Post/Author/DateTime	Post
nightwing 02-02-06, 02:37 PM	The party was travelling through mountains. At the top of one ridge, there was a "small flock" of "lions with the heads and wings of giant eagles" as I described them. They were heiracosphinxes. The sphinxes demanded that the party fork over 40pp each to pass by. (The party had MUCH more money than that, it was barely a prick in the finger to them...) The sphinxes do have a bigger role in the campaign than just a "wandering monster," they players just don't know that yet. This was their first ever encounter with them. After negotiating with them for a while, the 1/2 orc fighter decides he wants to fight rather than pay up. To make the story short, the sphinxes make short work of the entire party. I tried to hint to them that this was not an encounter they could win, but to my shock, he just didn't get it. Instead of TPK'ing the party, once they were unconscious the sphinxes ate their horses, took the fighter's bag of holding and the wizard's backpack as payment. It just so happened that the fighter's bag held only some minor stuff. But the wizard's backpack held her spellbook. Now she's seriously hosed. She was ready to pay and was trying to convince the 1/2 orc to just pay before he went stupid. Through no fault of her own, she's lost almost everything, and he's lost almost nothing. In real life, the two are husband and wife. Ha! He'll probably be sleeping on the couch for a week! I'm hoping that the wizard will have enough moxy to stand up to the fighter and make him pay to replace everything she lost. Also, I'm thinking that would be grounds for the wizard to never want to adventure with the fighter again. Can wait to see how the two of them resolve this in-character... comments welcome.
Sidartha 02-02-06, 02:42 PM	Question? Why hose the cooperative wizard and let the fighter of with a pin-prick?
nightwing 02-02-06, 02:48 PM	It wasn't intentional. I just ruled that the sphinxes took whatever obvious packs the characters were carrying. They left weapons and saddlebags.
Sir Knight 02-02-06, 03:34 PM	In my opinion, I would have let them beat down the Fighter and negotiate with those who wished. That may have been a better option all around.
nightwing 02-02-06, 03:57 PM	Hmmm. I think you're right. I didn't think of that in the thick of it. Boy, I sure wish I could have these message boards to use during the game... Player: I'll charge the herd of flying lions with my mace. Me: :uh-huh: Just a minute... (*clickety clickety* posts to message board about moron PC) ... Ok, you get clobbered and the others can pay their 40pp!
Sulaco 02-02-06, 04:38 PM	The party was travelling through mountains. At the top of one ridge, there was a "small flock" of "lions with the heads and wings of giant eagles" as I described them. They were heiracosphinxes. The sphinxes demanded that the party fork over 40pp each to pass by. (The party had MUCH more money than that, it was barely a prick in the finger to them...) The sphinxes do have a bigger role in the campaign than just a "wandering monster," they players just don't know that yet. This was their first ever encounter with them. After negotiating with them for a while, the 1/2 orc fighter decides he wants to fight rather than pay up. To make the story short, the sphinxes make short work of the entire party. ... comments welcome. Sounds like the half-orc player was right on the money. Why the hell should they be expected to cough up cash to every asshat who tries to rob them jus cos you have plans for said asshat later on? If some git tried to rob me I'd either run the bastard through or say " :censored: that" and walk away. I certainly wouldn't "negotiate" a fair rate for their crime. Sure I may end up dead but I sure as hell am not going to roll over play dead for every petty thief I meet on the road, monster or no.
