Role playing vs Dice Rolling

[meyerusn51]

I'm still fairly new to being a DM, and I've ran into some issues regarding PCs roleplaying and skills. During play, one of the player characters is a paladin while another was playing as a neutral ranger. The PC playing as the ranger wanted to open the coffins to loot it while the paladin character disagreed with it, and wouldn't let him do it cause he felt it was wrong. The ranger pc wanted to roll a diplomacy check on the paladin pc. How would you guys resolve an issue like this? I'm trying to be fair to both parties.

[PaucaTerrorem]

I don't think you can use diplomacy on a PC. Make them rp it out.

[geekintheground]

by raw, diplomacy doesnt work on PCs, following the raw isnt unfair imho as long as you apply it equally. i would have them roleplay it out, MAYBE ask for cha checks if one of them feels their character would be better at this kind of thing than they are.

[SowZ]

by raw, diplomacy doesnt work on PCs, following the raw isnt unfair imho as long as you apply it equally. i would have them roleplay it out, MAYBE ask for cha checks if one of them feels their character would be better at this kind of thing than they are.

But ultimately, it is still up the Paladin to decide what to do. The player can factor in the charisma check, but the dice roll does not remove his agency.

[meyerusn51]

What do you guys mean by raw?

[Know(Nothing)]

If I were the paladin, I would want the other players to get their loot, but I would still want to stick to my character. RP it, and come up with a work-around out of game(like camping nearby then looting things when the paladin is asleep.) The player can be aware of the deceit, but his character won't be. If he decides that his character is a light sleeper and wakes up to catch the ranger, then he's being needlessly confrontational and you need to talk to him out-of-game about what fun is.

[geekintheground]

But ultimately, it is still up the Paladin to decide what to do. The player can factor in the charisma check, but the dice roll does not remove his agency.

yes. sorry if that wasnt clear. i really should be going to bed XD cha checks are just an added consideration, but its up to the player to make the final decision.

[geekintheground]

What do you guys mean by raw?

RAW means Rules As Written. most of the times it just means "the rules"

[Mystral]

I'm still fairly new to being a DM, and I've ran into some issues regarding PCs roleplaying and skills. During play, one of the player characters is a paladin while another was playing as a neutral ranger. The PC playing as the ranger wanted to open the coffins to loot it while the paladin character disagreed with it, and wouldn't let him do it cause he felt it was wrong. The ranger pc wanted to roll a diplomacy check on the paladin pc. How would you guys resolve an issue like this? I'm trying to be fair to both parties.

Interparty social stuff should never be governed by dice rolls, except an opposed bluff/sense motive check, except when both players agree on it.

[Riculf]

What do you guys mean by raw?

As mentioned, "RAW" is "Rules as Written". You'll also get "RAI" meaning "Rules as Interpreted" in these boards too :smallbiggrin:

[Crake]

I feel like it's also necessary to mention that diplomacy would not have worked in this situation even if the paladin was an NPC. Making someone your friend doesn't suddenly change their moral standards

[SowZ]

I feel like it's also necessary to mention that diplomacy would not have worked in this situation even if the paladin was an NPC. Making someone your friend doesn't suddenly change their moral standards

Although it makes them less likely to be hostile if you do something they disagree with. So, for example, the paladin would never raid the crypt no matter how much diplomacy you do. But he may or may not use force to prevent you from raiding the crypt depending on how close you are. He might attack and enemy, whereas he may just disapprove and lecture a close friend. Of course, some paladins hold themselves to high standards but don't hold other people to the same standards.

[GolemsVoice]

The few times we have used social rolls in interactions between players, a succesful roll made the player more sincere or convincing, something that the other player(s) could pick up on. Diplomacy obviously isn't mind control, and shouldn't be used to brute-force players into doing something.

