Well there can always be an "Adventurer's Tax". I mean in a world where people know there are Adventurers who delve into ruins and come out with a buttload of treasures that they jack up the prices just because they know the Adventurer's can pay it.

There typically isn't anything like a better business bureau or the like in most DnD worlds. No laws against price fixing and other market shenanigans. And outside of that, the ultimate rule of economics takes charge. "Something is worth only as much or as little as someone will pay for it."

kieza
2013-03-09, 04:11 PM
Killing orcs and taking their stuff seems like perfectly acceptable looting. However, I've always looked askance at parties divvying up the possessions of their dead allies. I mean, it's one thing to grab a fallen friend's weapon in the middle of an adventure, because it gives you a better chance of not sharing his fate. But to keep it, rather than try to find his next-of-kin once you're out of danger? And worse yet, taking his gold rather than giving it to his widow/children/aged parents? Apparently adventurers don't bother with last will and testaments.

awa
2013-03-09, 04:13 PM
By that logic your problem is not with adventures but with any one buying food.
edit
At first glance that seems like it should be the case but look at it another way not as possessions but tools necessary to complete a task.

The party goes into tremendously life threatening situations several times a week it would be pretty foolish to choose to do so at a substantial disadvantage. Combine that with the fact that a pcs gear extremely specialized.


On top of that your average pc has no close friends or family out side of his party.

JoshuaZ
2013-03-09, 05:04 PM
Just because the "DND world is much more violent than reality" does not mean the towns are more violent. Or that the real middle ages (or early modern/late medieval which is more apt) were somehow less violent than "the DND world".


This is to a large extent a function of how violent the Middle Ages (and most human history in general) has been. In fact, by many metrics (such as likelyhood to die due to violence), modern civilizations are extremely peaceful. Steven Pinker wrote "The Better Angels of Our Nature" about this, which talks about the decline of human violence. He makes a strong case for a general decline (although the part where he tries to explain why it has decline was less persuasive).

Trekkin
2013-03-09, 05:33 PM
This is to a large extent a function of how violent the Middle Ages (and most human history in general) has been.

The Middle Ages weren't as hyper-violent as they're usually depicted, at least on the local level (pardon my generalizing 1100 years of European[ish] history). Even they would look askance at the readiness with which most adventuring parties resort to mass murder and as much genocide as they can manage.

That's probably the biggest social gulf between adventurers and the NPCs with which they usually interact. It's roughly analogous to the difficulties sometimes experienced by people of vastly different economic status, only magnified by multiple orders of magnitude. When a normal party of adventurers hears of a gang of bandits who have been pillaging the town or whatever, then goes out and kills them all, then comes back not only unscathed but measurably more powerful for the experience, that has to hurt every villager who tried and failed to protect their goods.

Going around everywhere armed is one thing. I can only imagine that repeatedly demonstrating how much more powerful they are than everyone else--and repeatedly seeking out new ways of doing so -- is a hundred times more socially problematic.

JoshuaZ
2013-03-09, 05:52 PM
The Middle Ages weren't as hyper-violent as they're usually depicted, at least on the local level (pardon my generalizing 1100 years of European[ish] history). Even they would look askance at the readiness with which most adventuring parties resort to mass murder and as much genocide as they can manage.

It depends a lot on the context. In some cases, genocidal armies were welcomed back as heroes. The real differences are a) The PCs are often killing people just like you one village over (or even in your own village) and b) The PCs don't have the imprint of the government and religion that they are doing the right thing.

John Campbell
2013-03-09, 07:34 PM
Killing orcs and taking their stuff seems like perfectly acceptable looting. However, I've always looked askance at parties divvying up the possessions of their dead allies. I mean, it's one thing to grab a fallen friend's weapon in the middle of an adventure, because it gives you a better chance of not sharing his fate. But to keep it, rather than try to find his next-of-kin once you're out of danger? And worse yet, taking his gold rather than giving it to his widow/children/aged parents? Apparently adventurers don't bother with last will and testaments.

What kind of adventurer has living kin? Generally the reason they're out killin' orcs in the first place is because they're the sole survivor of their village which was wiped out by orcs in their backstory and they're out for vengeance, and they hit epic level before they make it through puberty, so.

eta: Oh, yeah, and I recall that the old AD&D 1E character sheets actually had a section on them for the PC's will.

Coidzor
2013-03-09, 08:53 PM
Yes the adventurers pay a ludicrous amount of money, but there is only so much of any given commodity in a locale. The food that the adventurers buy (in this particular example) will likely not be replaced for at least a few months, whether that be waiting for the next harvest or taking the time to travel to the next town over to spend the money put into the local economy by the adventurers.

How much do you think adventurers eat? The place has to be so poor that they're already starving for them to not be able to easily make it up even if they were made a little bit short on food by the presence of the adventurers.

And if they're starving then either the adventurers don't get food, default to murder-hoboing the town, or pay through the nose enough for the town to be able to go and buy more food than they lost in the bargain.


Misunderstandings and hurt feelings all round? Sound like a social faux pas to me.

The misunderstandings seem to all be on your part, sir. :smallconfused:

JellyPooga
2013-03-10, 04:42 AM
How much do you think adventurers eat?

Compared to the peasant farmers living in the village? A shed load. Adventurers typically expect to eat meat with every meal (at least they always have in my experience!) and also tend to expect to get three meals a day. The local farmer and his kids will probably consider themselves lucky to get two meals a day, one of which might include some kind of meat-based product. Porridge and Potage would be the norm. That's (largely speaking) boiled oats and boiled vegetables; not exactly the high calorie diet an adventurer needs and expects for his coin.


The place has to be so poor that they're already starving for them to not be able to easily make it up even if they were made a little bit short on food by the presence of the adventurers.

Welcome to the world of being a peasant. By modern standards, most people were "starving". The rich foods adventurers expect to get every day are the kinds of foods most people might have once a week. If their lucky and prosperous. After three weeks of putting up an adventurer, the pantry would be looking pretty bare. By comparison, imagine having to put on a dinner party for your own family every day for 3 weeks. Now imagine that you can't just nip down the local supermarket to pick up your supplies. After those three weeks, do you really think you're going to have much food in the house?


