Gamemaster requires advice regarding "unorthodox" PC

[Scud.NZ]

Hi All,

I run a game for 6 which is coming along very nicely in most respects. I've started to create a nice game world of my own, and have introduced my players to several plot threads which I plan to have greater significance later on in the campaign. We've been playing for about 12 weeks now, for one three hour session per week.

The advice I seek regards a player who has chosen a cleric character and is playing him in a rather unorthodox manner.

My human pantheon has two ranks, the creator "God" at the top, His daughter, and 4 elemental "gods" (whom the creator created) as a second rank. The elemental "gods" are worshipped in their own rights by specific groups of people (i.e. Sailors - water god) but it was always my intention that the creator "God" be at the top.

Perhaps I had not explained clearly enough the ranking within the pantheon, but the cleric PC is played to the effect that the ranking is reversed (His "second rank" Fire Elemental god is being placed above the "first rank" Creator god, who he is barely acknowledging). This places him at odds with the established church. He has had a polite conversation with (higher ranking) clerics of both his own (fire) and the creator gods. This came about as a result of his preaching his ideas in the town square for 6 hours carrying out healing, and paying about the equivalent of a weeks wages to each person that accepted healing and were willing to listen to him. Of course, given human nature he developed quite a crowd. The cleric character made it quite clear in this conversation that he wasn't part of the "established church" but merely a private individual who wished to sing the praises of this particular elemental god.

To my mind this path seems to be fairly destructive. The established church would not want someone preaching like this, paying people to listen (although I suppose the money will eventually run out) to an opinion other than their own.

The other problem stems with my decision to ask the players to seek training in order to learn the new powers/feats when they level up. My reasoning was that I wanted to introduce some "patron" NPC's who would offer adventure hooks to the PC's. Not unreasonable I think, but my cleric player disagrees feeling that the purpose of the experience points is to represent that learning process, and the level up is the end point when the power/feat can be used. I need justification to allow this player to level up on his own. Why would his "Fire" god give the PC more power when he (the god) knows that his cleric is twisting the established power structure? This is an important point in the campaign theology. In my pantheon the Creator God has two daughters. At some point in the past the elder of these daughters sought to overthrow her father, failed and was "thrown out" (much like Lucifer (an angel) being thrown out of heaven) to become the "devil" figure in this mythology. The younger daughter takes on the portfolio of law, order and militancy within the church becoming her fathers "strong arm".  Another player within the group is playing a paladin of this goddess.

I really don't want to railroad my player, but feel that his character actions are going to provoke a very specific set of consequences from the established church in my campaign world. Can anyone suggest a way I can continue to let my player play his character the way he wants to, without it seeming like I am "beating" on him?

Thanks for any responses in advance.

[valadaar]

I'd say this is an opportunity to shake things up - I wouldn't hold to the status quoe.  Perhaps others watching see some advantage in supporting this upstart - weaking the established religion which may have its enemies.

As for the divine side, I prefer my gods to be somewhat hands-off - there is too much evil allowed in the world for them to be otherwise, and they would interfere too much in gameplay.  The creator god might consider this a test of his church and not take direct actions against the cleric or his patron fire god.

I think this will make for good politics, though a battle between the paladin and the cleric looks in the offing - though if they are good aligned, perhaps it will be nothing more then animated theological debate.

As for requiring training for feats - I'd have to ask - is this needed for balance? Fun? Why bother with that if it does not accomplish something positive and leads to issues.  If you really want to use an NPC patron, perhaps make a list of those feats you will require such training for, but leave most open.

[manfred]

Let them do what they want, but make them feel the consequences.


Valadaar covered it well, there is a great potential here for politics and there's plenty of subplots or plots to be spun around the actions of this PC. Who knows, he might start a revolution that will spin completely out of control! Let him play. And make sure that throwing around money will have its consequences too.

As for godly politics, maybe the clerics of the god of fire are naturally a bit more cocky than others - so nothing new under the sun, the gods may simply watch in amusement, if they notice it at all.

