How do I stop betraying the party?

[ReaderAt2046]

Over the past couple of years I have participated in 3 different group RPGs wherein one of my characters has been put into a circumstance where he had to more or less work against the party. Case-by-case details:

1: The Patriot.
As the title suggests, I was playing a young and heroic patriot. First few sessions are fine, I join with the party and we go off on our first dungeon crawl. When we get back, we get invited to dine with the local governor. About halfway through he accuses us of being traitors on absolutely no evidence. The rest of the party busts itself out, taking me along for the ride. Problem is, my character is still loyal to his country, and so he goes to great lengths to avoid harming any of the soldiers in the fort, even summoning a blinding flash in another PC's face (I had fire and light powers), so he couldn't shoot any guards.
Then a few sessions later, we meet a new party member for the first time, and literally the first thing he says is a long spiel of insults against my nation, religion, ethnicity, and culture. So I try to challenge him to a duel, and every other member of the party attacks me and tries to kill me. I only survive through some ridiculously lucky rolls.

2. The Thaumaturge.
In the next game, a CoC adventure, my character is playing the last scion of an ancient sorcerous bloodline, seeking to regain his family's lost power and influence. Over the course of some adventures we come across a Buhddist monastery and I quietly confirm that it's home to a cultist circle. The rest of the party want to break in there and look for clues, but I don't want to offend the cultists (I'm hoping to get them to teach me magic), and so I slip off to warn them. Many adventures ensue that aren't really relevant to my point here.

3. The Priest.

So my third character is essentially a patriotic but apolitical cleric, or was until this adventure. About halfway through our first session, we get sucked into the deep past, and spat out in the midst of a country inhabited primarily by demons, any of whom could on a whim mindrape my character and irreversibly change his alignment and personality to Utter Evil. The rest of the party immediately befriends and allies themselves with the demons, and by the second session I have had enough. IC I go storming off into the night. OOC I pull the GM aside and explain to him that my character is within an inch of giving up on the party and trying to kill them all. The GM then explains that he had done that on purpose. My character's plot arc was built around the idea that I would be forced to backstab the rest of the party, and he had already laid plans to help me do it properly. The next session, the spirit of the last rightful queen of my country shows up to act as my spirit advisor, and in the climactic session I battle the party and win.

So the question I'm asking is, does anyone have suggestions on how I could avoid having to betray the party in the future? I'm starting a new campaign, and I don't want to keep being known as the one who always betrays the party.

[Mr Beer]

Play a character who has great loyalty to the "team" and talk to the GM first to get him on side so you don't get put into a situation where you should betray them.

[Eisenheim]

It sounds like talking to the DM and other players before everyone makes characters and then making sure that your character isn't in conflict with the basic premise of the campaign/what everyone else is doing/ the DM isn't setting you up is your best bet.

The other half of the answer is to try hard not to do so. As the Giant's article makes clear, party conflict is a choice. If you don't want conflict with your party, stretch to avoid it both in and out of character.

[Flashy]

You stop betraying the party by choosing to stop betraying the party. Say yes to ongoing conflict.

Neither of the characters in the first two situations (the last was betrayal by DM fiat, so you didn't really have anything to do with the decision) HAD to take the course of action you chose. The Patriot's patriotism was challenged, great! This is an opportunity for you to explore the character. Does he try to convince the new person how great his country is? Does he passive aggressively pick at whatever this new person holds dear? Does he eventually start to question his own beliefs? The magician just wanted to learn magic, he could easily have attacked the cultists and picked over their library, or tried to take one alive, or explored any of a dozen other strategies to learn magic. By instantly resorting to PVP you are denying that your character can be impacted by the rest of the party, or ever see any kind of development at all. Let go of the rigid view of your character and find a reason why your character would do this thing you previously thought they wouldn't. Your parties will work better, and you'll find yourself playing more rewarding characters.

[nedz]

IMHO In cases 1 and 3 you were set up by the DM.

In 1: Why did the new player start out with those provocative lines ? Who briefed him ?
Also, why did the whole party turn against you ? Maybe the whole group set you up here ?
In 3: It is transparent.

In all three cases you played an idealistic character, though in 2 your ideal was your personal ambition.

I wouldn't worry about it, it's all good dramatic role-play and seems to fit the play-style of your group.

If you want to play a different type of character then you may need to find a new group to play with.

[Beige]

honestly, 1 and 2 seem more like a really bad case of inflexiblity than anything else - especially no 2. there are numerous ways to learn magic, but your first thought is the one that ends up with you in wombat with the party? not bide your time, or take prisoners, or heck go over the library of the cult?

Number one is also a problem. If you stuck with your party as long as you did, then your character obviously could see issues with his nation even if he is a patriot - after all, you can love and support the ideals your nation is founded on whilst thinking the current leader is a tosser. your still a patriot if your fighting for what your nation represents and the will of the citizens, even if your fighting against the current leader.

to badly paraphrase for a nearby thread; legal ruler does not mean just or correct ruler, just he got into power legally.

so the best way I can think to not betray the party is to not betray the party if you have the slightest opportunity :smallannoyed:. beyond that, when designing your character, talk to the DM/group,run the concept past them and see if it is something that will lead to inevitable conflict between you...

...and if you can't find something you like that dosen't lead to betrayin your party members, then embrace that :smallbiggrin: be as scarily helpful and efficient as possible for a while, and make them look forward to the inevitable backstabbing from how awesome your being

or get around it by when the inevitable break happens, retire the old character to NpC status, roll and new one, and foist the betrayal on the DM

[Alaris]

The first incident (Patriot) was not a betrayal on your part, but on the party's part. You were being the good patriot that you are... you challenged (ENTIRELY REASONABLY) another person to a duel, and the rest of the party decided to MURDER YOU for it. They betrayed you, not the other way around.

The second incident (Thaumaturge) could be considered a betrayal, yes.

