Is my DM being fair to my anarchist [Archive] - Wizards Community

Is my DM being fair to my anarchist [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Dwyn_of_Sylenthia
04-12-07, 01:44 PM Perhaps I should provide a bit of back story for our campaign first. Currently we are a group of adventurers who have lived on a continent that was ruined by a plague centuries ago. The plague has since disappeared but has had residual effects. For example the populous must take a pill provided by the government to prevent them from going insane.
Whilst adventuring we found out that the pills are not only unnecessary, but are causing a mad addiction among the populous.

My plan was to have my druid's cohort, a bard who has taken a level in virtuoso to spread the truth among the populous by using his ability to use preform checks as a diplomacy check on everyone who can observe and listen within 30'. What he would be doing is going to all the cities on the continent while we are out adventuring to speak of our good deeds and spread the truth about the infection, eventually spreading distrust of the government among the people. I'm not trying to raise an army, however I am trying to instill distrust and discontentment so that the government has to focus its power elsewhere and is weakened without the support of its people.

My DM says that diplomacy could not do what I have it intended. Is he being fair? I think after reading the diplomacy description that I am using it correctly. He also says that even if I could do what I'm trying to do, that there is always someone who can undo what I'm doing just by virtue of them being better at it than me. Also, my DM says that my bard would be killed immediately for saying such things. Even if my cohort dies, I would think that his message would at least spread, since people regard him as either friendly or helpful. I also have followers who could preach my the message later on. Normally people would find someone preaching anarchy on the corner crazy, but after my bard spreads our message, then perhaps the people won't think the street corner preacher to be so mad anymore.

Any thoughts or comments are appreciated.
Comus
04-12-07, 01:55 PM Ah, yes. I remember this Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. If I recall correctly, the situation was resolved when the nature of the drug was revealed to the leaders of the oppressed people.

Anyway, the DM obviously has some kind of plotline that he wants to take you on, here, and he thinks the bard would disrupt it. I suggest that if you want to make a difference, you try talking to the most powerful non-governmental figures yourselves. Maybe that'll help.

Really, though, he probably doesn't intend for you to touch it right now, and maybe doesn't want you to do anything about it ever. Maybe you should just flat out ask him, out of game, if this is something the PCs should interfere in, or if it's just supposed to be background fluff.
Cartigan
04-12-07, 02:28 PM Also, my DM says that my bard would be killed immediately for saying such things.
We have a winner. The government is using mind control pills on the populous and you think your cutesy little bard buddy can skip around happy-go-lucky from town to town telling the big secret without repercussion? Don't think so.

I'd let you do it then I would have your bard's head sent back to you in a box and a bounty placed on your heads.
VerdugoExplode
04-12-07, 02:30 PM Well, it wouldn't be much of adventure if a few skill checks were all that was needed to change the population as you seem so keen on doing. My advice, and probably what your DM has in mind as this sounds very familiar to the plot of the movie Equilibrium, is to find out where the government is manufacturing the drugs and destroy it. No more drugs, no more confused populace, everyone revolts and lives happily ever after etc.

His argument that you can't because someone else could do it better is a bit depressing though. Why are you adventuring if there's someone else who could do it better than you, and why can't we just ambush the aforementioned agents in a dark alley so they can't re-reform the populace? It's a line of reasoning that ends only in tears. Personally I would say it was alright but would probably make you wanted men fairly quickly as a result but that's just me.

Also, invest in some guns and start working towards the cleric of the Tetragrammaton(which is probably mispelled) prestige class. It's a well established fact that gun-kata is extremely awesome to several powers of the max.
Khoran
04-12-07, 02:36 PM Well, I'd say Diplomacy is the right skill for it. However, the government probobly has a bunch of people with max bluff/intimidate to quel things like your bard is saying.

As for the Bard being killed immediately, the answer is yes. If the govenment is lieing and getting it's people hooked on drugs, which is obviously evil, then why would they have any qualms about killing some adventurer. Especially some do-gooder bard who is trying to reveal a great and terrible secret and threating their entire opperation.
jnrhayz
04-12-07, 02:52 PM To answer your question, Yes he is being fair to your anarchist.

