Demonic Pact

[VincentDarlage]

I don't allow PVP either - and if it happened, the one who did the killing is also out - meaning BOTH players have to roll up a new character.

Also, I have simply allowed the one killed to just not be dead. He comes back. No explanation necessary. Heck, the demon could bring him back. And he comes back everytime a PC kills him.

You should do something to alleviate the bad feelings, or else the one whose character died will always feel he got the short stick.

 

[Hervé]

Sad story, Style. I hope your players will get over their bad feelings...

While it never happened in our Conan games, there has been some "PC murdering PC" in some of our campaigns, but it was always justified by story, and often the murdered PC knew it was going to happen. As Vincent stated, I will hardly allow PVP in my game, but would let it happen it it was storywise and would not penalize the murderer (well, maybe...).

 

[LilithsThrall]

I'd have my PC declare a meeting with all the other PCs, including the guy I was planning to murder, where I laid out my grievances, let the potential corpse lay out his defense, and then voted as to whether to keep the potential corpse remain a party member. I'd try to keep this discussion as much in character as possible.
If the potential corpse did not remain a party member, then he's free game to be killed (though see below). If he remains a party member, then my character would walk away and I'd create a new character which is more in line with what the rest of the players seem to want in a party member.

I'm against PvP. There are ways which are a lot more fun to get revenge. Killing is for amateurs.

 

[Demetrio]

I think pvp is absolutely fine so long as both players are happy enough. Sometimes it is the logical conclusion of a relationship between characters (like Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis in The Vikings!).

Your problem is that the killing does not seem the typical 'screw the other player' killing which makes pvp a taboo for most, there seem to be solid enough character based motives and that the victim cannot accept that he is at least partly the architect of his own character's demise.

The mistake made (hindsight is lovely) is simply that the killing did not gain the consent of the victim's player. Really you should have called a halt as the blow was about to be struck and explored the reasons with the whole group - without either players speaking in character at any point in the process so they could divorce themselves from the tension a bit.

So were I you, I'd start the next session by apologising for dropping the ball as the GM. This neatly turns it from a player versus player issue into a 'hey, I goofed as GM issue'. Unfair to you but it does ease the tension. you need both players calm and rational and if you can turn it into 'your fault' it means it's neither of theirs...

Then say, 'look, where can we go from here? If this descends into a vendetta between newly created pcs, we're lost.' Take opinions from each member of the group. Then present them with the alternatives (they might come up with some others of course):

1- the pc is resurrected but the reasons that lead to his killing have been explored by the players and steps taken to make sure the character clash won't happen in the same way again.

2- the pc stays dead but the replacement will be at no disadvantage to the established players. You could perhaps make part of the background story that the pc who killed the sorcerer is beholden to this new pc in some way - so there's no chance of player/player conflict.

3- everyone (all the players, not just the two involved) starts a new character, clean slate, fresh campaign, no hard feelings.

And it's made clear that in future all pc on pc violence (and hopefully there won't be much, if any without a very solid story reason) must be talked through with the group out of character first.

 

[Style]

No defensive blast or demonic intervention to save the sorcerer?

Concerning defensive blast, the character has it, but the player is unaware of all of his abilities. Not b/c I'm withholding information, but b/c he refuses to read the things I've pointed out to him. For example, last night he was saying he would put up some "Burst Barriers" to provide a fortification. I was like "Ummm, you haven't read the spell, have you?" I'm too busy running a game to show him every little thing he's missing b/c he won't take the time to simply read the small amount of text pertaining to the powers of his character.

Concerning demonic intervention, "I'll save your ass every time you get in trouble" was never part of the demonic pact. Besides, the demon had already played him like a fiddle, and gotten what he wanted from him. (As you will see in when I give the campaign report in the Gladiator thread.)

I'm curious if you think it was completely IC for the other guy to kill your sorcerer? You appear to. That makes me question whether this guy ( the sorcerer ) was being overly blatant and evil in front of the rest of the group which, judging by this outcome, wasn't so evil or into sorcery?