The misunderstandings seem to all be on your part, sir. :smallconfused:

I'm afraid the misunderstanding may be on the part of anothers but mine. If you're going to play in a psuedo-medieval world, then you cannot expect anything but psuedo-medieval economics. Peasants having a poor diet compared to our modern one is a part of that.

Of course, if you play your games in a world less gritty than the one I'd expect to be default, then your milage will vary and everything I'm saying is irrelevant! :smallwink:

ArcturusV
2013-03-10, 04:46 AM
Well, some of that gets kinda tossed aside when you have level 0 spells that can effectively make Porridge into whatever you want effectively. Or just have 3rd level spells that can spontaneously make food. Which means the local temple probably runs food charity if they are good aligned. So probably less starvation.

PersonMan
2013-03-10, 04:54 AM
Especially when you get PC divine casters who say "starving peasants? Lol no, incoming flood of porridge. Not like I was gonna use those slots in town anyways".

So adventurers arriving in a town can make it less starving, especially if the villagers can save the food they'd normally eat (veggies, etc. generally hold for a while, so they should be able to) and eat better/longer because of what is essentially windfall for them.

JellyPooga
2013-03-10, 05:01 AM
Introducing an exception to the norm doesn't make the norm any less true. I'd personally not expect 5th level or higher Clerics, or arcanists (of any kind) to be commonplace. How often do the PC's really use their 3rd level spell slots to feed peasants anyway? I've never yet seen it happen in a game I've played, anyway.

ArcturusV
2013-03-10, 05:08 AM
I have. But that's probably just me. I tend to (If I'm playing a good aligned character) make sure the DM knows I'm chipping in around town. Like my guy with Craft (Alchemy) will go make useful alchemist tools for cost, or less if I'm flush with loot (Hell, Everburning Torches and Tindertwigs alone are quite useful). Or using Prestidigitations to do work to improve people's lives. Creating food and drink for the hungry and thirsty, etc. I mean what else am I going to do in town with say my Wizard, or my Druid, or Cleric while the Fighter with Craft (Armorsmith) is spending 9 weeks to make himself some Mithril Plate Mail?

JellyPooga
2013-03-10, 05:17 AM
I have. But that's probably just me.

Fair enough. It depends on the type of game you're playing too. I tend not to play high level games and our group rarely has much 'downtime', so less with the "helping out around town" and more with the "just throw money at it to keep the peasants happy"!

Chilingsworth
2013-03-10, 05:20 AM
Last time I played a good-aligned character with the ability to, I did.

My healer fed a metroplois' entire slum with goodberries for a couple of weeks (well, I did buy the berries from the richer parts of town, about 1,000 gp worth). Granted she was 19th level at the time. But while her party was out shopping for the final battle, she took time out to visit the slums and feed and cure the poor of her city.

Of course since her, I've played either non-divine casters, non-good characters*, or haven't encountered any famine conditions that I'm aware of.** In any case, groups I'm in tend to use Hero's Feast as soon as they're able to cast it. Oh, and magical lodgings rather than inns. (I mean, would you bother finding and paying for an inn when you could have a Mage's Magnificent Mansion?)

*One of my current characters is looking for some villiagers to feed... to a pair of demons. Or better yet feed them, some other, potentially meddling adventurers. Set our enemies against eachother, then kill the weakened survivors, lol. If the demons survive and still look too tough to handle, well we fed them like they ordered.

**Well, those poor, starving demons I just mentioned have been without tasty human flesh for a few centuries now, does that count?

GnomeFighter
2013-03-10, 05:49 AM
Compared to the peasant farmers living in the village? A shed load. Adventurers typically expect to eat meat with every meal (at least they always have in my experience!) and also tend to expect to get three meals a day. The local farmer and his kids will probably consider themselves lucky to get two meals a day, one of which might include some kind of meat-based product. Porridge and Potage would be the norm. That's (largely speaking) boiled oats and boiled vegetables; not exactly the high calorie diet an adventurer needs and expects for his coin.

Not realy. Whilst famine was an ever present threat in a pre industrialised world peasant farmers most of the time most defiantly did not have a poor diet. Yes, the had far less meat and little variety at some times of the year, but in terms of calories it would have been very high, around 3500 to 4000 calories a day. Probably more than an adventurer would need. Farm work is hard, where as sitting on a horse between short bursts of fighting is not (which is what most PCs do). Whilst potage would be the staple there would be allot of bread, cheese, fruit and ale to wash it down. Pottage is just a French name for stew anyway. It would not often have much meat in it, but this is more a function of our modern obsession with eating meat. We eat far too much of the stuff. PCs would not need lots of meat, or even demand it, other than players (rather than PCs) not realising.

Farmers would not have "been luck to have two meals a day" but would have eaten enough food, however the concept of 3 meals a day is a relatively modern concept. Breakfast only appeared in the mid C18th.



Welcome to the world of being a peasant. By modern standards, most people were "starving". The rich foods adventurers expect to get every day are the kinds of foods most people might have once a week. If their lucky and prosperous. After three weeks of putting up an adventurer, the pantry would be looking pretty bare. By comparison, imagine having to put on a dinner party for your own family every day for 3 weeks. Now imagine that you can't just nip down the local supermarket to pick up your supplies. After those three weeks, do you really think you're going to have much food in the house?

They were not starving. Most of the time things were fine. If you had a poor harvest things might get a little tight late winter and early spring, but outside of times of famine people would not have been starving at all. As I said peasants would probably have eaten more than an adventurers need.



I'm afraid the misunderstanding may be on the part of anothers but mine. If you're going to play in a psuedo-medieval world, then you cannot expect anything but psuedo-medieval economics. Peasants having a poor diet compared to our modern one is a part of that.

Of course, if you play your games in a world less gritty than the one I'd expect to be default, then your milage will vary and everything I'm saying is irrelevant! :smallwink:
The diet is only poor if you consider large amounts of meat to be vital, rather than a major driver of the obesity problems we now have.