The third incident (Priest) was essentially the DM's doing, and not yours. He set up for you to 'betray' the party, who has sided with horrible demons. Yes, you chose to go through with it, but given that it was part of the DM's plan, I don't really lay any blame upon you. It's something your character would have done.

Essentially, only one of the incidents could be considered a true betrayal... so I don't think you've made any kind of pattern or consistency with it.

The advice I can offer is to make a character that WANTS to work with the party. Find out what the party is making, and work around that. I do that decently often, and I can usually still make my character concept work.

Best of luck.

[Pex]

Stop playing with a DM who forces you to be one for the lulz.

[VoxRationis]

Play characters for whom violence is not the first answer to insults (scenario 1). I'm not sure you could really have done much about 3.

[Averis Vol]

Gonna agree with Vox. Resorting to violence is the mark of a kid, men let words do the talking til theres absolutely no option left. As for two, well, that seemed kind of unnecessary; you easily could have came up with a plan that would get you in contact with them and set the party up to take them out. 3 I like actually, DM kinda played everyone involved and I applaud him for that.

[Slipperychicken]

1. Talk to DM and other players before the game.


1a. Ask questions regarding what the campaign is about and what you guys expect to be doing.

1b. Figure out what everyone else plans to do. Develop ideas for party dynamics. If there seems to be a conflict, bring it up and try to figure out ways to work past it.

1c. Try to get a ban on PvP (in this case, "PvP" is meant to include activities like stealing from PCs, griefing, trolling, and screwing with other PCs' goals). Ensure that "it's what my character would do!" doesn't fly: If someone's character would ruin the game, then change the character.

1d. Don't build characters who are likely to do PvP or griefing activities.

1e. Don't play with griefers.

2. Don't go around killing people over trash-talk.

3. No, seriously, if someone insults you to your face, you don't kill them on the spot. Even if they're insulting everything you stand for. That's not how adults solve their problems.

[satcharna]

2. Don't go around killing people over trash-talk.

3. No, seriously, if someone insults you to your face, you don't kill them on the spot. Even if they're insulting everything you stand for. That's not how adults solve their problems.Challenging someone to a duel over a matter of honour would be entirely in character for a patriot in a medieval setting. You'd be surprised how childish people can act.

[Jeff the Green]

Challenging someone to a duel over a matter of honour would be entirely in character for a patriot in a medieval setting. You'd be surprised how childish people can act.

Hell, even a patriot in modern days. If you don't agree with me, I invite you to go to a bar in a rural American small town (like the one I grew up in) and start insulting America, rednecks, and God. Then as you're being wheeled out on a stretcher consider that America is better at tolerating dissent than much of the world.



Number 1 is on the player who thought bringing in a character who would be guaranteed to offend every sensibility your character has would be a good idea and your DM for even considering allowing a character like that in. They initiated the PvP. You merely offered to end it without bystander involvement.

Number 2 you probably could have avoided betraying the party by taking a prisoner, raiding the library, or offering to go "under cover" with the cult to get the clues your party was after. (Also, playing a character that wants to learn magic in CoC? I will never understand the masochism of some players. At least when I ran it my players didn't actually know what they were playing.)

Number 3 was your DM. Seriously, why would anyone do this without asking the player if they're okay with it first? That's only marginally better than saying halfway through the first session "Oh, I forgot: Elves are utterly despised by everyone. Including other elves."

So, yeah. Find a group that won't force you into betraying the party. And try to come up with more means to the same ends if you're led to it by non-*******ish means.

[Marlowe]

Agreed. Challenging someone to a duel over insults to his country is a gigantic difference from "responding to insults with violence".

For one thing, the challenged party has the option of apologizing should he not wish for it to come to violence. The fact that the duel went ahead shows it was a quite deliberate provocation. The fact that the player was attacked during the duel shows it was a fairly dastardly set-up by the rest of the team.

[lytokk]

I'm going to have to agree with everyone that said 1 and 3 are not your fault. I find it odd that in 1, the party felt more loyal to the person they just met as opposed to the one who had been (presumably) saving their life since the beginning of the adventure. Its possible that the party really hated your character or your country, and took this as the opportunity to get rid of them. In which case, why do you game with these people who can't just say out of character what they're feeling. Also, the new guy joining in had to of known about your patriotism when he made his character, otherwise I can't see any motivation for him going into the tirade. This speaks to me of DM involvement.

2, well yeah, that one was your fault.

Have all of these been with the same group with the same DM each time? If so, you need to have a word with the DM about all of this. Maybe its the type of game he wants to run, where one member always ends up on opposite sides of the party.

[Slipperychicken]

Hell, even a patriot in modern days. If you don't agree with me, I invite you to go to a bar in a rural American small town (like the one I grew up in) and start insulting America, rednecks, and God. Then as you're being wheeled out on a stretcher consider that America is better at tolerating dissent than much of the world.

Excuse me. I meant "that's not how mature adults solve their problems".

[Beige]

I'm going to have to agree with everyone that said 1 and 3 are not your fault. I find it odd that in 1, the party felt more loyal to the person they just met as opposed to the one who had been (presumably) saving their life since the beginning of the adventure.

that depends on your point of view - is he the guy who has been helping the party since the beginning, OR is he the guy loyal to the enemies of the campaign and unwilling to even consider really helping the party any more?

because he said the continuous sabotaging of his parties efforts in the campaign lasted for a number of sessions. and I'd get fed up of a PC sabotaging our efforts constantly as well - not the the extent of saying nothing then murdering the PC, but I'd at least have a word with the player about, maybe, knocking that off :smallannoyed:

[Marlowe]

Excuse me. I meant "that's not how mature adults solve their problems".

So, you are saying that Andrew Jackson, Ben Jonson, and Richard Sheridan were not mature adults?:smallconfused:

[Jeff the Green]

Excuse me. I meant "that's not how mature adults solve their problems".

I don't think you can plausibly call the vast majority of adults who have ever lived immature. It's more like "that's not how mature adults in a law-based society solve their problems."

