Dispute between DM and Player

[MindArkantos]

There was recently a fairly large dispute between a certain player and DM at my gaming table and I would like for some input on what the playground thinks.
The player in question was the emperor of the kingdom the party was in and the kingdom had just fell into a sink hole which caused almost everyone to die. The party also consisted of the Emperors Court Wizard and High Priest as well as a foreign ambassador from some far off country the party would probably never go to. The ambassador and emperor were the only players present at the session, so the rest of the party wasn't being played/used. The party reached the royal treasury where immediately the foreigner begins stealing gold and rats appear out of nowhere and begin to attack the party. In order to stop the ambassador from fleeing with the gold the emperor knocked him out before dispatching the rats. The ambassador was then manacled and woken up for question to be done during the next session.
The DM of the party then stated that since the Emperor no longer had a kingdom it wasn't his gold, so that he couldn't claim it. The Emperor's player said that his character didn't know that and it was still rightfully his and would be used to rebuild the kingdom. The Emperor's player was kicked out of the group and the DM was kicked out of the Emperor's other group. Which party was in the right?

[Segev]

Well, the DM was wrong for dictating that the Emperor no longer "owned" the gold. Ownership is not a metaphysical thing in D&D, and thus that matter should have been left to role-play (and maybe roll-play if people were willing to come to IC blows over it).

The DM kicking said player out of the group for disagreeing with him was also wrong.

I'm inclined to say that it's likely mildly petty of the player to kick the DM out of "the other group," but at the same time, if he's the DM of said group, it probably would not be healthy or fun for them if somebody that is in that state of quarrelsomeness with the DM is in the game.

I do think both parties should actually talk this out. It's only a bloody game; it's not something over which to ruin friendships.

[Red Fel]

Seconding this.

First off, the DM's logic makes no sense. "The Empire has vanished" plus "This was the Empire's gold" equals "This gold is now loot and may be owned by whoever grabs it." It's standard adventurer math. How many tombs and temples of ancient civilizations get raided every day by adventurers with that precise mentality?

Second, kudos to the player who, instead of saying, "Yay, free gold for me," says "I want to use it to rebuild." That's admirable.

Third, it sounds like the DM wasn't expecting the players to take the big pile of free gold he left in front of them. Which is silly; of course they would. So it sounds like he tried to invent a reason for the characters to act how he wanted, instead of how their players wanted. That's also silly.

That said? I don't know how much is left out here. I can't say the DM was in the right, because it all sounds terribly contrived. But I can't say the player was in the right either, because I don't know how he reacted, or what the nature of their relationship was prior to the DM destroying the empire. For all I know, he had been provoking this DM.

But it does sound like far too much silliness was had at the table that night. Far too much.

[aeauseth]

The core problem seems to be social interaction & etiquette.

Social interaction can be rough when you are a teen. You could speak with their parents and see if they have any insight into the issue.

If the individuals are adults then.... well... umm.... just move on. They obviously didn’t learn good socials skills in their youth, and it isn’t likely their social skills will improve as adults. It is their problem and not yours. Let them work it out for themselves, I wouldn't interfere. I definitely wouldn’t take sides.

[Equinox]

The Emperor's player and the Ambassador's player were clearly handling this in character. The DM had no right to step in and heavy-handedly proclaim whose gold it is and whose gold it is not.

The Emperor's player's argument that, regardless of what the DM may say, his character still believes this to be his gold, is perfectly valid. This DM sounds very overbearing and heavy-handed, possibly crossing into the despotic.

[holywhippet]

I'd say the DM was trying some rail roading and it backfired. His argument is invalid anyway. He's trying to say "you no longer have an empire, so everything that belonged to that empire is no longer yours". But in that case, who's is it? The first person to show up and claim it by adventurer logic, in which case it is the emperors because he's there to claim it.

The DM was bad enough wiping out all of the people in the first place. I mean an entire kingdom (that really should be empire since the PC was an emperor) falls into a sinkhole? According to wikipedia, sinkholes generally aren't larger than 600 meters/2000 feet. Maybe if the integrity of the ground had been undermined by a lot of mining. Maybe.

Rule 0 is not meant for that kind of blatent abuse. The DM was presumably trying to strip the PC of their assets. But in that case, the best move is to start a new campign not to declare "kingdom falls, almost everyone dies".