In which case he should have it explained to him, in private, what he did wrong to garner negative attention and why you think he died. But that is just me. Talk him through what lead up to the event and that might help him accept the event rather than just be resentful.

It was completely in character. And the sorcerer was being overly blatant about trafficing in demons in front of the group. What he was doing was clearly catching the attention of the whole group, and I even point this out to him, but he continued down the path, never suspecting that his comrades would take him out.

It also sounds like there is some personal contention between these two, or am I wrong? Has the other player ever killed other characters of his?

There was no contention between the players until after the incident. There was no history of any PVP action in my game until last night. Earlier in the session, the killer called out the sorcerer saying "If you ever lie to me again, or show any sign of bretayal, I will kill you." Then later in the night, demonic things starting happening, and he'd had enough.

I've noticed a trend that a lot of new players to conan games still try to make characters that are essentially 'good' or 'heroes' regardless of what type of character they are making or from what origin. The darkness of the setting doesn't touch their character. I feel it is a holdover from 'other games'.

The words used by the killer were "lies, betrayal, corruption" when referring to the sorcerer, and "unatural" & "abominations" when referring to his magics and summonings. There was no mention of good or evil, of holy or unholy, heroes, villains, or any of that. All the words I was hearing, and the "feel" of what led the killer to his actions, seemed spot on for a Conan game, as far as I could tell.

I don't allow PVP either - and if it happened, the one who did the killing is also out - meaning BOTH players have to roll up a new character.

One possible alternative is the sorcerer's ghost comes back to kill the killer, Belit style. That wipes the slate clean...

Also, I have simply allowed the one killed to just not be dead. He comes back. No explanation necessary. Heck, the demon could bring him back. And he comes back everytime a PC kills him.

When someone mentioned bringing him back, the player of the sorcerer said that he didn't believe in "take backs", that they went against his core belief in how games should be played, that no, his PC was D.E.A.D.

As far as should I have allowed the death blow to be struck? I certainly considered not allowing it, but I was having a hard time not allowing it, seeings how I thought the guy playing the killer had every right to do what he did. He was playing his character to a Tee. His character would have gone after the sorcerer, no bones about it. Now as a player, he could have over ruled the action of his character, for the good of the group, but he didn't.

While it never happened in our Conan games, there has been some "PC murdering PC" in some of our campaigns, but it was always justified by story, and often the murdered PC knew it was going to happen. As Vincent stated, I will hardly allow PVP in my game, but would let it happen it it was storywise and would not penalize the murderer (well, maybe...).

The player of the sorcerer did not know it was coming, BUT the killer did warn him earlier. In fact, he put an arrow in his shoulder, and said "The next sign of betrayal and the arrow will be between your eyes." So I guess maybe he should have known it was coming. But then, things happened very quickly in the story, and the event that caused the killer to go over the edge was unforseen by the sorcerer.

At any rate, it was absolutely justified by the story, so I allowed it. Story wise, I feel fine with where we are. My only issues are player relations, and salvaging my game. Like I said, I've gamed with both players for 8 years!

I'd have my PC declare a meeting with all the other PCs, including the guy I was planning to murder, where I laid out my grievances, let the potential corpse lay out his defense, and then voted as to whether to keep the potential corpse remain a party member. I'd try to keep this discussion as much in character as possible.
If the potential corpse did not remain a party member, then he's free game to be killed (though see below). If he remains a party member, then my character would walk away and I'd create a new character which is more in line with what the rest of the players seem to want in a party member.

That's an interesting idea.

I think pvp is absolutely fine so long as both players are happy enough. Sometimes it is the logical conclusion of a relationship between characters (like Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis in The Vikings!).

Your problem is that the killing does not seem the typical 'screw the other player' killing which makes pvp a taboo for most, there seem to be solid enough character based motives and that the victim cannot accept that he is at least partly the architect of his own character's demise.

I agree.

So were I you, I'd start the next session by apologising for dropping the ball as the GM. This neatly turns it from a player versus player issue into a 'hey, I goofed as GM issue'. Unfair to you but it does ease the tension. you need both players calm and rational and if you can turn it into 'your fault' it means it's neither of theirs...