kraegor 02-02-06, 05:16 PM	I had this happen in one of my campaigns. The fighter thought he shouldn't have to pay the Ogres for crossing thier bridge. The rest of the party was eager to pay the 5g. So the fighter starts hacking away at the ogres. The ogres, being smart, avoid the other characters, holding up thier hands and stepping backwards, while the Ogre and the fighter slug it out. The fighter was only 2nd level. He was beaten to a pulp. The rest of the party did not wish to get involved (for 4 obvious reasons, the 4 ogre buddies in the background). The ogres laughed, and stripped the fighter of EVERYTHING he owned, and then went back into thier cave. Sometimes a player just has to learn that he isn't a god just cuz he is a PC. I did it just as a simple toll to pass through the mountains, the PC's would get 10x thier gold back on the next encounter.. but.. oh well. Needless to say, the fighter was none to happy about it. When he said that it wasn't fair, i asked him what he would have done if he had killed the ogre. "Well i woulda checked him for gold and magic items and stuff" says the fighter. "Yeah, well what do you think he did to you?" I reply. It was classic, the rogue searched around and found out they threw out a lot of his stuff cuz it was too small in the bushes, but still took his gold and his potions.
nightwing 02-02-06, 05:21 PM	Sounds like the half-orc player was right on the money. Why the hell should they be expected to cough up cash to every asshat who tries to rob them jus cos you have plans for said asshat later on? Certainly they shouldn't be expected to pony up for every asshat thug on the road. But sometimes, as in this case, it's a no-brainer. If some git tried to rob me I'd either run the bastard through or say " that" and walk away. If walking away means failing in a very important mission, to the detrement of many people, you may very well just have to put up with it, though it may certainly leave a bad taste in your mouth. I certainly wouldn't "negotiate" a fair rate for their crime. Sure I may end up dead but I sure as hell am not going to roll over play dead for every petty thief I meet on the road, monster or no. You are absolutely right; petty thieves would merit serious resistance on the part of the party. But these were clearly no petty thieves. Certainly having to submit to highway robbery would be a disgusting feeling, but most good-aligned adventurers will feel a sense of duty to a more important cause, even in the face of insult.
Ogre4Hire 02-02-06, 07:36 PM	There are times when you've just got to know when your outmatched. I think that you were correct in teaching the party a lesson without TPKing them, though it's too bad that the rest of the party had to pay for one character's stupidity. Maybe next time, however, they'll keep him from doing similar things.
beat_takeshi 02-03-06, 10:44 AM	Surely a good roleplayer doesn't know the relative challenge ratings of monsters. Granted they should know a goblin is easy and a demon or djinnie is hard but I personally have no idea about any of the other monsters. If I was DM I would have made the sphinxes intimidate the fighter, I assume they would win the roll then the player would have no choice but to go along. (Although some people will argue with anything)
Sulaco 02-03-06, 11:28 AM	Certainly they shouldn't be expected to pony up for every asshat thug on the road. But sometimes, as in this case, it's a no-brainer. If walking away means failing in a very important mission, to the detrement of many people, you may very well just have to put up with it, though it may certainly leave a bad taste in your mouth. You are absolutely right; petty thieves would merit serious resistance on the part of the party. But these were clearly no petty thieves. Certainly having to submit to highway robbery would be a disgusting feeling, but most good-aligned adventurers will feel a sense of duty to a more important cause, even in the face of insult. The only "no brainer" part of this is paying up. I'd rather play my character than play the numbers. Sure I know that the DM will give us more loot later but my characetr exists in the world and I would play him as such. If the only way to accomplish a mission is to get robbed on the way then the DM is running far too linear a game IMO. There is always another way. Just cos they things were big and tough does not make them anything more than the petty thieves they are. Robbing random stangers on the road is what it is and no amount of semantics will change that. Personally, I'd rather feel a sense of duty to my PC and my brain and find another way around rather than just sit back and ride the rails.
nightwing 02-03-06, 11:40 AM	I don't like the idea of using intimidate rolls against the players... It takes control of the characters and gives it to the DM. Most of the fun of role-playing is deciding whether your character would be intimidated or not. I'm fine with PC's using that skill against NPCs, but NPCs aren't MY characters. No DM can decide the exact character of every NPC in his campaign, hence intimidate checks simplify things dramatically. But it would really seem like cheating to me, and just bad sport in general, to use intimidate rolls against the players. I prefer to present the situation and allow the players to respond in whatever way fits their character. I'm pretty sure a PC would have to be higher than 6th or 7th level (the level of this particular party) before he would think that fighting a "small flock of flying eagle-headed lions" sounded like a good proposition... No?