Saph
2013-03-10, 05:58 AM
Things I regularly see PCs doing that would be considered social gaffes:

Backtalking kings, archmages, high priests, and other extremely powerful NPCs who aren't in the habit of taking **** from uppity commoners.
Backtalking BBEGs who are currently willing to chat rather than fight. When the giant dragon doesn't have any reason to hurt you, don't give him one!
Casting spells of any kind on other people without asking their permission first.
Showing up fully armed and armoured to the party/dinner table/bedroom.
Using high-damage area of effect spells in densely populated urban environments.
Considering murder to be an acceptable solution to most disagreements.
On the other hand, you have to admit that the PCs doing this stuff does make the campaign a LOT more entertaining, especially when the DM plays out the consequences realistically. :smalltongue:

JellyPooga
2013-03-10, 06:07 AM
PCs would not need lots of meat, or even demand it, other than players (rather than PCs) not realising.

The diet is only poor if you consider large amounts of meat to be vital, rather than a major driver of the obesity problems we now have.

This was rather what I was driving at. In games I've played, players tend to demand meals comparable to a modern diet, or to put it another way, they expect to be treated (read: fed, waited on, etc.) much like the nobility would expect to be treated. Since when did peasantry ever like the nobility? The actions of the common low-level adventurer in this regard are those of some jumped-up nobody expecting to be treated like someone way above their social station. Hence; faux pas.

GnomeFighter
2013-03-10, 06:39 AM
Depends. The "peasants" hating the nobility is a rather a cliche and divorced from the reality of most of the medieval world. Most nobility/lords/etc had rights and responsibilities that balanced their interactions with the peasants. They were far from tiryanical overlords ruling over slaves for the most part.

Also, I don't see any reason why a party of PCs would not be treated like minor nobility. If we are talking about a real world like setting the party's gear is going to mark them out. A party member turning up in full plate is something equivalent to rolling up in a Ferrari. It is going to mark them out as very well off, and in a feudal or medieval equivalent world this not only means rich but also powerful. Full plate armour was something beyond the reach of even most minor nobles/local lords.

JellyPooga
2013-03-10, 07:37 AM
Depends. The "peasants" hating the nobility is a rather a cliche and divorced from the reality of most of the medieval world.

I didn't say peasants would hate adventurers. I said they wouldn't like them. Someone's opinion of another can differ wildly when talking about political and social situations. Politically speaking, you're correct when you talk about the cliche, but I doubt you'd find a working class man, alive or dead, who'd welcome one of the nobility into their social circle without reservation.

Adventurers, now, exist in a state somewhere between the nobility and common class; they typically come from lower class backgrounds (not always, but many), so expect to fit in to lower class society, but they typically also expect to be treated better and to fit into higher class society as well. This dichotomy cannot help but make the adventurer an outsider whatever society he's in.

Cerlis
2013-03-10, 08:00 AM
I've never in the history of my gaming, whether on this site or in my own groups heard of adventurer's expecting farmers to either host them or feed them.

My groups, if the choice is to sleep in a barn and eat meager meals or camp out and eat trail rations would go for the later.

and in any town the adventurer's tend to pay weeks of salary more than a farmer makes just because they dont want to deal with making change.

Oh sure, maybe they eat out your whole stock of food. but with the amount they tip you dont have to work for two weeks.


or they just murder you, then there isnt anyone to complain, now is there?

JellyPooga
2013-03-10, 08:17 AM
I've never in the history of my gaming, whether on this site or in my own groups heard of adventurer's expecting farmers to either host them or feed them.

So you've never adventured out of anything smaller than a town? Any kind of farming community of small enough a size will be reliant on infrequent caravans for anything they can't grow/raise themselves. Whether they're eating at the inn or some farmers house, the adventurers are still putting a disproportionate drain on the communities resources, which will not be easily or immediately replaced.


Oh sure, maybe they eat out your whole stock of food. but with the amount they tip you dont have to work for two weeks.

Yeah, farmers don't get paid a salary. They do hard graft and eat what they make and sell the rest to the aforementioned infrequent caravans. There's really no such thing as "not working for two weeks" in that world.

JoshuaZ
2013-03-10, 08:41 AM
e eaten more than an adventurers need.


The diet is only poor if you consider large amounts of meat to be vital, rather than a major driver of the obesity problems we now have.

This is part because we have a lot more meat than classical cultures had while still emphasizing meat as really good. The distinction between them needing meat and the distinction between it being a really nice thing to have isn't that big in this context. In many different medieval and pre-medieval cultures, meat was either reserved for special holidays or an obligation to eat on holidays (for example, medieval and pre-medieval Jews believed they had an obligation to have meat on Sabbath).


Depends. The "peasants" hating the nobility is a rather a cliche and divorced from the reality of most of the medieval world. Most nobility/lords/etc had rights and responsibilities that balanced their interactions with the peasants. They were far from tiryanical overlords ruling over slaves for the most part.

Wikipedia lists around 30 major popular revolts in the late medieval period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_revolts_in_late_medieval_Europe), as well as more explicitly peasant revolts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts) and that list is missing many small ones that were quickly stomped. It is true that many of those revolts were instigated or lead by merchants or other non-peasants, but peasantry and other similar low classes did often play a major role. How nice the nobility was (and conversely how much the peasants liked or disliked them) varied massively by both country and time period. Keep in mind also that after the Black Death, effective wages went up a lot, which gave the lower classes both more flexibility and power and also more of an idea that they could really have nice things if they pushed for it.

awa
2013-03-10, 09:36 AM
keep in mind pcs have a fairly direct and immediate benefit to peasants.
Is there a giant in the nearby hills who is coming in every other week for some bone to make his bread pcs deal with it.

bandits stealing the towns live stock pcs deal with it.

ghouls attacking anyone who strays out of doors at night pcs deal with it.

orcs preparing to march on the city a raze it to the ground pcs deal with it.

most pc that stick around in one area for any length of time is soon going to be the hero of the people before long and they will probably be giving him free food out of gratitude.

second near starvation is not the norm and if a society is on borderline starvation to such a degree that 4 -6 more guy will push them over the edge it's more likely the pcs are going to see this as a story point and help out. It fairly trivial for a party with a ranger druid or cleric to feed itself. Even in your example where the party eats nothing but meat well supply and demand now the peasants have no meat but they have a lot of money so it's still a net gain for the peasants.

edit
in regards to revolt that wikipedia article even admits that before that time period revolts were rare. also keep in mind that pcs unlike nobility spend a lot more time destroying monsters and have a much smaller impact on the town then an army moving through so they are likely to be much more popular then the nobility on average.