To elaborate:
1. The people of this area remember a plague that almost wiped everyone out on the entire planet.

2. The population is raised to believe for generations that the pill is necessary or they will die.

3. Some bard starts telling stories about the pill not being necessary and it is actually bad for you.

4. Bard is:
a) killed for inciting a riot against the government, followed by bounties for those who associated with him (namely you and your party),
b) made an example of what happens if you don't take the pill and dies from some horrible disease and you strengthen the position of the government (my personal favorite), or
c) killed by a mob since the population is being addicted and can't stand the thought of going without their pills.

5. In the best case scenario, you should send the bard to SECRETLY organize sympathizers for your position. At some time in the future (determined by the main story) these people could provide a distraction, act as insurgents against the government, or even possibly be a peasant army.

6. Good Luck and it sounds like the DM isn't trying to be unfair, it sounds like he is trying to keep you from throwing away your resources.
OravennasBrother
04-12-07, 04:55 PM Ah, yes. I remember this Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. If I recall correctly, the situation was resolved when the nature of the drug was revealed to the leaders of the oppressed people.
Actually, the Issue was resolved when Captain Pickard decided to NOT repair the failing fleet of ships used to run the drugs from planet 1 to planet 2.

Addicts are not rational (which is why arguing with an Addict about the rationality of taking drugs is pointless - the addict will often aver that there is some advantage because they are blindd by their addiction)

Revealing Any government plot is dangerous, in any government. People die for it.
Prior to the modern period it WAS possible to supress information, and a drug addled populace may well be quite vulnerable to the tactics of information control. All in all I'd say the DM was probably being rather fair, as he did not say the entire group woud be killed based on their association with the Bard.
feartheinvinceblehamster
04-12-07, 05:15 PM Ask him if it would be possible to cut off the drug supply. If he says "No" or "They'll die without it" or something similar, he's being a jerk.
Max_Graeves
04-12-07, 08:17 PM You'd most likely fail at convincing the population anyways. Let's look at it from a technical stand-point. Its an incredibly addictive drug that supposedly keeps the populace safe from the ravages of this plague. If the population stops taking the drug - hey presto - instant withdrawel symptoms, easily misdiagnosed (purposefully or otherwise) as a return of the plague. Now your bard is wanted by the evil government and the naive commoners!
Shatteredtower
04-12-07, 09:49 PM Addicts are not rational.Excuse me? Any addictions counsellor could tell you how often that claim is completely wrong.

This is not to say that the population at large, nor its government, is going to welcome someone that attempts to push for a massive change in the status quo. The government will certainly try (emphasis on try -- the sure death is a sign of bad DMing) to kill or otherwise incapacitate him. Breaking him so that he's compelled to tell everyone he was lying is even more effective, but not every villain can be bothered to go to such lengths.

Is it possible for the bard to convince anyone to listen to him? Yes, absolutely. It's not a sure thing. It's going to take a lot of work and you need a very solid plan to break the cycle of addiction. If you can convince people to be helpful, some of them may try to wean themselves from the drug, but you're going to need to reassure them that they won't die first. (The risk they're taking for you is in trusting you.)

You're still going to need to get past that addiction, however, and it may very well destroy the argument your bard is attempting. Withdrawal will make people as ill as if they were suffering symptoms of an ancient plaque -- which conclusion do you think they'll leap to more naturally? Diplomacy isn't going to help if they've reason to believe you're lying.

If heal can remove an addiction (debatable, though arguing that it's an insanity is likely to result in a very heated debate; tread carefully), you're still not out of the woods. Now people will assume that you used magic to dupe them, and that the magic removed the plague (for the moment), rather than the addiction. It's going to take a long time to sell this truth, during which you are going to want to work in secret. Until you've got enough evidence in authority to back your claims, you do not want to blow the lid on this one.