[Tengu_temp]

In the first scenario I see it as everyone's fault: the new player started to immediately insult you instead of trying to get along with the party, you challenged him to a fight (to the death?) instead of using words, and the rest of the party decided to support a complete, rude stranger instead of their comrade for some reason.

In the second scenario, not enough information is given for me to make a judgement.

In the third scenario, you did the right thing, and it's obvious that the DM agreed, considering that he helped you kill the rest of the party.

Overall, the best way to keep a party together is stop creating characters in a vacuum. Coordinate with other players and the DM, so you will know what kind of game this is going to be and so everyone will create characters that mesh together well.

[Red Fel]

Overall, the best way to keep a party together is stop creating characters in a vacuum. Coordinate with other players and the DM, so you will know what kind of game this is going to be and so everyone will create characters that mesh together well.

So much this. Others have mentioned it, but it bears repeating. In the first scenario, you were a strong-willed loyalist in a party of people who had no qualms about fighting the local authority with lethal force. Your party was then joined by someone who was outspoken in his hatred of people like your character. Instant conflict, just add water. Being able to discuss concepts with the party in advance helps prevent conflict like that.

The second instance, that was all you. That was a clear case of "It's what my character would do," and there's a very simple remedy for it: Any time your character would take an action directly in opposition to the party (such as warning your enemies you're about to attack) it's a bad idea that will cause party conflict. Exceptions exist where this is something the players agreed on in advance, but generally, that's just a really poor choice.

Third instance could possibly have been avoided by discussing concepts with the other players ("So we're all on-board with the 'Suck up to evil' plan?") but it still basically consists of DM fiat. More importantly, though, it means that - assuming these scenarios occurred in the order you describe - the DM is aware of your tendency to be the odd man out against the party. He planned for it and intended for you to act on it. When your DM sees your tendency towards party conflict as a viable plot device, something's got to give.

The second biggest piece of advice I can offer is flexibility. In the first situation, yes, there was party conflict, but it could have been avoided. I'm not saying you had the obligation to silence your moral objections, but as others have mentioned, a duel probably wasn't the best option. Find another way. In the second, as others have mentioned, you could have looked for another way to learn magic that didn't involve betraying your friends. And in the third - well, I don't know about you, but when the DM tells me what he expects my PC to do, my first instinct is to come up with a way to do the exact opposite. (I'm not a fan of railroads.) I'd advise you to stop fixating on a single course of action and consider some viable alternatives.

[Garimeth]

Hell, even a patriot in modern days. If you don't agree with me, I invite you to go to a bar in a rural American small town (like the one I grew up in) and start insulting America, rednecks, and God. Then as you're being wheeled out on a stretcher consider that America is better at tolerating dissent than much of the world.

Afghanistan 2011, one of our Marines was on post with an Afghan National Army soldier, the Marine bitched about how much of a ****hole Afghanistan was and how much he hated the country, ANA guy left. Came back a short time later and shot the Marine in the back of the head with an AK-47.

Alot of people on every side of every debate about everything don't realize how tolerant the West is about ALOT of things, or how nice it is to live in a country that believes in the rule of law and sanctity of contract.

Back on topic, and directed at the thread not Jeff's quoted comment, a duel is not the same thing as a brawl. As a DM I would not consider a challenge to a duel to be an act of PvP. Specifically for the OP, just try harder to be more of a team player - although I agree that it was weird they sided with the person they just met, maybe the PLAYERS don't like you for some reason? Were you new to the group at that time and the new character was played by someone they knew better IRL?

[Segev]

The advice in this thread is pretty much spot-on. I just want to add that your best bet to avoid betraying the party is to make your character's goals align with the party's. This can be done either before chargen by discussing it thoroughly, or in play by having your character be potentially conflicted about whatever his goals and beliefs are. You then choose, as the player, whether these conflicts are resolved by him realizing the virtues of his ideals and beliefs and becoming stalwart in them, or they result in an eventual change of heart and mind. Base this decision on the party's actions and goals; it even makes a certain amount of sense: your PC is hanging out with these people, and their views and the confluence of their goals with his lead him to resolving his conflicted position on things in agreement with theirs.

You can still put your own spin on it; you don't have to play a noodle-willed follower. But when you come to the IC-reasoned conclusion about what's right, choose the evidence he follows to ensure his decision is a belief that will work well with the party.


Finally, when you see a time where you "must" betray the party, talk to the party OOC about it. You don't WANT to, so you don't need the secrecy usually involved. Let them know your concerns, and emphasize that you're looking for input from them as to how to find a course of action in line with the party's goals that isn't unjustifiable to your character.

[Bulhakov]

It sounds like talking to the DM and other players before everyone makes characters and then making sure that your character isn't in conflict with the basic premise of the campaign/what everyone else is doing/ the DM isn't setting you up is your best bet.

This nicely sums it up. Smart DMs and players always make parties that have good reasons to stick together. One of my personal tricks for this - have the potentially troublesome players play siblings/childhood friends/army buddies

Also a piece of advice for avoiding OOC conflict: you're a friend first, a character second - don't do things to a party member that a friend wouldn't do, even if it is what you imagine your character would do.

[the OOD]

at chargen, talk to another player. have your characters be friends.
if you aren't friend with a single other PC, things start to get ridiculous, plus, the resulting dynamic will often be one of the easiest and most defining parts of you character.

for a popular media example look no further then guardians of the galaxy, and imagine Rocket and Groot as totally unrelated characters: the movie goes on as normal, but they just don't know each other. without his loyalty to Groot, rocket would have run off and quit almost immediately, and without their interactions, he would have been little more than a violent, thieving,(ring-tailed) gunslinger. meanwhile, interacting with Groot would have been little more than toiling, and he would have been an annoying, characterless, tag-along(with "I am Groot" approaching jar-jar territory).
mix the two together with the 20-second backstory of being bounty-hunter buddies, and truly incredible characters are made.

never underestimate the power of friendship between two characters.