Deophaun
2013-03-10, 10:59 AM
Yeah, farmers don't get paid a salary. They do hard graft and eat what they make and sell the rest to the aforementioned infrequent caravans. There's really no such thing as "not working for two weeks" in that world.
But now they can afford a metal plow, which, for the amount of effort it saves them, is the equivalent of a two week vacation over its lifetime.

Seriously though, if gold isn't valuable to peasants, then what are they doing charging gold for goods or services? The fighter has a strong back. He can dig an irrigation trench for his food and lodging. Either that, or you assume that the gold economy is just an abstraction for the purposes of keeping the game moving, and you don't sweat it.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-10, 11:05 AM
Yeah, farmers don't get paid a salary. They do hard graft and eat what they make and sell the rest to the aforementioned infrequent caravans. There's really no such thing as "not working for two weeks" in that world.

The farmer still benefits greatly. He gets to buy luxury goods, or pay off his debts (farmers are always in debt), or put some cash toward getting his kids educated, or hire helpers, or have some money for a rainy day, or whatever.

JellyPooga
2013-03-10, 11:23 AM
Seriously though, if gold isn't valuable to peasants, then what are they doing charging gold for goods or services?

People are stupid and greedy. Mr.Peasant knows that the gold is of value and that he's being paid over the odds for whatever service he's providing, so he's not going to refuse the offer. As pointed out by Coidzor earlier, the Giants' comic on the subject is right. If someone can make a "quick buck", they will. What this fails to address is the nature of the beast in question.

Yes, the gold is valuable and the peasants can spend it on better equipment, luxury goods and so forth. However, if their little farming community is somewhere out in the sticks, they're not going to see an immediate return on that gold:
- The food they've lavished on the adventurers for the past 3 weeks will not be replaced in the immediate future, so until someone travels to the next town over, they're going to have to cut back on their already meagre (by modern standards) diet. Given that no-one in the village can afford the time to do this, it could be a while until those stores are replaced.
- The money they have can't be spent on the new plow or luxury goods until the next merchant caravan passes through town, which could be weeks away. So Mr.Peasant is sitting on a pile of soft and useless, but shiny, metal which he can't do anything with. All the while, the jumped up Adventurer lords it about expecting to be praised for whatever deed he's just done.

By the time the adventurers are looking to leave town, Mr.Peasant is probably right at the point where he's feeling the short-term effects of his transaction and is likely feeling less that grateful. Two months down the line, sure, he's reaping the benefits of his new plow and his wife just loves the spices they bought from the merchant and the kids have new clothes to keep them warm throught the winter, but right there and then with the smelly, violent adventurers grinning and waving as they leave the village with whatever the fallout of their latest adventure is? I'm betting Mr.Peasant isn't taking the longer view and he's wishing he had a little more food on his table, his 10' pole back and that his brother hadn't went along with the adventurers as a torch-bearer and been killed by that bear.

In short; Money is only as valuable as the goods and/or services it can buy. If you can't buy those goods and services, then the money is not of value until you can.

awa
2013-03-10, 12:57 PM
your core assumption that the peasant village is so close to starvation that feeding four people is going to seriously impoverish them is severely flawed as a normal situation.

And honestly what adventurer spends three weeks in a tiny town? a more accurate statement would be the adventures spend a day or two to heal up and then move on so they can either get to the adventure or find a big enough town to convert their wealth into magic items.

edit yes money you cant spend is not valuable but that's the only part of your statement that has any bearing on the situation.

also i have never seen a pc hire a torch bearer they just buy Everburning Torch and stick it in there belt or cast light it's a level 0 spell that lasts 10 min per level.

the pc bought your 10 foot pole? Then you get out our knife and carve a new one and be happy that you got 2 days of wages for that pole.

you of course also seem to be forgetting that pcs remove monsters from the region.

SilverLeaf167
2013-03-10, 01:16 PM
The party, talking to a high priest of a Good deity sending them on a world-critical quest:

Priest: "In order to get there, you should probably get on a ship over there, in that port city..." *points at map*
Party starts discussing: "We don't need no stinking ship, we've still got the zombie from that dragon we killed, if we fly we'll be there in less than one quarter the usual time..." *this goes on for a while in detail*
Me, OOC: "You know, per the rule we discussed earlier, that was all in-character."
Party: "Whoops."
Priest: *groaning* "Just because this is so important, I'll pretend I didn't hear anything. Sigh... just don't spook the children..."

Later in the same session, in a moment of mercy I actually let them get away with discussing their detailed escape plan (and blatantly admitting to their crimes) in front of a bunch of guards questioning them after being sighted on the dragon.

JellyPooga
2013-03-10, 01:18 PM
your core assumption that the peasant village is so close to starvation that feeding four people is going to seriously impoverish them is severely flawed as a normal situation.

And honestly what adventure spends three weeks in a tiny town? a more accurate statement would be the adventures spend a day or two to heal up and then move on so they can either get to the adventure or find a big enough town to convert their wealth into magic items.

You misunderstand my "core assumption", as you phrase it. I'm not saying that peasant villages are on the brink of famine, but that peasant villages are the kind of place where there is not a great deal of surplus, like you'd find in a larger settlement.

If a bunch of adventurers roll through town for a couple of days, they spend their money and move on; fine.
If the adventurers roll into town and decide to use it as their base of operations for their adventure, however, the little surplus the villagers have will swiftly be expended by their relatively lavish lifestyle, unless they make a point of using their own supplies, or hunting for food, or whatever.

I'm not talking about life-threatening poverty. I'm talking about the kind of inconvenience that will give someone reason to grumble or complain and generally not like the person that caused that inconvenience.

awa
2013-03-10, 02:58 PM
if the party is using a village as there base of operations that must mean there is something nearby for adventurers to fight which means the peasants are going to be grateful that the pcs are removing those threats.

And i still disagree with your premise that 4-6 additional mouths to feed would meaningful affect an average village.

Sith_Happens
2013-03-11, 06:36 PM
You misunderstand my "core assumption", as you phrase it. I'm not saying that peasant villages are on the brink of famine, but that peasant villages are the kind of place where there is not a great deal of surplus, like you'd find in a larger settlement.

I'd say your core assumption is that the PCs/players care at all what the meal they just bought is besides just "food." Considering that a mobile party in a pseudo-medieval setting will spend more time than not living off of trail rations or Survival checks (or non-D&D equivalent) anyways, that's a pretty big assumption to make.