You might find John Wyndham's The Trouble with Lichen offers some inspiration for a plot like this, though it's hardly the same situation at all.
kelvinaw273
04-13-07, 01:13 PM Your best tactic - in fact the only tactic you will find works reliably - is to cut off the source of the drug in some way. Talking isn't going to help, if the drug is addictive. Sure, you might talk a round one or two people, and they might ween themselves off it. Whoopie do, maybe one in a thousand might get the message before the bard is killed and you are all wanted for endangering public health. All you will do by going public is alert the government that you are there.

Go underground, set up cells of agents, and strike to destroy the source in an area. If you want to get really subtle, just replace it with a placebo to weaken the dose for a while before you cut it off completely.
CryoSilver
04-13-07, 01:39 PM Here's how I see it.

The SRD has DCs for influencing attitudes with Perform checks.

Since you're preaching something so controversial, treat the populace as Hostile toward you. In order to make them at least amenable to your ideas, they'd need to be Friendly, which is a DC 35 check. Impose a -5 penalty for the drug addiction, and you get what amounts to a DC 40 check; DC 30 to make them Indifferent, which would mean they wouldn't report you to the authorities unless it was their job to do so.
Kradlo
04-13-07, 03:23 PM Diplomacy is the skill you'd use to influence a crowd in this fashion. If you have a prestige class that lets you use skill A in place of Diplomacy, that's fine as well (though note the actual text of the ability).

Now, whether or not you can accomplish your overall task is another matter entirely. If the government is sufficiently Machiavellian that it has duped its own populace into drug addiction in order to maintain its hold on the people, that government will not hesitate in the least to eliminate any threat to that control.

So, the first time your bard companion starts spouting the "hidden truth behind the drug," he might do so to a crowd of listeners with varying degrees of success. By the second time he's started his spiel, you can bet the government will have agents ready to move to arrest the "rumormonger" and "dangerous anarchist."