---

On the question of training... there is no 'right way'. In some game worlds training may be the only way to advance; in others, everything will come naturally to the PC; anything in-between is possible.

It would be best, if this was decided beforehand. See what suits your world and the religions in question. Personally, I would allow powers that are extensions of previous powers; but require actual training or intense study and experimentation for those which are 'new', so make him pay more in experience points or spend more time doing that. If he won't go the easier way, it has to be the harder one.

But the key aspect, as valadaar mentioned is FUN. Just don't forget the fun of the challenge.


Oh, and: NPC patrons are good in their own right. You can easily provide him one, that wants to sponsor him exactly because of his attitudes. Then you can start pondering on what his true motives are...

[Scud.NZ]

Thanks for the replies!

I kind of feel like I am juggling hand grenades here. If I drop one my campaign is going to go "Phoom!"

My own gut feeling is the same as manfreds "Let them do what they want, but make them feel the consequences". But it is quite literally "them" isn't it. Whatever happens, eventually it is going to involve the whole party. I guess I have to gauge the feeling of the other players and their willingness to follow/accept the consequences of this player.

I'm kind of taking a "middle road" with the godly politics. If I might refer to David Eddings "Tamuli" series of books, which I am reading again at the moment, the gods in my pantheon aren't as stand-offish as the Elene God who takes no direct action in the affairs of man, and are no so personal as the Styric goddes Aphriel who manifests herself, and is one of the main characters in the books.

So the way that I've interpreted this links back to the powers thing again. I'm playing 4th Edition D&D and we started shortly after the books became available. 3rd Edition had very specific ideas on what the powers of a god of fire, or god of war would be, and of course as 4th edition is a new game this was not as developed, so I adapted something myself. I used one of the pre-existing Channel Divinity powers for this fire god, and decided to give a bonus to damage for any power that contained the fire keyword. I limited him to using a specific set of weapons as well (spears, polearms) to give the clerics of this god a flavour (much like 3rd Ed).

Of course, at level 1 and 2 there aren't that many powers with the fire keyword, so this was complained about. There were lots of comments of how the thief with the flaming +1 dagger had more fire effect than he (the cleric) did, as most of the cleric powers have radiant keyword effect. So I reasoned that maybe there was a reason why his powers weren't "working" properly, in other words, the lack of fire was a sign of the displeasure of this fire god (who knows his place, and is loyal to HIS creator). I needed someone to tell him this which is one of the reasons why I wanted him to visit the established church for training. But he wouldn't have any of it, "his character" wasn't part of the church and didn't need training. So, I had church guards visit and politely request his presence.

Even after all this I had to drop OOC to explain what I was doing. I feel that my players feels that he's been beat down and railroaded, but that has always been furthest for my intention. I just wanted to find a resolution that wouldn't make the party and campaign self-destruct (which had almost happened about 2 weeks earlier, over this characters reaction to some elves.)

I'm very definitely torn between letting all my players play their characters the way they want to, and my responsibility to the other players not to let the actions of one player have too large an influence and self-destruct the campaign.

Valadaar, I am going to have a think about your idea "Perhaps others watching see some advantage in supporting this upstart - weakening the established religion which may have its enemies.". It's a good seed, and I  might be able to make something of it that is consistent with the major plot threads I have in place.

Manfred, you're right. I'll have a go at making up someone who will take advantage of his frothy fanaticism. There is always someone out there who wants stir up trouble.

Valadaar, I see your point about "fun" and "training for powers" but would ask that surely I ought to be consistant between players. Why should Joe Fighter have to seek trainer, spend time and money getting his new skill, when Bob Cleric just levels up automatically?

Oh well, time for work now.

[valadaar]

Sometimes when someone goes against the grain too hard, bad things happen.  Many tragedy has been caused by the prideful and headstrong going their own way.  Pride is one of the greatest sins after all - it is the root of many of the others.  How old is this player by the way?