Talakeal
2013-03-11, 06:55 PM
If meat is really so scarce in the village, why don't the PCs just go out and bring some back? Most D&D settings involve huge tracks of unspoiled wilderness, often surrounding the towns on all sides, and most parties include at least one excellent huntsman. An ecology that can support so many huge predators (likely what the PCs were fighting during the mission they are now resting up from) can surely provide adequate game to allow a small village to eat meat for a while.

Libertad
2013-03-11, 07:40 PM
I don't know if it counts as a "faux pas," but I'd imagine that adventurers would become jaded over time to tales and sightings of horrific beasts. This can come off as a lack of concern or extreme arrogance to peasant villagers when the party responds with a "oh goblins, that should be no problem!" to their woes.

awa
2013-03-11, 08:00 PM
that makes me think of annoyance i get when dms say something along the lines of the villagers told you the forest was dangerous you should have known there was over overwhelmingly powerful monsters in there that would wipe out the party. When dangerous is every thing from here be wolves who wont even give you xp to here be Cthulhu who ironically enough also wont give you xp albeit for different reasons

elliott20
2013-03-11, 09:03 PM
If meat is really so scarce in the village, why don't the PCs just go out and bring some back? Most D&D settings involve huge tracks of unspoiled wilderness, often surrounding the towns on all sides, and most parties include at least one excellent huntsman. An ecology that can support so many huge predators (likely what the PCs were fighting during the mission they are now resting up from) can surely provide adequate game to allow a small village to eat meat for a while.

I'd imagine it's because in a D&D setting, going out hunting is a lot more dangerous.

Talakeal
2013-03-11, 09:16 PM
I'd imagine it's because in a D&D setting, going out hunting is a lot more dangerous.

If the monster density of the world is so high that an experienced ranger or barbarian can't bag a few deer without risking death by monster than I would imagine the villagers would be a lot more upset when the PCs leave town, as the risk of death by monster attack is a hell of a lot higher than starvation brought upon by feeding a band of gluttons with a high calorie intake.

Libertad
2013-03-11, 09:40 PM
that makes me think of annoyance i get when dms say something along the lines of the villagers told you the forest was dangerous you should have known there was over overwhelmingly powerful monsters in there that would wipe out the party. When dangerous is every thing from here be wolves who wont even give you xp to here be Cthulhu who ironically enough also wont give you xp albeit for different reasons

Yeah, I've heard similar warnings that failed to work, such as a dungeon room full of trolls having human skulls and bones littered around the hallway leading to it. The idea is that the PCs will recognize it as dangerous and avoid it.

Except that low-level monsters have bones in their lairs as well. It's not implausible for goblin tribes to have skulls scattered about the place.

Telok
2013-03-11, 11:00 PM
So in my current D&D game the PCs found part of a minor artifact. The repair of this artifact is part of a plot point in the overarching metaplot. A short while later the players met a 15th level sorcerer who is on the board of the national magical college, close friend and former apprentice to the king's closest advisor (a higher level wizard). This sorcerer offered to help them find the other two pieces of the artiface and restore it. The artifact is a pretty powerful demon slaying sword.

Two weeks later the PCs decide to go demon hunting in a cave a couple hundred miles away. They make no preparation (a branch of the magical college is only about 70 miles away, with scroll and potion shops), ask nothing of the locals except where the demon cave is, and generally fail to discern that the cave is the location of a historical, documented battle to close a a direct and stable gate to the lower planes. Naturally some of them die and during the rout one of them ditches the artifact chunk in the demon cave.

Another two weeks pass and the players receive a Sending spell telling them that the sorcerer has located another piece. The player's response is "Don't bother we lost the first bit." A bit of scrying later and the sorcerer discovers that the demons have recovered the artifact part and are using it to repair the gate to the lower planes. The sorcerer summons an Astral Deva to go read the party the riot act, deliver a map, and tell them to go back and get the bit of artifact that they dropped.

Now the party is planning to kill this sorcerer (after he helps them repair the artifact), who is almost twice their level and makes extensive use of divinations. Plus the fact that if they had bothered to read his biography in the college or ask any of the faculty they would have known that he was also involved in a magical cold war with several magical rivals. Which is why he has a rather well fortified tower with a selection of magical defenses and traps. Of course they'd know that if they asked any of a dozen different NPCs.

Chilingsworth
2013-03-11, 11:04 PM
Well, sounds to me like those PCs are very likely to get exactly what they deserve.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-11, 11:12 PM
Except that low-level monsters have bones in their lairs as well. It's not implausible for goblin tribes to have skulls scattered about the place.

May I introduce you to Rules Compendium page 68? Allows characters to roughly determine relative CR if they succeed a Sense Motive check. They do have to be within 30ft, but it's better than nothing.

elliott20
2013-03-11, 11:18 PM
If the monster density of the world is so high that an experienced ranger or barbarian can't bag a few deer without risking death by monster than I would imagine the villagers would be a lot more upset when the PCs leave town, as the risk of death by monster attack is a hell of a lot higher than starvation brought upon by feeding a band of gluttons with a high calorie intake.

well, I meant the villagers wouldn't run out by themselves to hunt as easily for that reason.

Of course, I also imagine that warrior training become a standard part of the village too, if the surrounding threats were that dangerous.

Waspinator
2013-03-12, 03:54 AM
PCs tend to be kind of loose on property rights, looting everyone who dies near them.

icefractal
2013-03-12, 05:03 AM
Look, we don't go around looting people, we just have a 100% tax rate on people who attack us. :smallbiggrin:

Which brings up another point - how often do PCs ever pay taxes? Generally, if something valuable was discovered on a noble's land / within a kingdom, the noble / king / whoever is going to be taking a substantial cut. But mention that to the players, and they suddenly decide to become revolutionaries and overthrow the tyrannical government. :smallwink:


I have to side with the PCs on the issue of not surrendering their weaponry though - at least once that weaponry is notable:
"Look, this is the dread blade Mountain Cutter. A magma dragon was insufficient to keep it safe. People who can smash through armies bare-handed want this thing, and you think your "guard post with ordinary stone walls" is going to keep it safe? Tell me when you have an artifact-grade vault, and I'll let you hold onto it then. Besides, Bob here is unarmed and he could have killed everyone in this building by now, if he wanted to."