That's a good idea, and I definitely don't mind takign the blame for this if it means I salvage my game. No ego over here.

Then say, 'look, where can we go from here? If this descends into a vendetta between newly created pcs, we're lost.' Take opinions from each member of the group. Then present them with the alternatives (they might come up with some others of course):

1- the pc is resurrected but the reasons that lead to his killing have been explored by the players and steps taken to make sure the character clash won't happen in the same way again.

2- the pc stays dead but the replacement will be at no disadvantage to the established players. You could perhaps make part of the background story that the pc who killed the sorcerer is beholden to this new pc in some way - so there's no chance of player/player conflict.

3- everyone (all the players, not just the two involved) starts a new character, clean slate, fresh campaign, no hard feelings.

And it's made clear that in future all pc on pc violence (and hopefully there won't be much, if any without a very solid story reason) must be talked through with the group out of character first.

1. Well, the player of the sorcerer doesn't like take backs, and resurrecting the sorcerer doesn't repair the mistrust/bad feelings between the characters (not to mention the players). Unless the story some how dictates that the sorcerer was not acting under his own free will, he was possessed, and he's now been set free, this doesn't seem like it would work.

2. That's a good idea that the new pc is not at a disadvantage. No loss of xp, etc. I've thought about making him beholden to the killer.

3. Don't like this one at all, and I don't think the players would either, BUT this could be a good option to present in that it might motivate them to kiss and make up. "Hey, if we don't get this worked out a year's worth of gaming is tossed out the window? Hmm, surely we can come up with something that "tastes" better than that!"


I actually did open it to the group about where we should go from here, but the wound was too raw for the player of the sorcerer. Nothing reasonable was coming from his mouth, and it happened right at the end of the session. The store was closing up. I thought lets cool off and then reexamine this in a few days. Next session I'm thinking I will open it up to the group with a few options.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Demetrio]

Yeah, option three is really the pistol to the head: 'the campaign fails unless we can sort this out. So let's sort it out properly and move on, hopefully with this campaign.'

The other thing to bring up of course is that it would be a terrible shame if character relations were to sour player relations.

 

[Style]

The other thing to bring up of course is that it would be a terrible shame if character relations were to sour player relations.

Excellent point. I know that the player of the killer has called me and expressed his anxiety over the situation. He doesn't feel he didn't anything wrong, but feels awful all the same.

 

[Demetrio]

The other thing to bring up before any discussion is that assigning blame for the situation is now redundant and will likely lead to option 3. Your group may not like where it now is but here you are and what's done cannot be changed. How best to move on should be the entire focus. If the killing must be referred to then best for the players just to say how they feel - you as GM should say that everyone acted in character so the situation is unfortunate but nobody wanted anyone else to be upset because of character interactions - it's a game after all.

 

[Teriudin]

While I'm not familiar with your campaign, I know that if I were to die for any reason in my campaign, I'd be fairly limited in my options of characters since the character needs to have a good reason to fit in. In conan's world, reasons need to be VERY good just to fit the plot.

Our group has a certain amount of animosity. Lots of Noble ranks, various codes of honor, strange racial mix, and a settite sorcerer. We rarely come to blows, but mostly because we know that once blows happen, characters die in this game. We've had heated debates over ethics issues in game, and have occasionally cast various hypnotic spells to solve the issue.

However, I think we have an underlying understanding that PvP is not in anyone's best interest. More than one character has stated "If it gets too bad, I'll walk away" and roll up a new character that fits in.

After all, in general it'll be one guy against the rest (and their cohorts) so the wise thing is to walk away peacably.

 

[Vortigern]

No defensive blast or demonic intervention to save the sorcerer?

Concerning defensive blast, the character has it, but the player is unaware of all of his abilities. Not b/c I'm withholding information, but b/c he refuses to read the things I've pointed out to him. For example, last night he was saying he would put up some "Burst Barriers" to provide a fortification. I was like "Ummm, you haven't read the spell, have you?" I'm too busy running a game to show him every little thing he's missing b/c he won't take the time to simply read the small amount of text pertaining to the powers of his character.