(Edit: bouns: If it comes to betrayal anyways, now the choice will be much more meaningful, whether you see what can tempt you to turn on a true friend, or deciding to fight with/against them if the party comes to blows)

[Wardog]

Doctor Samuel Johnson on duelling: (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NUoJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=doctor+johnson+on+duelling&source=bl&ots=MIIo_F5KcK&sig=w0_aANpT_2v5ydUJwm9Ga2XJNIE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tAwUVJCpCMHLaPq0gfAG&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=doctor%20johnson%20on%20duelling&f=false)

tl;dr version:
Society ostracises those who receive insults without being willing to fight over them. Therefore insulting someone is a form of harm, and challenging someone to a duel over an insult is effectively a form of self defence, and therefore justified.

Also:


At another time Johnson defended duelling and put his argument upon what is perhaps the most solid basis namely that if public war be allowed to be consistent with morality private war must be equally so.


Just because modern, Western morality disapproves doesn't mean it is "childish", or would be out-of-character or seen as inappropriate in most of the rest of human history (or, presumably, the game setting).



(Another point: duelling isn't necessarily to the death, and "killing someone because they insulted you" isn't (necessarily) the purpose of a duel. The purpose, in theory at least, is to demonstrate your own moral standing by being willing to risk your life and safety to stand up for your cause. In the most straight-forward example: if someone calls you a coward, by challenging them do a duel (which could result in you getting killed) you prove that you are not a coward. And if they refuse both to apologise and to accept your challenge, they prove themselves to be a coward - and accusations of cowardice by proven cowards don't count for anything).

[Sith_Happens]

Excuse me. I meant "that's not how mature adults solve their problems".

Then maybe I don't want to play as a mature adult.:smalltongue:

[Marlowe]

What's really funny is that this judgement on "mature adult problem-solving" is being made within the context of a Fantasy RPG, where "mature adults" repeatedly solve the problem of "not having enough money" by going to somebody else's dwelling, killing them, and taking their stuff.

[Tengu_temp]

Whether challenging someone to a duel over an insult is appropriate, it doesn't change the fact that doing so sends negative signals to other party members. "This is a Lawful Stupid guy who will go around challenging everyone who offends his sense of honor", and such. Especially if it's a duel to the death. In fact, if it was a duel to the death, then I can see why they sided with the other guy - you tried to murder someone because they said something you didn't like!

(Also, personally I think that any "patriot" who physically lashes out at people offending his country is not a patriot at all, but either a jingoist brute or a violent ******* using patriotism as an excuse to beat up other people.)


What's really funny is that this judgement on "mature adult problem-solving" is being made within the context of a Fantasy RPG, where "mature adults" repeatedly solve the problem of "not having enough money" by going to somebody else's dwelling, killing them, and taking their stuff.

>implying that murderhobos are mature adults, or that they belong in any game that cares about roleplaying and verisimilitude

[Marlowe]

So I take it, Tengu, that none of your characters in any game have ever materially and knowingly profited from forcibly depriving another sentient being of their life and/or property?

Note I'm not stating my opinion of the practice or the playstyle. But I hear it happens in these games. From time to time. You're saying all these games where it happens are lacking in Roleplaying or versimilitude?

[Lord Torath]

Regarding the duel, issuing the challenge as "I challenge you to a duel to first blood" could have gone a long ways to keeping the party from dogpiling you.

Regarding the third point, if your DM decides to offer you another chance to betray the party.... Well, I remember a tale someone told (on this board) of accepting the BBEG's offer to join him directly in front of the party. Fast forward several sessions to the final showdown with the Big Bad and his new PC lieutenant at the top of a dais with the rest of the PCs ready to take them down from below. Round one, the "traitor" PC trips the Big Bad, and sends him tumbling down the stairs, landing on his back surrounded by the well-armed party. One round later, the "traitor" tells the group he knows all the details of the now dead BBEG's plans and operations, and the re-united group spends the next several sessions dismantling the entire group. Don't betray the party, but let the DM think you are.

[Jay R]

You stop betraying the party by choosing not to betray the party. For instance:


1: The Patriot.
As the title suggests, I was playing a young and heroic patriot. First few sessions are fine, I join with the party and we go off on our first dungeon crawl. When we get back, we get invited to dine with the local governor. About halfway through he accuses us of being traitors on absolutely no evidence. The rest of the party busts itself out, taking me along for the ride. Problem is, my character is still loyal to his country, and so he goes to great lengths to avoid harming any of the soldiers in the fort, even summoning a blinding flash in another PC's face (I had fire and light powers), so he couldn't shoot any guards.

Don't attack the party with a blinding flash, tell them, "I can't kill my own country's soldiers; We need to get out without killing anyone."

[Also, it was a stupid approach to begin with. Heroes routinely kill the guards of the local traitor. Once the governor accused you on no evidence, he is the one betraying your country, and defeating his forces is a patriotic duty."


Then a few sessions later, we meet a new party member for the first time, and literally the first thing he says is a long spiel of insults against my nation, religion, ethnicity, and culture. So I try to challenge him to a duel, and every other member of the party attacks me and tries to kill me. I only survive through some ridiculously lucky rolls.

Tell him, "We need to work together for the good of all. Stop insulting me and my people, and I won't insult you and your people."

Repeat it. Over and over. Don't let it come to blows unless you know the the bulk of the party are on your side, and then he is the one who betrayed the party.


2. The Thaumaturge.
In the next game, a CoC adventure, my character is playing the last scion of an ancient sorcerous bloodline, seeking to regain his family's lost power and influence. Over the course of some adventures we come across a Buhddist monastery and I quietly confirm that it's home to a cultist circle. The rest of the party want to break in there and look for clues, but I don't want to offend the cultists (I'm hoping to get them to teach me magic), and so I slip off to warn them. Many adventures ensue that aren't really relevant to my point here.

"Guys, you have to trust me on this. I have a private mission that involves dealing with them before we kill them. Let's string them along for awhile."