Of course that leads to a conclusion. Rulers of significant kingdoms don't ever meet people in person, unless that person is very trusted. You're some wandering adventurers with important news? You get to talk to the king's image in an animated painting, or something like that. Definitely not be in the same room as him.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-12, 10:12 AM
Which brings up another point - how often do PCs ever pay taxes?

They're paid off the books. When was the last time they signed a formal contract for their jobs?

Also, they pay sales tax on all the stuff they buy. So you can bet the government loves having the PCs around, since they spend so much and invigorate the economy.

Synovia
2013-03-12, 11:05 AM
I didn't say peasants would hate adventurers. I said they wouldn't like them. Someone's opinion of another can differ wildly when talking about political and social situations. Politically speaking, you're correct when you talk about the cliche, but I doubt you'd find a working class man, alive or dead, who'd welcome one of the nobility into their social circle without reservation.

If the party rolls up and kills off the kobolds that have been raiding the village's sheep, the peasants are going to LOVE the party.

The Fury
2013-03-12, 11:40 AM
How about how PCs interact with tradespeople in towns and villages? Say a PC walks into a village blacksmith shop and sees the smith pounding out a horseshoe.

PC: *drops a bag of gold on the floor* "Hello, sir! I'd like to buy a +3 longsword from you!

Blacksmith: "A what? I'm not a swordsmith, I'm a farrier."

PC: "Huh? No you're not, I don't see any ferries or riverboats around here!"

Blacksmith: "No, a farrier. With an 'a.'"

PC: *blank stare*

Blacksmith: "I shoe horses."

PC: "Do you have Horseshoes of the Zephyr?"

Blacksmith: "Horseshoes of the what now?"

PC: "... You're the worst blacksmith ever."

Stormageddon
2013-03-12, 11:55 AM
The recent "paladins should be a restricted class" thread had us talking a bit about how using detect evil on someone unprovoked might end up offending someone.

This got me wondering about what other kinds of actions that PCs take for granted in game should be considered social faux pas.

What do YOU think are some things that PCs often do and take for granted that really should be social no-no's?

My DM made everyone that I used detect evil on really offended. That character did not have many friends.

Omegonthesane
2013-03-13, 06:48 AM
My DM made everyone that I used detect evil on really offended. That character did not have many friends.

How were they able to tell, in-character, that you were applying the Evildar on them?

Slipperychicken
2013-03-13, 07:05 AM
How were they able to tell, in-character, that you were applying the Evildar on them?

Metagame (Ex)
This character has the ability to use knowledge he normally should not possess, or which is considered out-of-character information. He need not make a check of any sort to use this ability -he is simply assumed to know anything which the player (or DM) controlling his actions knows, including "metagame" or rules-mechanics information like the impact of the d20 on his universe, as well as any actions or statements declared in his player's vicinity, regardless of their relevance to the game, even if there's no possible way for him to have known of them otherwise. For example, he is fully aware of a Paladin's suspicions and intentions if the Paladin's player declares "my character is suspicious of the orcs, but doesn't show it. He will kill them if they make any sudden moves", even if the Paladin himself gives no indication of this fact.

PersonMan
2013-03-13, 02:45 PM
How were they able to tell, in-character, that you were applying the Evildar on them?

I wouldn't care what someone was doing, if you stare at me for 18 seconds with a concentrated look on your face I will at the very least be creeped out.

Especially since people could kill me after staring at me for 6 seconds.

EDIT: Also, the above is what Bluff/Sense Motive is for.

awa
2013-03-13, 03:57 PM
you only need one round to detect presence or absence of evil and you only need to be staring at a 60 foot cone that includes them and you dont need to stare at the same thing continuosly as long as you dont move them out of the 60 foot cone. So it is actually vastly less obvious then pepole tend to think.

So its not walk up to bob the butcher and stare intently in his eyes for 18 seconds.

Its walk up to bob the buthcer and look at his stall for 6 seconds.
You may then feel the need to look more closly depending on what you see but by that point you already know there is evil there.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-13, 09:39 PM
"Haggling" = "Alternate between ultimatums, name-dropping, and physical threats to the merchant's person until the DM gets tired and has the NPC give it to you for free, or you get impatient and either kill the guy or steal it."


How about how PCs interact with tradespeople in towns and villages? Say a PC walks into a village blacksmith shop and sees the smith pounding out a horseshoe.

PC: *drops a bag of gold on the floor* "Hello, sir! I'd like to buy a +3 longsword from you!

Inaccuracy: True PCs clutch their gp like every coin is their baby. They would never simply drop a sack of gold on the floor :smalltongue:

paladinofshojo
2013-03-13, 09:42 PM
Stealing things off corpses is still theft, and illegal. Even if you didn't kill the guy. It's amazing, how we suspend this idea for gameplay.



Wrong... it's not theft... if the guy's dead... it's looting... if you killed him... it's pillaging!!!!

nedz
2013-03-13, 09:48 PM
"Haggling" = "Alternate between ultimatums, name-dropping, and physical threats to the merchant's person until the DM gets tired and has the NPC give it to you for free, or you get impatient and either kill the guy or steal it."

Inaccuracy: True PCs clutch their gp like every coin is their baby. They would never simply drop a sack of gold on the floor :smalltongue:

But what do you need money for if you never pay for stuff anyway ?

Slipperychicken
2013-03-13, 09:51 PM
Wrong... it's not theft... if the guy's dead... it's looting... if you killed him... it's pillaging!!!!


There's a bit in one of the Viking sagas where a guy starving in the wilderness comes across an empty house, and breaks in and raids the pantry. And then he gets a guilty conscience about stealing their food... and so he lies in wait for the owners of the house to come home, and attacks and kills them. Because stealing things is wrong, but if you kill them and take their things, that's not theft; that's plundering, and that's okay.


Don't assume that other cultures are just like ours.

I get the feeling you two would get along well :smallbiggrin:

The Fury
2013-03-13, 09:52 PM
Inaccuracy: True PCs clutch their gp like every coin is their baby. They would never simply drop a sack of gold on the floor :smalltongue:

Yeah, you're right. What was I thinking? :smalleek:


But what do you need money for if you never pay for stuff anyway ?

To put in their money bin?

