Re: A Torite gone astray...

[Joel Gunderson <belgarat@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

I do believe, and am in fact glad, that something was done.  Keith has
been munching all his characters out hardcore, and he needs to be shown
that we are here to roleplay more than munch.  He made some poor choices
in character and should have known they were against the tenants of his
deity.  I also think that the manner it was handled in was a little
unorthodox.  It almost seemed deceptive in that the repercussions didn't
happen until about a year after the fact, and that it was handled in such
a deceptive manner.  Maybe that's just a personal preference, but if I was
going to have such deific intervention I would make it a bit more known to
the player what was going on.  Other than that, I thought the punishment
fit the crime, so to speak.

Joel


On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Lyle H Janney wrote:

> 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
> 
>