A Torite gone astray...

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

As I recall, many of you were around this past weekend to
witness an example of how seriously GM's should be taking
the idea of direct and proper consequences to player actions.
Specifically, Keith Klumb is playing a priest of Tor who not
only purchased some serious non-weapon magic to aid him,
but then, knowing how wrong it was to do so, bought further
non-weapon magic to hide the fact.

When I went to the GM who adjudicated the exchange, I was
met with the excuse, "I didn't know he was a Torite."  That is
no excuse.  GM's need to be aware of _all_ the parameters in
such situations so that they can properly handle the various
repercussions of those actions.  If they do not have enough
information, or if they are uncomfortable adjudicating such
actions (and the repercussions, which could cause certain
players who take things too personally to have hard feelings),
then the GM should defer to a Senior GM.  In this case, it is
not only the adjudicating GM at fault, but also the player of
the mage who cast the offending magic spells since that
particular player has also been a GM for some time and
should also know better than to let such things slip past the
adjudicating moderator.

After consulting the adjudicating moderator, I discussed the
situation with the moderator who would have the player in
their game.  As it was, that moderator was more lenient with
the player than I would have been, allowing the Torite access
to the first 3 ranks of drills instead of taking them all away.  In
retrospect, I feel his leniency was the better course of action;
at least the character knows that his God has not _completely_
forsaken him.

I received a note today regarding this situation and engaged in
discussion with the sender.  Apparently, "there wasn't anyone in
our [the sender of the note] room that didn't believe that was a
dick over".  In the end, the sender of the note and I reached an
agreement that while the manner in which it was handled may
not have been the best, it is better that something happen as
opposed to nothing at all (to the sender: did I sum that up okay?).

The finer points of their argument was the timing (why did it take
so long for the consequences to occur?) and the fact that it
appears there was direct Godly intervention.  Regarding the
timing, I'm arguing that it just took that long for someone (namely,
the one who is giving the power to this up-and-coming priest)
to notice (i.e., the more you call on your god for power (spells
or drills) the more notice they take of you).  As regards the Godly
intervention, I felt that I, as a Senior GM, was justified in what
little actual Godly intervention there was.  Dan is aware of the
situation, and if he feels that I was in the wrong, then I will respect
whatever restrictions he imposes upon me as a result of my
infraction.

Regarding the feeling that it was a "dick over", what do you think?
Is it a dick over if you rob a bank and then don't get caught until
6 years later (the statute of limitations begin 7 years) and, as a result
of a guilty verdict, pay the full penalty of the law?  No; if you can't
do the time, then don't do the crime.  We have to enforce in game
consequences with in game repercussions.  Since this wasn't
handled when it should have been, I had to figure out how it could
be handled now that a game year had passed.  Since the evidence
was hidden from human discovery, I determined that it was the
God who was starting to take notice of this developing priest who
finally noticed.  Now it is up to the adventurer to seek assistance
from the Enclave as to why it seems his God has withdrawn so
much of his power.  According to the GM who ran for the character
this past weekend, "Keith is on a quest right now to find redemption, 
he's heading to the chief Enclave in Geleia, Kieron's Watch, he 
started heading that way at the end of last game, and I gave him the 
time frame for it."  I will discuss the options with that GM by this coming
weekend and we will give the character a chance to come to his
senses and repent.

While this may not have been the best way of handling this
situation, it is at least a reasonable a way of doing so.  If the
original GM who adjudicated the offending action in the first
place had dealt with the consequences, then none of this would
be an issue.  We have to enforce consequences, not just pay
lip service to the idea.  From what I understand, a good number
of moderators knew about this situation, yet none would do
anything about it (these also being moderators who have rallied
to the cry of enforcing consequences to actions).  Now, many of
those same GM's are crying 'Foul' to the fact that someone finally
had the guts to actually do something.  If you have a complaint
with how something was handled, take it to the person that you
have the complaint with (like I did with the original adjudicating
GM).  However, I have no intention of listening to the idle ranting
of those who first give lip service, then show apathy in the face
of that which they gave lip service to, then raise up arms when
someone finally does do something.  You are either part of the
solution, or you are part of the problem; which would you rather
be?  I would like to think that all moderators are interested in
enforcing consequences, or at least those who said they were
interested in doing so, but so far, I have only seen a few who
are actually willing to do so.  Again, if you do not feel capable
of adjudicating the repercussions of player actions, then you
need to defer to another GM, if not a Senior GM; that is one
of the reasons we're here, to do the dirty work in as impartial
and unbiased a manner as possible.

I encourage you all to respond to this as you see fit.  After all,
this isn't a dictatorship and your opinions do count if you are
willing to not _only_ voice them, but to back them as well.
Thank you all for your time.

Lyle