One example: a paladin catches another party member red handed during a minor crime. A succesful diplomacy roll (or bluff, and so on) could mean the other player convinces the paladin that they had some reason, and thus make the paladin more sympathetic to their cause. This way, the paladin's playe might just admonish the other player, instead of reporting them to the authorities

[Jack_Simth]

RAW means Rules As Written. most of the times it just means "the rules"
Be warned, though, that there are a fair number of rules that are... fuzzy, and can be read multiple ways.


As mentioned, "RAW" is "Rules as Written". You'll also get "RAI" meaning "Rules as Interpreted" in these boards too :smallbiggrin:
Also sometimes "Rules as Intended". As written, the Salient Divine Ability Life and Death is stopped cold by a 4th level spell. It's pretty clear that they did not intend for a 4th level spell to stop the abilities of a deity of death cold.

[Amphetryon]

If I were the paladin, I would want the other players to get their loot, but I would still want to stick to my character. RP it, and come up with a work-around out of game(like camping nearby then looting things when the paladin is asleep.) The player can be aware of the deceit, but his character won't be. If he decides that his character is a light sleeper and wakes up to catch the ranger, then he's being needlessly confrontational and you need to talk to him out-of-game about what fun is.

I'm glad this approach works in your group, but I personally hate the 'dupe the goody-two-shoes' trope, as applied to team members, with a passion. If a Character's particular moral/ethical stance is one that you're actively working around, ignoring, and subverting through duplicity, that's an indication to me that your Characters should not be in the same group.

[SowZ]

Be warned, though, that there are a fair number of rules that are... fuzzy, and can be read multiple ways.


Also sometimes "Rules as Intended". As written, the Salient Divine Ability Life and Death is stopped cold by a 4th level spell. It's pretty clear that they did not intend for a 4th level spell to stop the abilities of a deity of death cold.

Of course, RAI is generally more debatable than RAW, (though RAW is debatable sometimes, too.) Some issues, RAI is very obvious to divine. Monks being non-proficient with unarmed strikes being one of those. Other times, it is hard to know exactly what the designers meant, especially the times when examples and the original text conflict.

[Segev]

I would go so far as to say that "Rules as Interpreted" is not a useful acronym or term; all rules are "as interpreted." The only time I see "RAI" come up usefully for discussion is as "Rules As Intended," because it's trying to discern what the goal of a rule was in order to decide HOW to interpret or house rule it.

"Rules As Written" are the rules exactly as printed, interpreted as literally and straight-forwardly as possible, regardless of how silly the outcomes may be. They're the gold standard for most of our theoretical discussions, because in the absense of a DM to decide to house rule something for a particular use, it avoids the need for judgment calls as best as we possibly can. It provides a starting point on which we can all agree, at least insofar as we can agree that there is authority (rather than arguing "well I say otherwise!").



As to the problem you're facing... D&D has only very rudimentary social mechanics. Diplomacy explicitly does not work on PCs. Despite being an IC issue, this is actually something you should handle OOC: get the players to discuss what they, as players, want to see happen, and then help them work their characters around to agreeing to make it happen. It is probable that the Paladin's player's only horse in this race is that he thinks his character would be opposed, and doesn't want to play out of character. So it could be as simple as agreeing OOC that the looting is what the party needs, and that the Paladin needs to be persuaded. Then you can work together to come up with an argument that would convince him. Get the player on board, and it becomes easier.

If you discover the objection is something other than "I want to play my character right," then address those real objections. The IC solution will flow from the OOC understanding of what the players feel will make the most fun and interesting game.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'd let the Ranger roll diplomacy (with the typical gist of the argument), after informing him that the Paladins player will choose if the Ranger is persuasive or not. And of course, the paladin's decision will stand no matter what, and make sure the Paladin is aware of this. I see no harm in attempting the action and letting the players decide what their PC would do with the results.

However, I think you should try to nip that party problem in the bud if both sides are equally stubborn so this doesn't occur frequently.

[Keltest]

I'm glad this approach works in your group, but I personally hate the 'dupe the goody-two-shoes' trope, as applied to team members, with a passion. If a Character's particular moral/ethical stance is one that you're actively working around, ignoring, and subverting through duplicity, that's an indication to me that your Characters should not be in the same group.