Herecgunina 02-03-06, 11:45 AM	Sure they could be seen petty thieves, Sulaco. Are DMs not allowed to use petty thieves? Are DMs not allowed to use opponents who can overpower characters, forcing characters to choose their battles? You seem to be getting awfully indignant about bullies that don't even exist in the real world. Further, the existence of groups that enforce tolls through either political or physical power or superior geographic location not only has sound historical background, but plenty of evidence in fantasy too (the troll and his bridge, for instance.) On the converse side, I do agree with you that the players should never be FORCED to simply accept the existence of 'petty thieves' - they should feel free to strive against them, or to try to find another way (it needn't be an easy or obvious one, but the possibility should be there. On the other hand, the player who tries to fight against a system he obviously doesn't have the force to oppose should be put back into his place within the world hierarchy. Players shouldn't be able to overturn systems of unfairness just because they feel like it.
Sulaco 02-03-06, 11:45 AM	I don't like the idea of using intimidate rolls against the players... It takes control of the characters and gives it to the DM. Agreed. Unless the effect is dictated by a particular special ability of power (such as a dragon's fear aura) a DM should not dictate a PCs emotional state. At most a DM could have the NPC roll the Intimidate and tell the PC "This guy is pretty damned intimidating an he seems to have the minerals to back it up" but let the player decide how his PC reacts to that. A good player will take that information in react in-character without needing to be told how to react.
nightwing 02-03-06, 11:47 AM	Sulaco: I whole-heartedly agree. I'm glad we are now on the same page. The choice the SPHINXES gave the characters was "pay up or turn around and go home." That's a far cry from me (as DM) dictating that these are the only two options that exist. Certainly, I would have been much happier if they players HAD come up with some other creative way to get around, but they didn't. They simply fell into the trap of thinking that the PRESENTED choices are the ONLY choices. It's not my job as DM to give them every possibility, but merely to present the challenge as it stands and expect that they will act semi-intelligently and in-character.
Sulaco 02-03-06, 11:50 AM	Sure they could be seen petty thieves, Sulaco. Are DMs not allowed to use petty thieves? Are DMs not allowed to use opponents who can overpower characters, forcing characters to choose their battles? You seem to be getting awfully indignant about bullies that don't even exist in the real world. Further, the existence of groups that enforce tolls through either political or physical power or superior geographic location not only has sound historical background, but plenty of evidence in fantasy too (the troll and his bridge, for instance.) On the converse side, I do agree with you that the players should never be FORCED to simply accept the existence of 'petty thieves' - they should feel free to strive against them, or to try to find another way (it needn't be an easy or obvious one, but the possibility should be there. On the other hand, the player who tries to fight against a system he obviously doesn't have the force to oppose should be put back into his place within the world hierarchy. Players shouldn't be able to overturn systems of unfairness just because they feel like it. Of course the DM can use petty thieves and those who control and area through force or intimidation, but as you say this does not require that the PCs simply put up with it. Unless there is something else going on that the OP isn't mentioning it seems as if the sphinxes have no valid legal control of the area. Their toll is nothing more than extortion and should be treated as such. IMO the players who began negotiating were the ones who messed up here, or at least moreso than the half-orc player who seems to be the only one to have the guts to play his PC appropriately despite the consequences rather than with arms-length meta-thinking. Meta-play is one of my pet peeves. Years ago I joined a group which were all meta-players. They would assess every situation based not on what was happening in-game but rather from the point of view of players. Eventually we ended up in a bizzare "funhouse" style dungeon crawl. There were lever everywhere we went - some good and some bad - and I got so sick of them trying to work out the DM's reasoning for every lever that I just started randomly pulling one every time we entered an area. Of course the players got mad and yelled at me but I kept doing it. After several hours of this I calmly replied to yet another round of yelling by saying "Look, if you want me to stop then have your characters stop my characetr from doing it." This had honeslty never occurred to them. They were so wrapped up in meta-thinking that an in-characetr solution was not even an option to them. Next room we entered my PC went straight for the closest level and was dogpiled by the other PCs. Same again the next room. And the