There should be logical consequences if he continues to rail against the existing society.  Many historical religions would have cast him into the fires he holds as holy, if he were so lucky.  Depending on the maturity of the player, this might be a correct fate to preserve the flow of the campaign.  How is this much different then the PC who likes to steal and murder without expecting the law to come and collect it's due? 

When I mentioned not needing Mentors for every feat, I was thinking (though not saying) in terms of all players, so I'd say limit the requirement for training to where it makes sense from a story and balance perspective, and drop it every where else.  Let the PCs know well in advance this is the case and let them choose their direction.

[Drackler]

If you're concerned about whether he will think you are 'beating' on him, then I would suggest taking the cleric's player aside and explaining, or at least making sure he understands, that his church and that of the 'creator' will most likely persecute him for what he's doing. This way he knows that whatever happens to his character is ultimately his fault, and that you are just playing the world realistically.

[Pariah]

Or, if you really want to keep the whole patronage idea going, you can always find a cranky old hermit that believes the same things he does.  Maybe without a tonge, having had it removed so that he would stop spreading these blasphemies of his around.

I'm just mean, and would have the Church start issuing stuffs against him.  There's a word for what I'm thinking of in English, but all I can think of is fatwa, and that's most definately not English...  Yeah.  But have is start locally, with the church railing against him from the pulpit, and as he gains levels and noteriety, the higher-ups in the church will start noticing, and more serious actions might be taken against him, and possibly the party as a whole.  Denial of services and the like.  But it all depends on how mature he, and the rest of the party, is.  Because, in the end, unlike life; games are for funz.

[Wulfhere]

You need to discuss your picture of the game world with your player and achieve some sort of compromise.  It appears that you intend this to be a world with "one true faith, inspired and absolute".  It seems that he sees it a different way.

I would definitely call the priest before the orthodox clergy of the land, ordered to defend his views or recant.  He might refuse:  If so, you can play out his interactions with the church.  He could be excommunicated, denied any assistance by the faithful.

Supernatural entities might even grow interested.  If he receives a visitation, perhaps an angelic or tempting demonic figure, he would be hard pressed to ignore that his spiritual actions have consequences.  If he's spiritually wrong in a world where the gods take strong action, that's a perilous position.

[MoonHunter]

Your cleric can be a rebel. He may succeed and generate some kind of splinter sect.

Odds are, he will just be considered a crazy guy and people will start to shun him. "Oh him. He has to pay people to listen to him."

Of course, the Church might just "sanction him".  Besides no orthodox church or priest able to support him (OR THOSE TRAVELLING WITH HIM - thus your players may have to make a choice), that means he can not utilize any church function or sancturary. Your other clerical inclined player character will be between a rock and a hard place. (OR perhaps his higher ups will assign him to watch this crazy guy.)

With a few polite whispers, a church can arrange for pious government men to tax him, or deny him papers, or make sure that he is investigated for EVERY POSSIBLE CRIME that occured around him.  A Pious noble could score points with the church by harassing him, probably in subtle ways. Tolls are fun.

A few sermons by the local priesthood and "good followers" will start to avoid him. (After all, those that listen to the heresy best travel with him... because there will no longer be clerical effects for them after he is gone. )  An inn keeper can simply tell him "They don't like his kind here" and his and his friends need to move on.  The same with a shop keeper.  Or these poor folks could just uproot themselves and follow him, 0 level followers clogging up your adventuring party.  He will have an army eventually, all of them getting under foot of the adventuring party. And once he has an army, in will come the political heads of states with their trained armies. After all, this army is a threat to the country.

Of course, a good stoning is often enough to tell you the locals really don't like you (or at least are pretending to). And if you fight back, you are obviously a "bad man" using the innocent people.

As for learn the feats, the perfectly acceptable view is "you have the option to grow" now that you have leveled up. You just need some kind of justification for your new abilities. Somethings you can learn on your own. Others you have to have some instruction in.