I concur. In general, if there are characters with wildly differing moral codes, the appropriate action I have found is to simple have the character opposed to the action not participate. The paladin thinks its wrong to loot the crypts? Have him stand back and let whatever happens to the ranger happen, whether that be an angry spirit attack (which he can choose to intervene in or not) or nothing noteworthy. Make it clear that he will not protect the ranger from the consequences of his desecration even if it isn't worth the conflict to stop him at the moment.

Or they could fight in character, which, while entertaining, might not be ideal.

[atemu1234]

I concur. In general, if there are characters with wildly differing moral codes, the appropriate action I have found is to simple have the character opposed to the action not participate. The paladin thinks its wrong to loot the crypts? Have him stand back and let whatever happens to the ranger happen, whether that be an angry spirit attack (which he can choose to intervene in or not) or nothing noteworthy. Make it clear that he will not protect the ranger from the consequences of his desecration even if it isn't worth the conflict to stop him at the moment.

Or they could fight in character, which, while entertaining, might not be ideal.

But it's a game. Entertainment IS ideal.

[Keltest]

But it's a game. Entertainment IS ideal.

Sure, but there may be better ways of getting entertainment for everyone.

[ShaneMRoth]

...
I'm trying to be fair to both parties.
...

Don't forget to be fair to yourself.

These players may be so deep inside their method that they've gone all Daniel Day-Lewis on you.

I would place the burden on both of those players to resolve this matter without DM intervention or rolling dice.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Let the players hash it out amongst their characters. Your job is to keep their beef between the characters and not the people. Let Ragnar the Bold call Manfield the Massive a dicknose, so long as John and Tom laugh about it after the session.

[daremetoidareyo]

Don't forget to be fair to yourself.

These players may be so deep inside their method that they've gone all Daniel Day-Lewis on you.

I would place the burden on both of those players to resolve this matter without DM intervention or rolling dice.

You could as DM introduce an interruption to the problem. Ranger wants to exploit the crypt and paladin has icky feels? What happens when a lumbering anthropomorphic jackal just saunters up to the crypt, knocks over a raised tomb, and begins looting it? Seriously, what do the characters do then? If the jackal is sentient, he could be all like, "well you guys said you didn't want any of it, so I'm gonna take it. I knew trailing ya'll would be worthwhile."

Now the Paladin has to choose to intervene physically or not. And what if the Ranger attacks, claiming that the loot was his? Whose side does the paladin fall on? The ranger who is attacking a creature because of greed, or the jackal because he is not so uptight about crypt hygienics?

Before initiative is rolled, (you'll probably be rolling initiative), I'd have the creature find loot if there was loot to find or just find nothing, and be like, "darn, I thought I'd get lucky..." If there is loot, are they going to kill the creature for it? Will the paladin insist that it is put back?

[Karl Aegis]

Do coffins even contain loot? I can't think of anything anyone but the most desperate of persons would buy. Journeying to a place to actually sell the stuff takes more time than just finding more liquid loot.

[Keltest]

Do coffins even contain loot? I can't think of anything anyone but the most desperate of persons would buy. Journeying to a place to actually sell the stuff takes more time than just finding more liquid loot.

Depending on what is meant by "coffin" you can find whatever people were buried with, which can potentially include weapons and armor depending on the culture, or perhaps jewelry. When you start getting into larger tombs you could possibly be finding entire treasuries in secret chambers.

On the other hand, digging up random peasant graves is unlikely to yield more than corpses and ragged clothes.

[ShaneMRoth]

Grave robbing goes back to at least Ancient Egypt, Making it Older Than Feudalism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OlderThanFeudalism)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Digging around in graves has a long and distinguished pedigree in fantasy literature. And in any game world where a given culture buries its important dead with relics of their past life - Boromir floating down the river with his horn, shield and sword, Kith-Kanan in his tomb with the magic sword Wyrmslayer - there will be value in engaging in a spot o' plunder.