next. Eventually they managed - in character - to convince my PC not to randomly pull any more levers, but the "damage" had been done. From that day onwards they actually started roleplaying. They started thinking about what their PCs would do rather than what the DM had set up. In that same game with the lever-pulling dwarf I lost my sword - a completely average, non-magical whose only value was sentiment as it was a family heirloom - down a chasm. The other PCs had to physically restrain my PC from diving after it, most probably to his death. You see, the thing is that I will do things that may be detrimental to my PC as long as they are appropriate to my PC, which is what I see the half-orc's player having done. His only mistake was messing with his wife's PC. That is just nuts. ;) Sulaco: I whole-heartedly agree. I'm glad we are now on the same page. The choice the SPHINXES gave the characters was "pay up or turn around and go home." That's a far cry from me (as DM) dictating that these are the only two options that exist. Certainly, I would have been much happier if they players HAD come up with some other creative way to get around, but they didn't. They simply fell into the trap of thinking that the PRESENTED choices are the ONLY choices. It's not my job as DM to give them every possibility, but merely to present the challenge as it stands and expect that they will act semi-intelligently and in-character. Well said. The DM needn't spoon-feed the players every option. If they elect not to explore other option then that is their own damned fault. The DM can tweak their options by suggesting things that the players - not having the far more intricate knowledge of the game world than does DM does - may not remember or be aware but which their PCs would, but it is not required. The sphinxes gave the PC two options, it was the players' own folly to think those were the only two options.
Herecgunina 02-03-06, 12:02 PM	Of course the DM can use petty thieves and those who control and area through force or intimidation, but as you say this does not require that the PCs simply put up with it. Unless there is something else going on that teh OP isn't mentioning it seems as if the sphinxes have no valid legal control of the area. Their toll is nothing more than theft and extortion and they should be treated as such. IMO the players who began negotiating were the ones who messed up here. It seems to me like the half-orc's player was the only one to have the guts to play his PC appropriately despite the consequences rather than with arms-length meta-thinking. I see what you're saying, but there are a couple points. 1. The notion of "legality" that you introduce seems a bit out of place - in the middle ages, it was largely 'might makes right' in this kind of affair. Law as an abstract principle that restricted the strong to the defense of the weak seems anachronistic. (Granted that this campaign world may be different, but its fair to assume a medieval setting by default) To be sure, the sphinxes may not be recognized by any human government, but who is to say that what they do is illegal, while what hostile enemy nations do is legal? 2. You seem to contradict yourself. You say that the PCs are free to react how their characters would, while you say that the other players 'messed up'. Aren't they free to roleplay their characters how THEY would react? Maybe they respect (or fear, whatever) the obvious display of superior strength (and number) of others. It's a different response, but it doesn't mean that they 'messed up'.
Sulaco 02-03-06, 12:13 PM	I see what you're saying, but there are a couple points. 1. The notion of "legality" that you introduce seems a bit out of place - in the middle ages, it was largely 'might makes right' in this kind of affair. Law as an abstract principle that restricted the strong to the defense of the weak seems anachronistic. (Granted that this campaign world may be different, but its fair to assume a medieval setting by default) To be sure, the sphinxes may not be recognized by any human government, but who is to say that what they do is illegal, while what hostile enemy nations do is legal? D&D is "medieval style", not medieval. Perhaps "valid" would be a better term than "legal", though the image of the middle ages are a lawless wasteland ruled by might alone is highly erroneous, but that is better left for another thread. 2. You seem to contradict yourself. You say that the PCs are free to react how their characters would, while you say that the other players 'messed up'. Aren't they free to roleplay their characters how THEY would react? Maybe they respect (or fear, whatever) the obvious display of superior strength (and number) of others. It's a different response, but it doesn't mean that they 'messed up'. I don't contradict myself at all. The players are free, even required, to react as their characters would, but I sincerely doubt that this situation represents that. If they truly feared or respected the thieves then they'd have ponied up the dough without question, not sat down as a group to negotiate a more favourable rate for the theft. That is meta-thinking, plain and simple.