Now think how this character will go, once he realizes his God doesn't really grant these powers/ spells. They are sort of "spells" that have to be learned.  So he can't learn some new spells because he is not part of the orthodox church.  This will re-inforce that "The Orthodox religion" (Or heck, any religion) is just a Sham done by certain magic users (like him) invoking these deities but not really getting anything from them. This should take him down the heretic spiral really fast, or bring him to heel.  You want powers/ skills/ social rank, you have to play the Church's game. If you don't or don't play it carefully enough, you are just another crazy guy who thinks he talks to a God.

Of course, his clerical powers could just dry up, as the Divine Forces decide that "he is no longer promoting their good".  Nothing brings a cleric/ paladin to heel faster than their deity turning off the power faucet.

None of those are railroading. It is just the player making his "most dramatic choices" and then dealing with the consequences.

[Scud.NZ]

Thanks for all the interest in my thread and the ideas you have all suggested.

replying in order:
Valadaar: He's old enough to know better, in his 30's! I like the fact that you mention the word "pride". To my mind the PC is definitely prideful, so that should play a part in his fall.

Drackler: I thought about this at work today, and I decided that I need to tell the players a little more about the campaign world to make things clearer for them, essentially what Wulfhere mentions. Being a teacher for some 14 years now, it comes naturally to reflect upon my own practice first. I can't blame my player for playing his character in a specific way based on his world view, if the world view is incomplete or misunderstood. So, I'm definitely going to let the party know more.

Pariah: I love the idea of the old hermit. I can just imagine him having to write everything on a slate, or mime! I think the word you are looking for is "Inquisition"? Perhaps after I add a little more to his world view, and lay down some clear do's and do nots, well, if he is still wanting to go down the fundamentalist route then we'll take it to its logical conclusion.

Wulfhere: He's already been called before the clergy, and whilst I got a "I'll change my character" response, well, it was just that...the player saying he will change his character, not the player roleplaying his character recanting his views. I was left with the impression my PC was not having fun.

What I'm really worried about is self-destructing the campaign (All my players knew each other before I turned up...apparently imploding campaigns have occurred in the past) and making it "not fun" for the other players.

My last thought on the matter is to agree with valadaar's comment about PC's who like to steal and murder, eventually they are going to be caught, placed on trial and hung. You know, if a PC was careless in combat (not unlucky, but does dumb things like run through 5 OA's unnecessarily) I wouldn't feel bad about saying "You're dead! Roll up a new character".
On the other hand, if after the watch capture a character who murders indiscriminantly, or is a heretic, and justice determines he is sentenced to death, I reckon I would feel very reluctant to say "They hang you. Roll up a new character." I'd be trying to find ways someone could rescue him etc... Sure, if the other players are willing to have their own characters made outlaws to rescue this PC then that's fine. But if not? Perhaps this is, to use an awful cliche, an occasion where the need of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one PC).

PS: Moonhunter, we were writing our posts at the same time, and you completed yours first. Thank's for all the great suggestions. I'll think I'll draw up a flow chart based on your ideas to give me a better overall idea of how to deal with my player. Whilst I like your suggestion that the other players have to make a choice too - to either support him and suffer the consequences of his action too, or denounce him, the only problem then is that I either run two smaller campaigns (not really an option), or declare one of the groups NPC's. I don't want to be taking characters off of players though, especially those who make their decision based on not wanting to end up on the end of a rope. Of course, if the denouncers turn the pro-fundamentalists over to the church authorities, that's another matter.

"Nothing brings a cleric/ paladin to heel faster than their deity turning off the power faucet." - I reckon mine would just &^%$@ about it, but I'm sure it would work with others.

[Wulfhere]

As far as taking feats versus training for them, I would tell him that he doesn't have access to all feats:  I would choose a few "that require special training" and tell him to pony up or choose a different feat.

[Ancient Gamer]

As usual the Strolenites have come up with good advice. I'd like to chip in, because this is an interesting situation you've got yourselves here.

Here goes:
The primary motivation for roleplaying is having fun.