Concerning demonic intervention, "I'll save your ass every time you get in trouble" was never part of the demonic pact. Besides, the demon had already played him like a fiddle, and gotten what he wanted from him. (As you will see in when I give the campaign report in the Gladiator thread.)

Honestly I wouldn't let him play a mage unless he was willing to sit down, read, and know what he was talking about. And if he was as blatant as you are mentioning about trafficking in demons and doing super nasty stuff, well... I think he had a large hand in his own death.

As for demonic intervention I was thinking of the Summoning style defensive blast that allows you to instantly summon demon protection as your defense. i.e. all of your PPs go away, but now you have a big damn demon between you and the guy attacking you. Easily something that can prolong your life.

 

[LilithsThrall]

No defensive blast or demonic intervention to save the sorcerer?

Concerning defensive blast, the character has it, but the player is unaware of all of his abilities. Not b/c I'm withholding information, but b/c he refuses to read the things I've pointed out to him. For example, last night he was saying he would put up some "Burst Barriers" to provide a fortification. I was like "Ummm, you haven't read the spell, have you?" I'm too busy running a game to show him every little thing he's missing b/c he won't take the time to simply read the small amount of text pertaining to the powers of his character.

Concerning demonic intervention, "I'll save your ass every time you get in trouble" was never part of the demonic pact. Besides, the demon had already played him like a fiddle, and gotten what he wanted from him. (As you will see in when I give the campaign report in the Gladiator thread.)

Honestly I wouldn't let him play a mage unless he was willing to sit down, read, and know what he was talking about. And if he was as blatant as you are mentioning about trafficking in demons and doing super nasty stuff, well... I think he had a large hand in his own death.

As for demonic intervention I was thinking of the Summoning style defensive blast that allows you to instantly summon demon protection as your defense. i.e. all of your PPs go away, but now you have a big damn demon between you and the guy attacking you. Easily something that can prolong your life.

It's easy, when you are starting out, to mess up the sorcery rules. My first sorcerer took Necromancy as his first discipline, for example.
You learn by doing. So, I wouldn't expect someone to know the sorcery rules before playing a sorcerer.
However, I would expect them to know the basics - such as a general idea of what each of their spells does. And thinking that "Burst Barrier" creates a barrier is a clear example of failing to have a basic idea of what their spells do.
So, here I agree with Vertigern. The guy shouldn't have been playing a sorcerer.

 

[Style]

As for demonic intervention I was thinking of the Summoning style defensive blast that allows you to instantly summon demon protection as your defense. i.e. all of your PPs go away, but now you have a big damn demon between you and the guy attacking you. Easily something that can prolong your life.

Not even I was aware that a defensive blast could do that! Where are these alternate defensive blasts detailed?

 

[Demetrio]

Master, Aid Me!

p.269 of the main rules, 2nd edition - it's the Summoning Defensive Blast.

 

[Style]

Master, Aid Me!

p.269 of the main rules, 2nd edition - it's the Summoning Defensive Blast.

Ah, I'm an Atlantean Edition kind of guy. I do have the second edition book, but rarely open it. Glancing at page 269, I see it is an additional spell, it doesn't come for free with the summoning style. With that in mind, he never took this spell, so would not have had it available. Problem solved.

Also, defensive blast requires you to be able to perform an action, right? You can't do it on someone else's turn, unless there is an attack of opportunity.

During the fateful incident, the sorcerer lost initiative, so his assailant went first. He proceeded to kill him in one blow. Even if he was aware of his character having a defensive blast (and I'm pretty sure he was not aware), I don't see an opportunity to use it in that narrow window.

 

[LilithsThrall]

Master, Aid Me!

p.269 of the main rules, 2nd edition - it's the Summoning Defensive Blast.

Ah, I'm an Atlantean Edition kind of guy. I do have the second edition book, but rarely open it. Glancing at page 269, I see it is an additional spell, it doesn't come for free with the summoning style. With that in mind, he never took this spell, so would not have had it available. Problem solved.