Bruunwald 02-03-06, 12:30 PM	#1. Certainly they shouldn't be expected to pony up for every asshat thug on the road. But sometimes, as in this case, it's a no-brainer. #2. If walking away means failing in a very important mission, to the detrement of many people, you may very well just have to put up with it, though it may certainly leave a bad taste in your mouth. #3. You are absolutely right; petty thieves would merit serious resistance on the part of the party. But these were clearly no petty thieves. Certainly having to submit to highway robbery would be a disgusting feeling, but most good-aligned adventurers will feel a sense of duty to a more important cause, even in the face of insult. I numbered them for ease of response. #1. A no-brainer for you. You can't expect the player to know what these things are or his power in relation to them. In fact, there's a feat for doing just that. I'm betting he doesn't have it. Even if the player knew, he can't necessarily play his character as if he knows. Then he'd be guilty of metagaming. It is metagaming on his part to think that he can beat anything that comes along just because it's there. But you have to consider that this type of player is always going to be in your game, and using him as an example might have unfair repercussions on the others. #2. We're not talking about a human paladin. We're talking about a half-orc fighter. You can't count on every player/PC combination to do the "right thing" as you alone perceive it in every situation. That would be railroading, and every single character would end up with the same personality. #3. Again, railroading. You're determining how this player should feel and what he should do with his character. Any situation you create that can only have one outcome is less a reflection on reality and more a reflection on what you want out of your players. It's a lecture, actually, in railroaded action form. See, it's not your job to lecture your player (verbally or through repercussions) on how he ought to be a good boy and do what you want. That's what NPCs are for. They allow you to expose on your own views and moral sense without interfering directly with the decisions of the PCs and the outcomes thereof. Worse, being a married man, I take a great deal of exception to your levity about how this guy might have to sleep on the couch. Hopefully his wife is grown up enough to realize it's just a game and get over it. But your carelessness in choosing who to punish over this supposed iniquity on the part of this player is just adding insult to injury. Teaching your players a lesson is beyond the scope of your authority as DM. And creating marital strife is way beyond. Guys have been permanently excused from my group for that exact offense. My advice: Accept that not everybody in the party is going to react the way you want them to. Accept that you are NOT their daddy. Humble yourself and try to esteem somebody else once in awhile.
Dumat 02-03-06, 12:31 PM	I think you ran the encounter fine. The half-orc just learned a bit of humility, and the party generally learned that not only do you have to live with the consequences of your actions (no matter how "fair" or "justified" actions might have been) but that the party has to live with the consequences of each other's actions as well. D&D and adventuring are team sports. Perhaps she can speak to the sphinxes...inform them what they have, offer to let them copy the spells in the book but to return the original to her. Or have her trade a favor for the payment of a book back. Or, being sphinxes, perhaps they could riddle her, and if she answers correctly, they give it back plus a small bonus for her trouble. It's really not that hard to get her spellbook back...