Waspinator
2013-03-13, 10:16 PM
Is there a spell to let you swim through gold like Scrooge McDuck?

But yeah, property rights tend to be odd in Medieval Fantasy Land. Basically, possession IS the law. Apparently, wills and other sorts of legal documents that describe ownership either don't exist or are badly enforced.

About being armed vs unarmed in the presence of authority, I'm kind of mixed on that one. On one hand, it does seem odd to allow killer demon swords or whatever near the king. On the other hand, it's extremely hard to make sure you've completely disarmed a d20 character without perfect knowledge of their abilities. You don't know if the guy is able to suddenly start throwing fireballs, shooting psychic lasers, punching through walls, teleporting, turning into a bear, or whatever. And weapons don't even have to look like weapons! For all you know, an apparently ordinary necklace could summon demons or something. About the only way to make sure you've made someone completely safe is flesh-to-stone or similar effects.

The Fury
2013-03-13, 10:26 PM
Is there a spell to let you swim through gold like Scrooge McDuck?


Yes! And if not, why not?

ArcturusV
2013-03-13, 10:29 PM
Is there a spell to let you swim through gold like Scrooge McDuck?

But yeah, property rights tend to be odd in Medieval Fantasy Land. Basically, possession IS the law. Apparently, wills and other sorts of legal documents that describe ownership either don't exist or are badly enforced.

About being armed vs unarmed in the presence of authority, I'm kind of mixed on that one. On one hand, it does seem odd to allow killer demon swords or whatever near the king. On the other hand, it's extremely hard to make sure you've completely disarmed a d20 character without perfect knowledge of their abilities. You don't know if the guy is able to suddenly start throwing fireballs, shooting psychic lasers, punching through walls, teleporting, turning into a bear, or whatever. And weapons don't even have to look like weapons! For all you know, an apparently ordinary necklace could summon demons or something. About the only way to make sure you've made someone completely safe is flesh-to-stone or similar effects.

Oh, I'm not saying it's EFFECTIVE. I'm saying it's a politeness issue. I mean really, the way DnD is set up, there is no perfectly safe location. Not even another dimension that is supposed to be hostile to all life other than yourself.

But it's a thing about showing you at least are making an effort and trying. You check your swords, staves, wands, etc. Just saying "Hey.... I'm willing to be less violent here".

It's kinda like traveling to a foreign country where they speak another language. Even if all you pick up is a few basic phrases at least it shows that you're trying to meet them halfway. It might not be effective for all your purposes. But they tend to react better to you asking for help even if it's just in a few broken phrases and showing you tried to learn instead of presuming they should all base their actions around your own personal reality.

Waspinator
2013-03-13, 10:36 PM
One big problem though is that successful adventurers are likely to be paranoid enough to never want to be disarmed. Would be a shame if while you were meeting with the king, someone stole all of your shiny toys and then tried to kill you.

ArcturusV
2013-03-13, 10:46 PM
Of course. Though I find pretty much all good manners have that sort of drawback in life. Take for example, something simple like holding open the door for someone else. This leaves you exposed inside the vertical coffin dead zone that is a doorway, easy to kill. It opens you up to attacks from the person you're letting in. It cuts off your field of vision allowing people to easily sneak up on you.

You sacrifice things for manners and civilization. It's a social contract that means you're not supposed to go around worrying about protecting yourself all the time, but can act in faith and trust, giving up some of your inherent rights for that freedom, because anarchy isn't freedom. It's slavery of another sort, locked into a position where you must jealously guard everything against everyone.

To bastardize what I remember of Hobbes of course.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-13, 10:48 PM
About being armed vs unarmed in the presence of authority, I'm kind of mixed on that one.

It's like real security. Someone might be able to get past it, but you're still going to put up as many defenses as possible. You're not just going to say "screw it" when the Head of State is at risk. Normally, it might just be a frisk, a quick scan, and elite bodyguards, while the extensive/truly paranoid stuff is reserved for crisis-times when they anticipate assassins. Plus the ease with which the King can be evacuated and a few Contingent spells should be more than enough to deal with threats which get through the rest.

Letting the adventurers in with all their gear to see the King would be like letting a mercenary bring his loaded, modified assault rifle, full body armor, his tank, and enough ordinance to take out a city block on his way to see the President. It's just stupid on so many levels, and has absolutely no upside.

In addition to weapons, they would obviously hold spell components and magical foci too, since those are much more dangerous than the weapons.

Waspinator
2013-03-13, 11:15 PM
For that kind of good manners to be practical, though, you need to have at least some sense of security in your day-to-day life. In your typical D&D world, you really don't have that. Kind of hard to apply real-life standards of politeness to a world where steampunk cyborg dragons might come swooping down to kill you at a moment's notice.

Venetian Mask
2013-03-14, 06:27 AM
Then again, this being a magical setting it'd be pretty reasonable for the city guard to have mages on hand that can peacebond (Ci) weaponry. Furthermore, if you are an incredibly rich and powerful king, what's to stop you from tossing a Zone of Peace and magic suppressing fields on the room?

This propagates a cultural shift where weapons may even be a symbol of status and wouldn't get you in trouble at all, just as long as they are visibly peace-bonded.

Jack of Spades
2013-03-14, 07:21 AM
For that kind of good manners to be practical, though, you need to have at least some sense of security in your day-to-day life. In your typical D&D world, you really don't have that. Kind of hard to apply real-life standards of politeness to a world where steampunk cyborg dragons might come swooping down to kill you at a moment's notice.

At some point, it becomes less about having good manners and more about appearing to be less of a threat so that the guard don't take you in (or kick you out) for looking like you were about to start trouble. Monopolies of power are important, and any decent city is going to make sure that the guard is as close as they can manage to being the only military presence in the city. Which means the more you walk around in combat gear, the more likely you are to be labelled a disturber of the peace.

ArcturusV
2013-03-14, 05:51 PM
I don't know if you can necessarily claim a lack of security in DnD worlds. I mean, it may SEEM that way because players are always getting hip deep in trouble and wading through. But you also have to keep in mind Adventurers in most setting are a very, very small minority. 1%, if that. And they are remarkable because they do go out seeking trouble where everyone else is content to stay home, make a meager living off their trade, and die of old age.