3. The Priest.

So my third character is essentially a patriotic but apolitical cleric, or was until this adventure. About halfway through our first session, we get sucked into the deep past, and spat out in the midst of a country inhabited primarily by demons, any of whom could on a whim mindrape my character and irreversibly change his alignment and personality to Utter Evil. The rest of the party immediately befriends and allies themselves with the demons, and by the second session I have had enough. IC I go storming off into the night. OOC I pull the GM aside and explain to him that my character is within an inch of giving up on the party and trying to kill them all. The GM then explains that he had done that on purpose. My character's plot arc was built around the idea that I would be forced to backstab the rest of the party, and he had already laid plans to help me do it properly. The next session, the spirit of the last rightful queen of my country shows up to act as my spirit advisor, and in the climactic session I battle the party and win.

You didn't betray the party. The DM did.


So the question I'm asking is, does anyone have suggestions on how I could avoid having to betray the party in the future? I'm starting a new campaign, and I don't want to keep being known as the one who always betrays the party.

Tell the DM and the party that you will not accept a mission, background, or plot that requires you to betray the party. Tell them you want to find the fun inherent in having a solid, loyal team that works together. Say it clearly and unambiguously. And then never do anything against the party's interests.

[Tengu_temp]

So I take it, Tengu, that none of your characters in any game have ever materially and knowingly profited from forcibly depriving another sentient being of their life and/or property?

There's a difference between "I killed those orcs because they attacked a village, and then taken their stuff and received a reward from the villagers" and "I raided an orc camp that might as well be neutral as far as I know and killed everyone so I can take their stuff". The former happens in my games. The latter? Nope, not since I started to give a crap about roleplaying at least. I suppose it could happen if it was a game with explicitly amoral PCs, but that has yet to happen.

[nedz]

Whether challenging someone to a duel over an insult is appropriate, it doesn't change the fact that doing so sends negative signals to other party members. "This is a Lawful Stupid guy who will go around challenging everyone who offends his sense of honor", and such. Especially if it's a duel to the death. In fact, if it was a duel to the death, then I can see why they sided with the other guy - you tried to murder someone because they said something you didn't like!
Honour based societies do exist, Death before dishonour ! — just not in the West any more.

But then how deep does your player's role-play go ?
Would they role-play a character with this mind-set, or simply use their own, modern, sense of values ?

(Also, personally I think that any "patriot" who physically lashes out at people offending his country is not a patriot at all, but either a jingoist brute or a violent ******* using patriotism as an excuse to beat up other people.)
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel — Samuel Johnson.

There's a difference between "I killed those orcs because they attacked a village, and then taken their stuff and received a reward from the villagers" and "I raided an orc camp that might as well be neutral as far as I know and killed everyone so I can take their stuff". The former happens in my games. The latter? Nope, not since I started to give a crap about roleplaying at least. I suppose it could happen if it was a game with explicitly amoral PCs, but that has yet to happen.
This happened in one of my games recently — with a new player. Some players assume that some races are Alignment: Always Monster.

[ReaderAt2046]

I'm going to have to agree with everyone that said 1 and 3 are not your fault. I find it odd that in 1, the party felt more loyal to the person they just met as opposed to the one who had been (presumably) saving their life since the beginning of the adventure. Its possible that the party really hated your character or your country, and took this as the opportunity to get rid of them. In which case, why do you game with these people who can't just say out of character what they're feeling. Also, the new guy joining in had to of known about your patriotism when he made his character, otherwise I can't see any motivation for him going into the tirade. This speaks to me of DM involvement.

2, well yeah, that one was your fault.

Have all of these been with the same group with the same DM each time? If so, you need to have a word with the DM about all of this. Maybe its the type of game he wants to run, where one member always ends up on opposite sides of the party.

1 and 3 were in the same group with the same DM (and in the same setting. My character in 3 was descended from my character in 1).



Number one is also a problem. If you stuck with your party as long as you did, then your character obviously could see issues with his nation even if he is a patriot - after all, you can love and support the ideals your nation is founded on whilst thinking the current leader is a tosser. your still a patriot if your fighting for what your nation represents and the will of the citizens, even if your fighting against the current leader.

to badly paraphrase for a nearby thread; legal ruler does not mean just or correct ruler, just he got into power legally.


I had no problem with working against the treacherous governor. I just refused to let them attack soldiers who were guilt of nothing worse than being conned by the traitor. (Just to make it clear, the local governor was a traitor against his nation. The Nation itself was never besmeared.)

[Deaxsa]

Stop fighting it and become insidious. no seriously. If that's how people are gonna railroad you, you may as well try and enjoy it. so try (IC) to fix the doom of the party instead of shouting challenges and such.

(probably not the best advice, but maybe last-resort advice)

[Jeff the Green]

Honour based societies do exist, Death before dishonour ! — just not in the West any more.

You give the West too much credit. Gangs are honor-based. While it's decreasing, there's still a hefty honor component to rural (particularly Appalachian and Southern) US culture. And there are still some ugly remnants in patriotism—c.f. the rural bar I mentioned.

[Tengu_temp]

Honour based societies do exist, Death before dishonour ! — just not in the West any more.

But then how deep does your player's role-play go ?
Would they role-play a character with this mind-set, or simply use their own, modern, sense of values ?

Depends on the game. In L5R, for example, this mindset is not only allowed, but expected - celebrated, even! But in most other settings, I'd think a player who does that is purposely trying to be difficult and create extra conflict for the party. And I'm generally not a fan of that.


This happened in one of my games recently — with a new player. Some players assume that some races are Alignment: Always Monster.

New players are by definition new. They're usually not as good at this whole "roleplaying" thing as experienced ones, simply because they haven't encountered the idea before.

