Social Aspects: When a team acts against one characters high concept

[mariesb]

This is a first time post for me.

My group has been trying to set up the dresden game (character..city..understanding the game for several weeks).  Most of the members are very experienced AD&D players.  We finally got together for the first adventure yesterday. 

The problem I have is understanding how the internal team social dynamics should impact the game.  My character's high concept of Dragon's Bargain World Balance is somewhat vague.  In essence it means that my sponsor wants the world to be balanced as far as right/wrong and bad good.  In the final adventure battle we found a killer of six people that happened to be a ghoul.  The ghoul unfortunately was young and didn't understand it couldn't attack and kill humans without repercussions.  Fortunately the ghoul gave himself up willingly and admitted what he had done and then said he could help make it right by helping other ghouls how to live without killing.  In my book that is a suitable "redemptive" quality and I took no action, indicating to my GM that any action against the ghoul would be against my high concept.  The rest of the team heard that and proceeded to socially attack the ghoul

The ghoul fought back at this point.  When my turn came around again I offered it a bargain, I'd heal it if it would surrender.  Again the ghoul gives up willingly. When he did I indicated to the team not to further strike the ghoul.  Unfortunately the team persisted in killing the ghoul.
I spoke with my GM after the game and indicated that since the team had gone against my high concept after I had made the bargain, then I could no longer trust the team.  That aspect is now added to part of my trouble as a consequence.
I'm not sure this is in keeping with the game concept.

[The_Pentagram]

It seems to me, that you should probably talk to your group as well as your GM, about these issues. Adding to your trouble that you don't trust your allies can be an extreme hindrance both to you and your party, and therefore you probably shouldn't do so without at least making sure that your friends are okay with it. The biggest problem, I think your friends might be having is moving from the typical D&D hack 'n Slash environment, to the more complicated game, where all thing aren't necessarily kill.  Remember (and point out to your friends) that this is a role-playing game, and therefore everyone should be having fun.

[[BoP]Phoenix]

First and foremost I agree with Pentagram, the most prudent course of action is to talk with your group and GM. Often it simply takes a few explanatory words, to get the idea of non-lethal conflict resolution across to the run of the mill - hack n' slay DnD Player. Since your GM apparently -is- interested in more than just Hack and Slay, you could also encourage him to play out the repercussions of cold-blooded murder. Maybe one of the little folk was watching, or the Ghoul was an associate of a White Court Vampire, who now starts to sully the reputation of the heroes in the Supernatural community. There are many soft, and hard, ways to instill a "common sense" into trigger happy players. So if a talk doesn't help, just do it subtly.

For the trouble part, well I imagine that could present quite a lot of role-playing opportunities for you and your group, if they realize your mistrust, and start to win you back over. Again, this is all just a matter of communication between players and your GM

cheers
Phoenix

[Belial666]

And hey, the GM could always introduce an enemy that is immensely strong physically but weak socially. If the group try to take him/her/it on, they get their collective backside handed to them.

[luminos]

I'm not sure this is a situation where talking outside of the game is necessary.  It doesn't sound like they had a disagreement as players, but as characters.  Changing an aspect is useful, but what I would have had happen in this situation is I'd have compelled your high concept for you to start a social conflict with the other members of the party to try to convince them to not attack the ghoul.  Remember, this isn't D&D, and there are actual social mechanics for characters with different agendas to work out their differences.  Its not D&D, and as such, a lot of things that aren't good for such a game are very good for this game.  Intra-party social conflict is one of those things.

I wasn't there, so I don't know the exact situation, but I want to emphasize a distinction.  If the group, outside of the game decided, "Hey, we have to kill this ghoul because thats all we know how to do" then you have a group dynamic issue and talking to them is your best way to go.  If each member of the group instead said "Yeah, maybe we could talk to the ghoul and rehabilitate it, but my character wouldn't do that, so its not happening" then it is 100% perfectly fine and acceptable for them to act that way, and you have an in game social conflict and please oh please don't run away from in game social conflicts with the rest of the party because it really enriches the experience. 

[Wyrdrune]

maybe i sound a bit blue-eyed, but: i would have tried to solve that issue in-game. i would have had my char saying something like "hey guys, that wasn't necessary. he was giving up, by killing him, you deprieved his soul of learning more about right and wrong." and "i deeply believe in restoring balance not by killing. killing may be neccessary if there is no other option, but in other situations - like this one -  i would prefer to try to bring some balance back in the world."

in some groups that might actually work.

[mariesb]

Well thank you.  This is a new game to me and I haven't played others long so this conversation is good.  I like the concept of a consequence outside of "distrustful" thing about maybe the ghouls being against the group or some other game trouble occurring as a consequence.

[black omega]

Disagreements as characters can be great, as long as they handled right.  At their worst they can lead to out of character issues, sadly.  But roleplaying wise, a little tension is a good thing.

I can't assume the other players are hack and slash types, I've only heard one side of the story and can imagine many character concepts that would not accept a lenient result like that for something that killed six people.  

[Lanir]

Well thank you.  This is a new game to me and I haven't played others long so this conversation is good.  I like the concept of a consequence outside of "distrustful" thing about maybe the ghouls being against the group or some other game trouble occurring as a consequence.

One quick caveat here then: You have a high concept that defines a moral stance. Anytime you have one of those you have to be willing to wrangle a bit with your peers because most people don't deal in absolutes like that, even when creating heroes. I get that you're more flexible than a Champion of God (for example) but you'll still run into some of the same social difficulties anytime you make a character based upon particular morals. Probably the most important thing to do when making this kind of character is to sound out your group and make sure they're fine with roleplaying some disagreements.

[kjpowers]

I have to say, from a story standpoint this game can go in so many directions. You killed a Ghoul? Morally justified or not, it would be interesting to see how that action will cause repercussions for your team. Is anyone a signatory or representative of the Accords? Was the Ghoul part of a Clan? If so, was a Weregild paid? Will your character's nature not only as an agent of balance but as an agent of a (Maybe) Freeholding Lord put you into a conflict that your boss wasn't expecting?

This is the beauty of the Dresden universe - politics. While I'll be interested to see how you work out your character-specific issues, I think the fallout from your team's actions could be an interesting story idea to pursue.

[luminos]

From the way the encounter was described, it probably wasn't a ghoul that had membership in a signatory nation.  Most ghouls probably aren't, because they tend to be the mercenaries of the supernatural world.  Also, don't think of just the repercussions of killing him, because there are possibly more repercussions of letting him live.  Let him live, and he goes on to kill more people, maybe even someone the PC's care about.  Kill him, and maybe nothing happens, just like all the countless times Harry has killed ghouls.

The repercussions for killing it that seem to be the most interesting in the given scenario is the way that party cohesion is effected.  If people can understand that character conflict is not the same as player conflict, this way of exploring the consequences has very potent possibilities for the story.