Most settings are... fairly secure and safe as far as things go. Player's in most campaigns aren't going to get in trouble unless they poke around in trouble. There's exceptions of course for particular plot hooks (Which might happen once a campaign, if that), where someone does attack you when you're in a "Peaceful" area. But typically it's players going out and looking for trouble. They decide to go after the thieves' guild and chase them onto their dangerous turf. They decide to go into the goblin warrens and wipe them out, etc. Most campaigns (And settings I've seen), run on a presumption that towns are, unless Plot Demanded Otherwise, perfectly safe. You can just kick around a town for weeks, even months at a time, doing things like crafting, spell research, resting, spending your loot, etc, without anything at all untoward happening to you.

So the safety exists. The whole "A dragon/Demon/Assassin will jump you the moment you put down your weapons" is more a case of particularly sadistic DMs, or a once in a lifetime occurrence.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-14, 06:15 PM
I don't know if you can necessarily claim a lack of security in DnD worlds. I mean, it may SEEM that way because players are always getting hip deep in trouble and wading through. But you also have to keep in mind Adventurers in most setting are a very, very small minority. 1%, if that. And they are remarkable because they do go out seeking trouble where everyone else is content to stay home, make a meager living off their trade, and die of old age.


Adventurers are the top 0.00001% richest, most dangerous people in the world. Who are extremely well-paid to go to the universe's most dangerous places to do the most dangerous things. And they only die so often.

Most people, especially Kings, don't experience in their whole lives anything like what the PCs go through on a daily basis.

awa
2013-03-14, 06:53 PM
on the other hand look at your typical fantasy stories and mythological epics heroes are often not required to to remove their weapons and in many a king who demands people remove them is becuase he is paranoid/ a bad king.

demanding that a noble hero remove his weapon might in certain cultures be an insult you don't trust me and think i would stoop to petty assassination and a sign of weakness i believe you are more powerful then me and my royal guards.

in regards to walking around town with weapons your thinking of it from the point a view where the government has a monopoly on legitimate force. in d&d land that is not the case a even in the real world say a knight, samurai, or viking would likely not be required to divest himself of his weapons on entering a town (with in there own society)

russdm
2013-03-14, 07:06 PM
Most settings are... fairly secure and safe as far as things go. Player's in most campaigns aren't going to get in trouble unless they poke around in trouble. There's exceptions of course for particular plot hooks (Which might happen once a campaign, if that), where someone does attack you when you're in a "Peaceful" area. But typically it's players going out and looking for trouble. They decide to go after the thieves' guild and chase them onto their dangerous turf. They decide to go into the goblin warrens and wipe them out, etc. Most campaigns (And settings I've seen), run on a presumption that towns are, unless Plot Demanded Otherwise, perfectly safe. You can just kick around a town for weeks, even months at a time, doing things like crafting, spell research, resting, spending your loot, etc, without anything at all untoward happening to you.

So the safety exists. The whole "A dragon/Demon/Assassin will jump you the moment you put down your weapons" is more a case of particularly sadistic DMs, or a once in a lifetime occurrence.

Hence my new meaning of PCs: Problem Creators, not Player Characters. Would the dragon ravaging the town be still ravaging the town in the PCs were nowhere around? Would the orcs be stealing livestock from the local farmers if the PCs were elsewhere? Only when the PCs are present, do any problems occur.

As for the "no weapons in the presence of royalty", that is a tradition and one usually respected by both sides. The King does this for his protection, and he is usually not going to have someone killed in his courtroom. Some laws are based around hospitality and proper behavior and were considers signs of being part of the nobility. IF the PCs want to act as if they own teh place, they will get visits from angry nobles determined to put them in their place in the social pecking order. And PCs who walk around with non-peacebound weapons will be asked to leave because only the town guard/army are viewed as being worthy or accepted doing so. Samurai are a warrior class and have earned the respect that that usually deserves and some of them would still keep their weapons peacebound.

Today, we require people that opening display firearms like pistols to keep them in holsters. Thats for the safety of people. Peacebinding weapons is a similiar deal.

Marnath
2013-03-14, 07:10 PM
Today, we require people that opening display firearms like pistols to keep them in holsters. Thats for the safety of people. Peacebinding weapons is a similiar deal.

No it isn't. You can draw a weapon from a holster in a heartbeat. Peacebond makes it so you can't draw the weapon at all. We don't have anything like that in real life.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-14, 07:12 PM
Today, we require people that opening display firearms like pistols to keep them in holsters. Thats for the safety of people. Peacebinding weapons is a similiar deal.

IIRC, you aren't allowed to have weapons in the presence of most important leaders. Even when people openly bear arms and it happens to be legal, like at a town hall meeting, that receives a very negative reaction and you look like you're crazy.

And seconding Marnath, holstering does practically nothing. Quite a few assassins only draw their weapons when they're about to fire anyway. You can't "turn off" a weapon, short of confiscating or destroying it, which is among the reasons why we don't let people brandish assault rifles next to the President anyway.

Marnath
2013-03-14, 07:19 PM
which is among the reasons why we don't let people brandish assault rifles next to the President anyway.
Actually, a guy totally did that a few years ago. He went to a protest outside the White House with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder. Wasn't loaded, so they didn't do anything about it. (Although I imagine he had his very own sniper on the roof watching him after that :smallamused:)

NihhusHuotAliro
2013-03-14, 07:57 PM
Adventurers probably smell very threatening to herbivores. All that blood and grit and stuff. I bet a whole party of mid-level adventurers would scatter the deer for quite a ways.

Maybe that would tick off the peasantry; when they can't find the deer to feed their families because the adventurers keep scaring them off.

awa
2013-03-14, 08:38 PM
that assumes pcs arnt interested in maintaining their equipment leaving blood on your weapons and armor is a great way to ruin them. also if pcs are killing stuff so dangerous as to cover them with blood then the peasants are going to be grateful to them for killing the monsters/ bandits hiding in the woods.
also keep in mind wolves are going to smell a lot bloodier/ more dangerous to deer then any pc and the presence of wolves does not empty a forest of deer.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-14, 10:47 PM
Actually, a guy totally did that a few years ago. He went to a protest outside the White House with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder. Wasn't loaded, so they didn't do anything about it. (Although I imagine he had his very own sniper on the roof watching him after that :smallamused:)

Yeah, I didn't mention it so I wouldn't catch hell for real world politics.