[Sartharina]

You give the West too much credit. Gangs are honor-based. While it's decreasing, there's still a hefty honor component to rural (particularly Appalachian and Southern) US culture. And there are still some ugly remnants in patriotism—c.f. the rural bar I mentioned.You make it sound like Honor-based societies and cultures are a bad thing, and Human Paperclip/GreyGoo is the way of the future.

I've noticed that in the first two cases, the character was anti-Murder - "No, let's NOT go on a ****ing killing spree and jack everyone's **** up just because... reasons?"

[Tengu_temp]

You make it sound like Honor-based societies and cultures are a bad thing

That's because they are. Honor can drive you towards noble actions, but most of the time, it just makes people act like violent, intolerant jerks.

[Sartharina]

That's because they are. Honor can drive you towards noble actions, but most of the time, it just makes people act like violent, intolerant jerks.Better than the overentitled, spineless, and self-absorbed and aggrandizing scum that exist without honor systems in place.

[Sith_Happens]

Suddenly relevant:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CJO4PUPjC04/UVITu1vP_6I/AAAAAAAAB1o/xqOUFu_jat0/s1600/trash1.png

[Marlowe]

There's a difference between "I killed those orcs because they attacked a village, and then taken their stuff and received a reward from the villagers" and "I raided an orc camp that might as well be neutral as far as I know and killed everyone so I can take their stuff". The former happens in my games. The latter? Nope, not since I started to give a crap about roleplaying at least. I suppose it could happen if it was a game with explicitly amoral PCs, but that has yet to happen.

Of course there is a distinction. However, both patterns of behaviour fit the description of;


Solving the problem of "Not having enough money" by going to someone's dwelling, killing them, and taking their stuff.

Which you called "murderhoboing"

And it's strange that you can suddenly distinguish the difference now when you couldn't before.

[RPGuru1331]

Better than the overentitled, spineless, and self-absorbed and aggrandizing scum that exist without honor systems in place.

I dunno, I'd rather have my overentitled, self-absorbed, aggrandizing scum spineless than with spines; they cause less pointless trouble that way. The latter's what an honor system is ultimately meant to generate.


Of course there is a distinction. However, both patterns of behaviour fit the description of;
Sure, if your post carries the #ExplainanRPPlotbadly hashtag, but in a practical sense, even if you're being mercenary about it, you're waiting to kill until it's been sufficiently justified. That kind of waiting isn't connoted by

Solving the problem of "Not having enough money" by going to someone's dwelling, killing them, and taking their stuff.

As far as the OP goes... stop making characters who value goals so much that they screw over other party members for them. The first one, especially, with the patriot was 100% avoidable by making someone who isn't going to kill (Or even fight) someone just for hearing ethnic slurs and slams against their own country. I promise you, not only is this doable, it is in fact the default human condition.

As far as #3 goes, that's on the GM. That's kind of a weird set up to ultimately be intending, and I'm vaguely curious what the heck the goal of the game even was. It sounds like the GM also set up a premise for the game itself and went 'nope' after y'all made characters, so all the more reason why I can see getting blindsided.

[Jay R]

If people ever keep agreements just because they agreed to them, ...
If anybody drives on the correct side of the street or stops at stop signs when there's nobody around to watch, ...
If the play of any game concludes without all players at all times cheating, ...
If anybody ever offers assistance to somebody who can't pay it back, ...
If anybody ever speaks politely, ...
If you are ever safe around people you don't know, ...

... then you live in an honor-based society.

It isn't perfect, but no society ever was.

[Segev]

Whether challenging someone to a duel over an insult is appropriate, it doesn't change the fact that doing so sends negative signals to other party members. "This is a Lawful Stupid guy who will go around challenging everyone who offends his sense of honor", and such. Especially if it's a duel to the death. In fact, if it was a duel to the death, then I can see why they sided with the other guy - you tried to murder someone because they said something you didn't like!To be fair, in cultures more akin to those we're theoretically role-playing in, the response to having Bob challenge Steven to a duel to the death over a deadly and protracted stream of insults to Bob's nation-state would be, "Steven had it coming."

It's like poking the bear with a stick and describing, with pictures and magic to make sure she understands you, how you're going to cook, eat, and make coats out of her cubs. You haven't DONE anything, but you've done all you can to piss off a very dangerous creature.

Modern society frowns on responding to words with violence. We spend a LOT of effort raising our children to the idea of "just let it slide; words can't hurt you." Unfortunately, it's not clear that we're right about this. Words are powerful, and they can influence. The reason we root ourselves in the idea that violence is not an appropriate response is because we tend to think of ourselves as logical and rational beings, and that any resort to violence is the fallacy of the club rather than an enforcement of rules of polite society.

The truth is, most cultures wherein the duel is acceptable - even modern western subcultures where the informality of "you insulted me; let's step outside" is more or less expected if not accepted - also accept a fervent apology from the one challenged on his words as valid reason for the challenger to back off of the violence. It becomes, in part, a statement of how firmly you really believe what you're saying: are you willing to risk physical harm to back it up? It may not prove your point, but it's still a statement of whether you think you're right or just being a jerk.

There are obviously problems with this outlook, too: the bully-boy starts shutting down any dissent by those who just don't want to be beaten up. The dirty secret of modern Western society is that the bully-boys have just changed tactics and skill sets, though. Now, it's the sharpest tongue and the most adept at shaming others by slurring their character and casting aspersions upon them who silence the opposition over any conflict. We see it on the internet all the time.

Civil society relies on a certain amount of honor, but also relies on the threat that you had better be willing to back up your position, your words, or be willing to back down, because otherwise you're going to be savaged by those you wrong. It can be abused - it IS abused - by those who view themselves as "wronged" by any disagreement. But it still is rather important, because by decrying it as "always wrong," you arm bully-boys of another stripe to force those who lack skill in that area to bully people by DRIVING them to that as their only recourse.