You've got an interesting character on your hands here, and depending on how you solve this problem you will have either an engaged and enthusiastic player on your hands, or an annoyed and frustrated one.

Yes, we set the rules. We are the GMs and somewhere we have to draw the line. But I believe this is an excellent opportunity for roleplaying.

I would not turn of the power faucet. What would you possibly gain by doing so? Enforcing your will? Keeping the status quo of your setting?

Players want to change stuff. They want to contribute, to experiment and to see what the outcome will be.

I say: Play along! Let your player go down this road. Most likely your PCs are friends, and you do not kill your friends because of theological differences. You argue, your cheeks redden, perhaps you even stand chest to chest, stabbing fingers into the shoulders of your friend, but you do not kill your friends (unless you are some kind of unstable psychopath). This is the only enforcing I'd do; making sure no player kills another.

So, let the player be approached by other priests in the crowd, scoffing at his theories, publicly humilitating him (or trying to). (Use the Bible as inspiration. Jesus vs. the established Jewish priesthood is an excellent example of this).

Let the more fanatical branches of the clergy hire assassins.

Let the player gain a following. Disciples, henchmen, zealots, traitors.

Let his god-granted powers change (another patron deity, or perhaps he has discovered another aspect of his faith?)

Let his dreams be full of visions and nightmares. Warnings and omens, portends of things to come.

Let him feel pain when entering the temples of the Greater God

Let him feel what it is like to be a heretic in the eyes of the followers of the Greater God

You've been gifted with a font of opportunity here, a springwell of adventure. Man, I love it when my players do stuff like this.


 

[manfred]

In that vein... there is another option you might try, depending on how you estimate the player. It would be best to do this beforehand, of course, but such is the way of things.

You will need a lot of material on religions in your game world, how about letting the player(s) write it? Decide the scope, call for their fairness and smarts and let them write it. How do things work normally, what are the standard procedures, how is training usually done, how do their rituals look like, how does the church treat heretics - any of those questions would take some of the burden of your shoulders and make them understand better what happens afterwards.

 - you could ask for the bare, "objective" truth
 - ask for the personal view of their PC, what they consider to be true - especially that young idealist/heretic is sure to have a skewed perception of things
 - or ask them for both 'the truth' and their PC's view - this can be a great fun for the players, when they openly point out their character doesn't get it all

You can simply take the results, or you can twist them as desired. Another option to consider.

[Cheka Man]

How strict is the religion in your gameworld? Do they burn heretics at the stake or just block them from getting aid from their priests/priestesses?

[Scud.NZ]

Getting my player to invent his religeon...could be interesting.

That kind of raises an interesting point. How much do you really need to know about a "game" religion before it becomes playable?

My own opinion. I base it, roughly, upon what I (think I) know about a "real world" religion. In my games case, I wanted a "Christian/Western" flavour, so when I tell the players that they enter a church, they might have an idea of what things look like, as opposed to a golden Buddhist temple or the like, and I, as DM, have an idea about the hierarchy in the church (if any) and what support it can offer the PC's. After that, I made up five basic rules for the priests to follow (not too many, I think - this is make believe) - 3 articles of faith to follow (like: allow not the existence of undead), restrictions to weaponry and armour, and (in the case of 3Ed) what categories the clerics blessings may come from.

Do you need to know more at the start of a campaign? D'I miss anything?

PS: Cheka Man - They burn heretics at the stake (the PC's have encountered this already, when they came across a village that was being punished for burning several snake cultists).

[Chaosmark]

If they came across a village where heretics were burned at the stake, then the PC in question already has had a warning as to where the road he travels may lead. Let him take the road, and try to make it enjoyable for all parties involved.

[Cheka Man]

Let him know what could happen to him.

[Wulfhere]

While I agree with Ancient Gamer in prinicple, I read this as a player who will run roughshod over your game if you don't agree where the limits are.  I don't mean that you have to lay down the law, but out of game, you need to discuss the areas where you disagree. 