[A.A.King]

So the Emperor's Character didn't know he was no longer Emperor? Because if he didn't then it sounded like great separation of player knowledge and character knowledge. And even if he did know it still sounds like a good character decision of the emperor, so I don't understand why the DM got upset. Which basically makes me conclude that this story is incomplete. I mean, did the DM really kick out a player for making one in-character decision which he didn't like? I think there is more to it

[KillianHawkeye]

Sounds to me like everybody was wrong.

[Captnq]

A kingdom.

Into a sinkhole.

...

Okay... Let's say... A small kingdom.

50,000 dead.

Now, Sink hole. Minimum of 100' of dirt on top to hold up the kingdom above a sinkhole... Kingdom is 100 people every square mile... 500 square miles. 5280 ft in a mile. That's 1.39392x10^12 cubic feet of dirt that dropped about... oh... lets say... Wouldn't have to be far 50'?

Cubic foot of dirt weighs = 100 pounds So, lets round down. 1x10^14 pounds of dirt moved 50'. That's about... 12.5 Megatons of TNT.

About half the energy released durning the 2004 Christmas Earthquake that created the Tsunami that Killed 227,898 people. Except that all that energy is released in an area about the size of Los Angeles.

So you are looking at an 8.9 earthquake that not only flattened the nation in question, but every building for about 1000 miles. BECAUSE IT HAPPENED AT THE SURFACE. The planet started spinning faster because the crust moved in closer to the center of gravity for what ever world this was on.

The players aren't just dead. They are really dead. They are past dead. They are True Resurrection after you wish up a new body dead. Everyone is dead in that nation. You won't even find hair samples or bone fragments when you unleash a sinkhole of THAT SIZE.

(and I would like to point out, these are VERY conservative estimations)

There are no vaults to loot. There is only a cloud of dust hovering over pulverized rubble. There is no Role-playing. There are no rats. There are no ambassadors, emperors, high priests, or anything except for Death, Pain, and utter Oblivion

There is just this:
Rocks Fall. Everyone Dies. (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05032002.shtml)

The DM is an idiot. The Players are idiots for letting the DM even entertain such a plot development. I suggest everyone stops playing for a while because clearly you guys need to get some perspective.

[Zancloufer]

There's railroading, and then there is railroading that doesn't even make sense. Even IF the DM was right about not owning the gold, the Emperor PC could just 'steal' the gold from no one and it's his again.

Now not only did this PC make a reasonable choice from both a IC and OoC point (That WBL might be unbalancing) but the DM kicked him out for it.

Now for the Emperor guy kicking the DM out of his game, yes it is somewhat petty, but if he figures they can't get along anymore it's not a terrible choice.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It sounds like we're missing important information about the tenor of the actual DM/player disagreement, which might sway us in one direction or another. That said I concur that the DM's logic and actions that you have described are illogical, railroady, immersion-breaking, and against the spirit of being a good arbiter.

The former emperor may no longer be able to stand on any legal claim to his lost lands and people (aside: "sinkhole forms everyone dies" is pretty lame without further explanation) but - especially in medieval times - when there is no legal claim, people tend to make claims. With loyal armies and wars of succession. A good DM plays that struggle out and has the Emperor's character make difficult choices on how to spend the money - rebuilding or fighting. A lame GM has a nemesis send ethereal filchers to take the gold. This GM just straight up fiats, OOC, that the player isn't allowed to take the gold... to do something completely in character that progresses the story! Ridiculous.

If the player got booted out for calmly disagreeing with the DM, or even with a bit of well-contained righteous anger, he's well within his rights to disallow the DM from playing in his game and has entirely maintained the high ground. From what I've read I'd never want to play with the DM in any circumstance, and that's from a pragmatic, dispassionate calculation of fun times to be had. This player has this crap hanging over both of them, which I imagine would make it uncomfortable even if the DM is a reasonable player.

That said, we're not sure how the player reacted. He could have said or done any number of things to lose the high ground. Based on the evidence presented, the player is in the right.

[Trinoya]

The DM who acted first and kicked the player out of his game is extremely wrong, and honestly if I was your group I'd cease playing in his game over that type of an abuse of power. I understand disagreements can happen and sometimes they can be severe enough to warrant player removal... this does not appear to be one of those cases.

In regards to the second player/dm kicking the other one out in response: I can not blame him, I certainly wouldn't want to be around him, much less allow him in my game afterwards for fear he would continue to further divide the group or sabotage my own game. I think he acted about as well as anyone could expect him to given his options are, 'reward bad behavior' or 'nuke him as well.'

DM 1 instituted M.A.D. DM 2 merely followed suit, and I see nothing wrong with that at that point.