If you're going to get along with a group, you HAVE to learn not to push each others' hot buttons. If you're hanging out with Afghan soldiers and you feel they're worth association, you don't insult their home and culture, certainly not to their face. Even if they're NOT going to come back and shoot you in the back (which I agree is overkill - pun unintended), it's rude to do so. You should only speak up about those things if you have a firm conviction about it and feel your words will make a difference. To the point that you'd allow this to cause a rift between you and your potential ally rather than put it aside for mutual cooperation.


(Also, personally I think that any "patriot" who physically lashes out at people offending his country is not a patriot at all, but either a jingoist brute or a violent ******* using patriotism as an excuse to beat up other people.)That's nice, but when dealing with other cultures which believe that anybody who would allow their nation to be slandered in such a way is either disowning his nation or is a wimp and a wuss deserving of further abuse, that attitude is going to get you abused physically, financially, socially, and culturally. You are, in effect, disrespecting THEIR culture by insisting that refusing to stand up for your nation with more than words makes you superior, and you're going to get beaten up for it. Yes, physically, because those cultures won't respect you because you're being a wimp.

At the least, you should declare them wrong, and tell them exactly what you think of their culture, in return. You are then playing their game, and giving respect to their cultural attitude by showing them that you will stand up against their attacks. PErhaps it will end there. You can always demand an apology. ANd if they won't give it, spell out exactly what kind of slime you think that makes them and their culture. Maybe they'll throw the first punch; then you have the moral high ground you so crave.

But if you claim that you're "jingoist" if you won't do anything to defend your nation's honor from insult, then all patriotism is jingoism, by your definition. Patriotism is more than "yeah, I think my country's okay, and I don't feel like living somewhere else, but you're right about all that rotten stuff you say about it 'cause I don't want to risk you getting mad at me by me arguing." Or worse, "...you're right about all that rotten stuff you say about it, but what country doesn't have problems, right?" Patriotism doesn't deny its nations problems, but it does not tolerate insults being thrown, and it emphasizes the good and defends against insults. If you think the insults all have merit...are you really all that patriotic? Perhaps you don't like your country all that much, after all. (Generic "you," not directed at any posters. Hypothetical character.)

[Sartharina]

(Also, personally I think that any "patriot" who physically lashes out at people offending his country is not a patriot at all, but either a jingoist brute or a violent ******* using patriotism as an excuse to beat up other people.)
Replace "Country" with "Dearly Beloved Mother", because that's about as much respect+love a patriot has (if not more) for their nation. Is someone a jingoist, violent brute if they beat someone up for insulting and trash-talking their mother/other relatives?

[Tengu_temp]

If someone insults you, or your country, or your mom, there are several ways to defend against it. You could crush them verbally and show them how wrong and ignorant they are. You could decide arguing with someone like this is a waste of your time and explicitly ignore them, because the offended party's is too strong to be shaken by some pathetic loser throwing insults.

But going physical because someone said something you don't like? That's just a mark of an uncultured *******. At best, it's a sign that you're hot-headed and cannot think calmly. And yes, I include punching someone in defense of your poor old mother here, or videos of people punching hecklers. Especially since for every valiant defense like this, you have dozens of jerks doing this just because they ran out of words.

Fighting someone who went physical first or threatened you physically is fine, though.


Of course there is a distinction. However, both patterns of behaviour fit the description of;


Solving the problem of "Not having enough money" by going to someone's dwelling, killing them, and taking their stuff.

Which you called "murderhoboing"

And it's strange that you can suddenly distinguish the difference now when you couldn't before.

How does "defending a town from orcs and then taking the orcs' stuff" fit the description of "going to someone's dwelling, killing them, and taking their stuff"? Not all characters who kill for a living are murderhobos.

[Sartharina]

If someone insults you, or your country, or your mom, there are several ways to defend against it. You could crush them verbally and show them how wrong and ignorant they are. You could decide arguing with someone like this is a waste of your time and explicitly ignore them, because the offended party's is too strong to be shaken by some pathetic loser throwing insults.

But going physical because someone said something you don't like? That's just a mark of an uncultured *******.Because completely destroying someone's life, reputation, and future is so much better and more cultured than inflicting a little bit of physical pain. Words hurt, and can do significantly greater damage than any amount of fisticuffs.

[Tengu_temp]

Because completely destroying someone's life, reputation, and future is so much better and more cultured than inflicting a little bit of physical pain. Words hurt, and can do significantly greater damage than any amount of fisticuffs.

If an insult from a random stranger hurts you so much, then you need to grow thicker skin. Seriously. A certain amount of thick skin is necessary to survive in the adult world.

And in situations where words really can destroy someone's life or reputation, going physical is pretty much guaranteed not to help you. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Lord_Gareth]

Replace "Country" with "Dearly Beloved Mother", because that's about as much respect+love a patriot has (if not more) for their nation. Is someone a jingoist, violent brute if they beat someone up for insulting and trash-talking their mother/other relatives?

Yes. Pretty much precisely that, yes. If you turn a talking conflict into a fighting/shooting conflict, you're the jerk, not anyone else.

[Sartharina]

If an insult from a random stranger hurts you so much, then you need to grow thicker skin. Seriously. A certain amount of thick skin is necessary to survive in the adult world.If a punch from a random stranger hurts you so much, then you need to grow thicker skin. Seriously. A certain amount of thick skin is necessary to survive in the adult world.

[Tengu_temp]

If a punch from a random stranger hurts you so much, then you need to grow thicker skin. Seriously. A certain amount of thick skin is necessary to survive in the adult world.

Failed attempt at wit, considering that people punching each other is not something that happens often in most people's lives - if a stranger punches you, call the police! Or retaliate, if you think you can take them (not recommended for most nerds).
But no matter who you are, some people will be *******s to you, and you generally can't do anything about it.

[Sartharina]

Failed attempt at wit, considering that people punching each other is not something that happens often in most people's lives - if a stranger punches you, call the police! Or retaliate, if you think you can take them (not recommended for most nerds).
But no matter who you are, some people will be *******s to you, and you generally can't do anything about it.
When the seconds count, police are just minutes away!