I once had a player who intentionally derailed every plan I had, just to be contrary.  He was otherwise a decent guy, but he drove me nuts with his quest to ensure that his character never left center stage.  If I had agreed on some ground rules ahead of time, I'd have had the moral authority to shut down his less-appropriate moves.  As it was, I just stopped gaming with him. 

I'm not one of those guys whose so enamored of his plotlines that he hates to "go off the rails", but this guy was something else.

"The game is a Call of Cthulhu adventure beginning in a high-society auction" produced a bomb-armed anarchist, who proceeded to start a gunfight in a speakeasy while the other characters were still in the auction.

"The game is a Viking-theme horror adventure" produced a Native American warrior named Richard Nixon.

"The Game is a fantasy set in a land of Irish Myth" produced a greed-obsessed, nearsighted, one-handed, albino dwarf blacksmith.

Conclusion:  Agree on limits.

[Ancient Gamer]

You are right, Wulfhere. We do need limits. In the end it is the individual GM who has to determine how hard his rule will be. Life is a series of compromises, unless you opt to use brute force to sway others to your will. I also sensed that this player needs some reigning in, but Scud could do so and still leave him with some options. If he manages to reign in the player, while still leaving the player with options AND gaining plot opportunities as well, why I believe Scud would have won in every possible way.

[Scud.NZ]

Hello everyone!

Well, I just played the next instalment with my group, and I can report that it went well.

I took the point of view that I needed to make several points clearer to my players. So, I made up two sets of background notes, one that dealt with "The Story Of The Gods" and the other "The Church". This information was welcomed and everybody now has knowledge of why my Cleric player's actions might be seen as heretical.

I also asked my player some extra questions, to clarify points that I had not, perhaps, realized the significance of. Specifically, is the PC a member of the established church? The answer was no, the PC was "hearing" instruction from his god himself. This voice in his head was also the source of his powers. My decision on this was that the PC is hearing voices in his head, and I get to decide later whether it is actually the god, or some other power "pretending" to be that god. Which could lead to an interesting shock later on, should I so wish.

I also made up an A4 sheet with a 5-stage description of how the religious authorities might respond to the players actions, ranging from a warning, through being shunned, to house arrest, excommunication and burning at the stake. I did a little research on wikipedia about heresy, and found out the difference between heresy and schism so I could firmly categorize the actions of my player. [He is definitely choosing not to worship with the established church (schism) and is skirting on the edge of heresy.]

I also set a timescale for different events to occur. In my research I found that it didn't seem to be the general case that heretics were just arrested and summarily burnt at the stake. [Witch hunts and the like are more akin to a lynching than a proper heretical trial] So, this player is going to have to do something seriously wrong, or escalate things over the course of a year or so to get himself burned at the stake.

So things are much clearer now, and everything is much happier now in campaign land. It has not stopped the player from playing the character the way he wants...

He has employed a man to arrange for four "ladies" in flimsy white gowns to act as handmaidens for his next show in the market place. He has also arranged for a troupe of actors to play out the story of the gods, with a definite spin towards raising the status of his own god over that of the "top" god of the pantheon. He continues to hand out money to the people, having upon instruction from the church reduced the amount from a shilling (10 pennies) to a penny each. So now the recipients can only buy a gallon of ale, rather than 10 gallons with the alms they have been given to listen to the PC preach. And, of course, he made a point of saying that the established church were the people who told him to stop giving out the shillings.

The moral of the story.
1) Give players the information they need.
2) Ask players questions about their characters, as the important thing is how the player sees the character, not the GM. These two people may have different ideas. Clarify.
3) Provide a player a clear set of limits. My player did not object to my limitations as they were clear and fair, the stated actions had specific consequences. Sure, he is going to try to push the limits. When he steps over the set boundary, I'll slap him down, and anyone who's near. I'm certain the other players in the group will tolerate him to a point, hopefully they will act to reign in his overly extreme actions, and if things go too far, they can feed him to the wolves.

Problem sorted.

[Michael Jotne Slayer]

Burn him as a heretic.