Also, defensive blast requires you to be able to perform an action, right? You can't do it on someone else's turn, unless there is an attack of opportunity.

During the fateful incident, the sorcerer lost initiative, so his assailant went first. He proceeded to kill him in one blow. Even if he was aware of his character having a defensive blast (and I'm pretty sure he was not aware), I don't see an opportunity to use it in that narrow window.

I don't know about AE, but in 2nd Ed, you can use a fate chip to get a Deus Ex Machina as long as it is believable. Having a demon on your side makes all kinds of things believable.

 

[flatscan]

Ah, I'm an Atlantean Edition kind of guy. I do have the second edition book, but rarely open it. Glancing at page 269, I see it is an additional spell, it doesn't come for free with the summoning style. With that in mind, he never took this spell, so would not have had it available. Problem solved.

Also, defensive blast requires you to be able to perform an action, right? You can't do it on someone else's turn, unless there is an attack of opportunity.

During the fateful incident, the sorcerer lost initiative, so his assailant went first. He proceeded to kill him in one blow. Even if he was aware of his character having a defensive blast (and I'm pretty sure he was not aware), I don't see an opportunity to use it in that narrow window.

It depends. If the Scholar took Summoning as his first school of sorcery he would have received the Defensive Blast when he first took the school. If it was a later school selection then he would have had to get the spell as an advanced spell.

Defensive Blasts are an immediate action so they can be taken at any time the parameters are met (ie he is attacked and not flat-footed).

Your last point does mean the sorcerer was fuct as you can't use a Defensive Blast flat-footed.

 

[Style]

First of all, let me just say that I run a Savage Worlds game, not Conan D20. However, I've roughly converted the Conan d20 magic system.

So fate points for a Deus Ex Machina is not an option.

The character was created leveled up with multiple sorcery styles, so I don't actually know which one was technically first. Regardless, I was using Atlantean edition, which doesn't have the summoning defensive blast, so that wasn't an option for him anyway.

He was not flat footed though. He had a round to react, and knew trouble was coming, but when the following round came and his killer closed in for melee, he lost initiative.

It doesn't matter though. Even if he was aware that he had a defensive blast, which he wasn't, I doubt he would have used it, knowing that it would be his last spell for the day. It's not like he knew that he was going to go down in one strike.

 

[Vortigern]

Well, that would be his choice. But 'Master Aid Me' would probably have not just saved his life, but turned it into him killing the other guy if he played it right.

That said, I stand by my earlier position... if he didn't know his spells well enough to have a general clue about what his spells did, he wasn't playing the right kind of character to begin with. Maybe he likes the idea of the sorcerer but if he isn't willing to crack a book, he doesn't need to play one IMHO.

 

[Demetrio]

The vexed question of whether the player should have had a sorcerer as a character doesn't solve the problem though - the jug is broken, it cannot be mended. He may possibly have made a poor character choice, but while we can discuss that here, it'd be unwise for Style's group to point that out because it blames that player. And whether he's in fact to blame or not won't repair Style's group. That said, I'm slightly baffled by the concept of an experienced rpger not getting to grips with his character's powers, knowing the powers and their mechanics well would surely aid his ability to play the character.

I meant to say before, Style, I hope things work out for you and your players.

 

[Style]

The vexed question of whether the player should have had a sorcerer as a character doesn't solve the problem though - the jug is broken, it cannot be mended. He may possibly have made a poor character choice, but while we can discuss that here, it'd be unwise for Style's group to point that out because it blames that player. And whether he's in fact to blame or not won't repair Style's group. That said, I'm slightly baffled by the concept of an experienced rpger not getting to grips with his character's powers, knowing the powers and their mechanics well would surely aid his ability to play the character.

I meant to say before, Style, I hope things work out for you and your players.

Agreed. I'm going to open the next session by apologizing for dropping the ball, i.e. putting all the blame on me. Then I'm going to focus on where do we go from here, not on what has already happened. I doubt anything good would come in rehashing what has already happened.