Lawful evil governments (and this one sure sounds like it) have contingency plans in place to handle troublemakers. They don't sit back and let you undermine their power with impunity.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dwyn_of_Sylenthia 04-12-07, 01:44 PM	Perhaps I should provide a bit of back story for our campaign first. Currently we are a group of adventurers who have lived on a continent that was ruined by a plague centuries ago. The plague has since disappeared but has had residual effects. For example the populous must take a pill provided by the government to prevent them from going insane. Whilst adventuring we found out that the pills are not only unnecessary, but are causing a mad addiction among the populous. My plan was to have my druid's cohort, a bard who has taken a level in virtuoso to spread the truth among the populous by using his ability to use preform checks as a diplomacy check on everyone who can observe and listen within 30'. What he would be doing is going to all the cities on the continent while we are out adventuring to speak of our good deeds and spread the truth about the infection, eventually spreading distrust of the government among the people. I'm not trying to raise an army, however I am trying to instill distrust and discontentment so that the government has to focus its power elsewhere and is weakened without the support of its people. My DM says that diplomacy could not do what I have it intended. Is he being fair? I think after reading the diplomacy description that I am using it correctly. He also says that even if I could do what I'm trying to do, that there is always someone who can undo what I'm doing just by virtue of them being better at it than me. Also, my DM says that my bard would be killed immediately for saying such things. Even if my cohort dies, I would think that his message would at least spread, since people regard him as either friendly or helpful. I also have followers who could preach my the message later on. Normally people would find someone preaching anarchy on the corner crazy, but after my bard spreads our message, then perhaps the people won't think the street corner preacher to be so mad anymore. Any thoughts or comments are appreciated.
Comus 04-12-07, 01:55 PM	Ah, yes. I remember this Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. If I recall correctly, the situation was resolved when the nature of the drug was revealed to the leaders of the oppressed people. Anyway, the DM obviously has some kind of plotline that he wants to take you on, here, and he thinks the bard would disrupt it. I suggest that if you want to make a difference, you try talking to the most powerful non-governmental figures yourselves. Maybe that'll help. Really, though, he probably doesn't intend for you to touch it right now, and maybe doesn't want you to do anything about it ever. Maybe you should just flat out ask him, out of game, if this is something the PCs should interfere in, or if it's just supposed to be background fluff.
Cartigan 04-12-07, 02:28 PM	Also, my DM says that my bard would be killed immediately for saying such things. We have a winner. The government is using mind control pills on the populous and you think your cutesy little bard buddy can skip around happy-go-lucky from town to town telling the big secret without repercussion? Don't think so. I'd let you do it then I would have your bard's head sent back to you in a box and a bounty placed on your heads.
VerdugoExplode 04-12-07, 02:30 PM	Well, it wouldn't be much of adventure if a few skill checks were all that was needed to change the population as you seem so keen on doing. My advice, and probably what your DM has in mind as this sounds very familiar to the plot of the movie Equilibrium, is to find out where the government is manufacturing the drugs and destroy it. No more drugs, no more confused populace, everyone revolts and lives happily ever after etc. His argument that you can't because someone else could do it better is a bit depressing though. Why are you adventuring if there's someone else who could do it better than you, and why can't we just ambush the aforementioned agents in a dark alley so they can't re-reform the populace? It's a line of reasoning that ends only in tears. Personally I would say it was alright but would probably make you wanted men fairly quickly as a result but that's just me. Also, invest in some guns and start working towards the cleric of the Tetragrammaton(which is probably mispelled) prestige class. It's a well established fact that gun-kata is extremely awesome to several powers of the max.
Khoran 04-12-07, 02:36 PM	Well, I'd say Diplomacy is the right skill for it. However, the government probobly has a bunch of people with max bluff/intimidate to quel things like your bard is saying. As for the Bard being killed immediately, the answer is yes. If the govenment is lieing and getting it's people hooked on drugs, which is obviously evil, then why would they have any qualms about killing some adventurer. Especially some do-gooder bard who is trying to reveal a great and terrible secret and threating their entire opperation.
jnrhayz 04-12-07, 02:52 PM	To answer your question, Yes he is being fair to your anarchist. To elaborate: 1. The people of this area remember a plague that almost wiped everyone out on the entire planet. 2. The population is raised to believe for generations that the pill is necessary or they will die. 3. Some bard starts telling stories about the pill not being necessary and it is actually bad for you. 4. Bard is: a) killed for inciting a riot against the government, followed by bounties for those who associated with him (namely you and your party), b) made an example of what happens if you don't take the pill and dies from some horrible disease and you strengthen the position of the government (my personal favorite), or c) killed by a mob since the population is being addicted and can't stand the thought of going without their pills. 5. In the best case scenario, you should send the bard to SECRETLY organize sympathizers for your position. At some time in the future (determined by the main story) these people could provide a distraction, act as insurgents against the government, or even possibly be a peasant army. 6. Good Luck and it sounds like the DM isn't trying to be unfair, it sounds like he is trying to keep you from throwing away your resources.