nightwing 02-03-06, 01:44 PM	Thanks to everyone for their comments! I'm happy that all of you have taken the time to post your thoughts on the situation. It's cool that so many of you can sympathise with both me, as DM, and with the players, as characters who've come across misfortune. I'm saddened that the "R" word has finally come up. It escapes me how every challege put in the path of PCs can be boiled down to a case of railroading. Certainly, I EXPECTED the pcs to handle the challenge one way, but as I've already explained, I would have been happy to see them handle it another; there's no "railroading" in that. I didn't demand any particular action of them at all. "Railroading" would have been to REQUIRE one action to the exclusion of all others. Furthermore, on the topic of the married couple: The comment was entirely tongue-in-cheek. I think everybody got that except Bruunwald. Please accept my humblest apologies for the confusion. I am married also, and have a 13-going-on-14-year-old daughter, no less. I know all about marital strife and "in-game-out-of-game-differentiation" and so does the couple involved. Nobody's day (or week) is going to be ruined by in-game misfortune. Everyone involved is very mature and possesses a good-natured disposition. You can take a big sigh of relief now. :)
nightwing 02-03-06, 02:27 PM	In case anyone is interested, here's the surrounding storyline: The dwarven nation has been convinced that the duke of the PCs' homeland is responsible for the death of the dwarven king. The dwarves sent an army to get the duke and bring him back to justice. The duke is actually innocent, but because the dwarves are absolutely WRECKING the duke's army, he's decided to give himself up and spare the lives of hundreds of soldiers. The PCs have decided to race the dwarven army back to their underground city and figure out who really killed the dwarven king so that the duke will not be executed as a criminal when the dwarven army returns with him. I'm EXPECTING that they will succeed in uncovering the deception and save the duke. If they can manage that, it will give me a good setting, friendly to the PCs, in which they can spend some time and the wizard will have opportunity to devote the time and resources necessary to replace her spellbook (or somehow track down her old one...) Note: the dwarves are all lawful-good. I thought it would be fascinating to have the "bad guys" be the "good guys" in a sense. The dwarven army is lead by a dwarven paladin. Unlike human societies, the dwarves are all (or nearly all) lawful good, so it is a mostly crimeless place. So, if the PCs can gain the trust and respect of the dwarves, they'll have a safe and edifying relationship with them
Herecgunina 02-04-06, 12:34 AM	D&D is "medieval style", not medieval. Perhaps "valid" would be a better term than "legal", though the image of the middle ages are a lawless wasteland ruled by might alone is highly erroneous, but that is better left for another thread. Lest it be thought I don't know about the middle ages, let me refer you to my post where I said that might makes right in this kind of circumstance. I am well aware that the medieval structure was one with a great deal of social intricacy and not nearly so wild as often portrayed. However, you'd have a hard time convincing me that the local King was able to flex his laws into the mountain peaks. Besides, from the way it was presented (sphinxes not being mere random monsters) it seemed to me that the sphinxes inhabit the region (waiting around mountain passes just to extort from travellers seems like a plan with little economic sense behind it...), so my natural assumption was that the travellers were passing through "sphinx territory", making the toll quite 'legal', in whatever sense you mean to give it. Granted this was merely my interpretation based on the way the OP presented his case - its possible I'm way off base. I don't contradict myself at all. The players are free, even required, to react as their characters would, but I sincerely doubt that this situation represents that. If they truly feared or respected the thieves then they'd have ponied up the dough without question, not sat down as a group to negotiate a more favourable rate for the theft. That is meta-thinking, plain and simple. As a teenager, I respected the authority of my parents to make the rules. That didn't mean that I never tried to negotiate to lighten the burden of those rules. I simply think it a little closed-minded of you to reject negotiation with toll-takers as a 'legitimate' way for characters to react.
Templetroll 02-04-06, 12:56 AM	hope the future use of these flying lions isnt to give the party a quest or to be allies. :) If the party gets to try and kill them that will be cool.
nightwing 02-06-06, 09:54 AM	As the PC's will eventually learn (I think), the spinxes are "well connected" in the region. They will gradually become a growing problem as they gain more control of other mountain passes and really start ticking other good-aligned mountain-inhabitants off. But by then, doing something about them will be a tricky proposition because they use the loot they gather to buy other powerful non-good-aligned friends. So, it's a bit in the distance yet, but they are definitely a foreshadowing of future adventures for the PCs.