And the only reason people punching each other isn't a thing that happens in most people's lives is because of laws and cultural norms set and twisted by cowardly wimps by establishing a system that fortifies their strength while eliminating/downplaying their weaknesses, and using ... whatever your terms are against those who use violence... to disarm their opposition.

Also - your last sentence just completely undermined your entire argument. People who are *******s to you are only such because they can get away with it and there's nothing you can do about it. I, however, refuse to let myself be disarmed in that manner. Sure, I may be an "uncultured ********" to you, but I don't have a problem with people being ******s to me, because they know there's no illusions of safety to protect them. People like you and with your beliefs are the only reason we have people being *******s to each other.

[Tengu_temp]

Your politics are showing. Also, I'd take this "cowardly" system over whatever you're glorifying, every day.

Furthermore, please don't lose your job when you start a brawl at work after a co-worker (or your boss) says something you don't like, and don't end up in a hospital after you decide to attack a hooligan who was throwing insults at you on the street and then it turns out he had several friends nearby.

[tensai_oni]

And the only reason people punching each other isn't a thing that happens in most people's lives is because of laws and cultural norms set and twisted by cowardly wimps by establishing a system that fortifies their strength while eliminating/downplaying their weaknesses, and using ... whatever your terms are against those who use violence... to disarm their opposition.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120212235730/theinternetbox/images/archive/9/9b/20120310162435!Watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png

[Sartharina]

Your politics are showing. Also, I'd take this "cowardly" system over whatever you're glorifying, every day.

Furthermore, please don't lose your job when you start a brawl at work after a co-worker (or your boss) says something you don't like, and don't end up in a hospital after you decide to attack a hooligan who was throwing insults at you on the street and then it turns out he had several friends nearby.So are yours. Also - been there, done that, worth it.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Return to the topic of the OP, instead of this off-topic divergence, or the thread will be locked.

Burble.

[ReaderAt2046]

Great Modthulhu: Return to the topic of the OP, instead of this off-topic divergence, or the thread will be locked.

Burble.

In addition, neither Sartharina nor Tengu is actually putting forward arguments at this point, just slinging insults. Neither of you are going to convince the other, or any third parties.

[Socksy]

In addition, neither Sartharina nor Tengu is actually putting forward arguments at this point, just slinging insults. Neither of you are going to convince the other, or any third parties.

As a third party, I'm pretty convinced Sartharina is right.

@OP: Talk to the DM about it and explain that you don't want to be stuck betraying the party. It sounds more like an OoC problem to me.

[Sith_Happens]

As a third party, I'm pretty convinced Sartharina is right.

In the context of most fantasy RPGs, usually. In the context of real life, we've just been mod-told to drop it.

[Segev]

Edited to remove since I missed the mod warning.

[Ettina]

If people ever keep agreements just because they agreed to them, ...
If anybody drives on the correct side of the street or stops at stop signs when there's nobody around to watch, ...
If the play of any game concludes without all players at all times cheating, ...
If anybody ever offers assistance to somebody who can't pay it back, ...
If anybody ever speaks politely, ...
If you are ever safe around people you don't know, ...

... then you live in an honor-based society.

It isn't perfect, but no society ever was.

I disagree. There are plenty of other reasons to do those things than honor. Most of those things I do because of empathy, not honor. I don't care that someone sees me as a person who keeps their word, in fact I don't care if I do keep my word, but I try not to harm others if I can avoid it because I care about them. Yes, even strangers.

And driving on the correct side or stopping at stop signs is just a matter of not wanting to get myself killed. Even if I can't see anyone now, someone might come along too quickly for me to react. And I like my internal organs unmushed.


Anyway, back on topic. All but #3 could've been avoided simply by putting your party ahead of whatever your character is obsessed with.

[Tengu_temp]

Come on folks, you heard Octodad. Back to the original topic.

There is a certain aspect that has to be mentioned, because I don't think it was talked about enough. In the first example, the new player was rather disrespectful in not caring about creating a character that meshes well with the established party - in fact, it seems as if he created his character purposely to aggravate the OP. That's generally not what you do.

[Curbstomp]

On topic to address the original post:

In the immortal words of Chris Farley: "Stop it! Just stop it!"

Read Rich's article on good roleplaying. Make choices that allow the game to continue rather than bringing it to a screeching halt. Stop choosing to betray you party whenever the opportunity presents itself. Instead decide to make choices for your character that are loyal, steadfast, and team-oriented. The important team being your party. Those are the real life people you are playing with. Your character does not make choices. YOU DO. It is YOUR responsibility to not betray the party.

You can chose to have your character put up with people who are rude to him for many in-game reasons. A few might include: to prove them wrong, because you are friends, because you are all being hunted by the same enemy, because you are stubborn, because you love them, because murder is wrong, because you grew up together, the list can go on and on...


Now that being said, I do think you may have been slightly railroaded on the third situation. If it bothers you, tell your DM that you don't want it to happen again with future characters b/c the betrayal scenario is not something you enjoy playing.

[DSmaster21]

Try playing evil characters. It is my go to move when I play with any player I am unfamiliar with. I often consider party members my friends. I often will work with one or more players to coordinate backstories so I am close with their characters. Evil doesn't mean I would betray the party for no good reason.

[Sartharina]

1. Develop characters in conjuction with the party to minimize risk of group-destroying conflict
2. Killing NPCs tends to be a big friction-point in groups. Everyone at the table should be OOC-okay with who the party kills. Without such an agreement, it's perfectly acceptable for the objector to protect NPCs from party members (But probably shouldn't try to kill the party members). Otherwise, when 'the party wins', the player of the objector 'loses' even if he's supposed to be 'going along for the ride'. In the second case, and similar cases, everyone should be on the same page when it comes to who's going to die or not (I saw no problem with taking disabling actions in the first situation - but turning against the party was possibly too far in the seccond.)
3. If a character proves to be irreconcilable with the party, it's time to retire the character - Either make him a villain, or just have him walk away.