OravennasBrother 04-12-07, 04:55 PM	Ah, yes. I remember this Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. If I recall correctly, the situation was resolved when the nature of the drug was revealed to the leaders of the oppressed people. Actually, the Issue was resolved when Captain Pickard decided to NOT repair the failing fleet of ships used to run the drugs from planet 1 to planet 2. Addicts are not rational (which is why arguing with an Addict about the rationality of taking drugs is pointless - the addict will often aver that there is some advantage because they are blindd by their addiction) Revealing Any government plot is dangerous, in any government. People die for it. Prior to the modern period it WAS possible to supress information, and a drug addled populace may well be quite vulnerable to the tactics of information control. All in all I'd say the DM was probably being rather fair, as he did not say the entire group woud be killed based on their association with the Bard.
feartheinvinceblehamster 04-12-07, 05:15 PM	Ask him if it would be possible to cut off the drug supply. If he says "No" or "They'll die without it" or something similar, he's being a jerk.
Max_Graeves 04-12-07, 08:17 PM	You'd most likely fail at convincing the population anyways. Let's look at it from a technical stand-point. Its an incredibly addictive drug that supposedly keeps the populace safe from the ravages of this plague. If the population stops taking the drug - hey presto - instant withdrawel symptoms, easily misdiagnosed (purposefully or otherwise) as a return of the plague. Now your bard is wanted by the evil government and the naive commoners!
Shatteredtower 04-12-07, 09:49 PM	Addicts are not rational.Excuse me? Any addictions counsellor could tell you how often that claim is completely wrong. This is not to say that the population at large, nor its government, is going to welcome someone that attempts to push for a massive change in the status quo. The government will certainly try (emphasis on try -- the sure death is a sign of bad DMing) to kill or otherwise incapacitate him. Breaking him so that he's compelled to tell everyone he was lying is even more effective, but not every villain can be bothered to go to such lengths. Is it possible for the bard to convince anyone to listen to him? Yes, absolutely. It's not a sure thing. It's going to take a lot of work and you need a very solid plan to break the cycle of addiction. If you can convince people to be helpful, some of them may try to wean themselves from the drug, but you're going to need to reassure them that they won't die first. (The risk they're taking for you is in trusting you.) You're still going to need to get past that addiction, however, and it may very well destroy the argument your bard is attempting. Withdrawal will make people as ill as if they were suffering symptoms of an ancient plaque -- which conclusion do you think they'll leap to more naturally? Diplomacy isn't going to help if they've reason to believe you're lying. If heal can remove an addiction (debatable, though arguing that it's an insanity is likely to result in a very heated debate; tread carefully), you're still not out of the woods. Now people will assume that you used magic to dupe them, and that the magic removed the plague (for the moment), rather than the addiction. It's going to take a long time to sell this truth, during which you are going to want to work in secret. Until you've got enough evidence in authority to back your claims, you do not want to blow the lid on this one. You might find John Wyndham's The Trouble with Lichen offers some inspiration for a plot like this, though it's hardly the same situation at all.
kelvinaw273 04-13-07, 01:13 PM	Your best tactic - in fact the only tactic you will find works reliably - is to cut off the source of the drug in some way. Talking isn't going to help, if the drug is addictive. Sure, you might talk a round one or two people, and they might ween themselves off it. Whoopie do, maybe one in a thousand might get the message before the bard is killed and you are all wanted for endangering public health. All you will do by going public is alert the government that you are there. Go underground, set up cells of agents, and strike to destroy the source in an area. If you want to get really subtle, just replace it with a placebo to weaken the dose for a while before you cut it off completely.
CryoSilver 04-13-07, 01:39 PM	Here's how I see it. The SRD has DCs for influencing attitudes with Perform checks. Since you're preaching something so controversial, treat the populace as Hostile toward you. In order to make them at least amenable to your ideas, they'd need to be Friendly, which is a DC 35 check. Impose a -5 penalty for the drug addiction, and you get what amounts to a DC 40 check; DC 30 to make them Indifferent, which would mean they wouldn't report you to the authorities unless it was their job to do so.
Kradlo 04-13-07, 03:23 PM	Diplomacy is the skill you'd use to influence a crowd in this fashion. If you have a prestige class that lets you use skill A in place of Diplomacy, that's fine as well (though note the actual text of the ability). Now, whether or not you can accomplish your overall task is another matter entirely. If the government is sufficiently Machiavellian that it has duped its own populace into drug addiction in order to maintain its hold on the people, that government will not hesitate in the least to eliminate any threat to that control. So, the first time your bard companion starts spouting the "hidden truth behind the drug," he might do so to a crowd of listeners with varying degrees of success. By the second time he's started his spiel, you can bet the government will have agents ready to move to arrest the "rumormonger" and "dangerous anarchist." Lawful evil governments (and this one sure sounds like it) have contingency plans in place to handle troublemakers. They don't sit back and let you undermine their power with impunity.