The point has already been brought up, but it was side-tracked with (on-topic) arguing.
Regardless of who is obviously in the right in-game, this can only be solved by confronting and speaking to the ranger's real-life player and potentially gathering support from the other players and DM. (Assuming that he/she is mature enough to be approached in a way that resembles human society.)
Some groups don't care at all about role-play and there's nothing wrong with that, if it's not your tastes then you have to adapt or.. look elsewhere.
And the other person seems to have taken this mount JUST to piss your character off.
I think that that might be true, but not necessarily. They might have just thought it up, gone with it, and totally not even thought about the ramifications to the OP's character until it was too late. But, since they're not here, that too is speculation, although not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
I think, though, that jumping to conclusions like that can keep a situation like the one we have here going from bad to worse to clusterf&@$ armageddon.
|
I don't think I ever said anything like that. Maybe someone else? I haven't paid very close attention.There's someone with the handle "TOZ" posting on this thread as well.
(Clearly this is a Thunderdome-type situation.)
TOZ and TriOmega are the same person.
I've seen him post something under TOZ, erase it and post the same thing again under TriOmega.
Actually, what you saw was me post as TriOmegaZero, realize I meant to post it under TOZ, and then edit the posting alias.
This is so that my ratio of TOZ to TriOmegaZero posts stays in the right place and when you mouse over 'TriOmegaZero' at the start of my post, the pop-up says 'a.k.a. TOZ' and you know that TriOmegaZero and TOZ are the same person.
|
|
I don't think I ever said anything like that. Maybe someone else? I haven't paid very close attention.Maybe I need some clarification. I had thought "TriOmegaZero" and "TOZ" were the same person posting under aliases just for laughs.
Is that wrong? Is TOZ someone different than TriOmegaZero?
TOZ has only said that loaba was explaining why you're wrong.
He never said loaba was right, or that he thought that loaba's reason was the reason you were wrong.
|
I don't think I ever said anything like that. Maybe someone else? I haven't paid very close attention.There's someone with the handle "TOZ" posting on this thread as well.
(Clearly this is a Thunderdome-type situation.)
Oh. That's an alias of yours. Derr.
... although yes, you did say that, then.
... also, that would be a very disappointing Thunderdome event.
I should really find out what Thunderdome is.
But no, I don't think I said anything like that either. You'll have to point it out to me.
I don't think I ever said anything like that. Maybe someone else? I haven't paid very close attention.Maybe I need some clarification. I had thought "TriOmegaZero" and "TOZ" were the same person posting under aliases just for laughs.
Is that wrong? Is TOZ someone different than TriOmegaZero?
TOZ has only said that loaba was explaining why you're wrong.
He never said loaba was right, or that he thought that loaba's reason was the reason you were wrong.
Why are you talking about your Aliases in the third person?
wait, don't answer that, Tyler Durden."His name is TriOmegaZero....His name is TriOmegaZero......"
I think THIS THREAD is OUR Great Depression.
Toz is Tyler Durden.But I don't want to sell soap!
If you could fight anybody, dead or alive,.....who would you fight?
Ohnoes; I'M TOZler Durden!!!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked Fight Club before it was mainstream.
I should really find out what Thunderdome is.
But no, I don't think I said anything like that either. You'll have to point it out to me.
... but yeah, by that point I was just really confused. I was recanting my original statement and confirming that the quote was accurate; it didn't even occur that the concern was the interpretation.
Long story short, never mind me. ;p
We try not to mind anyone, as long as they don't mind us.
It's when they DO mind is the knives come out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to post something here that was mentioned in the other thread about this subject. Why there are two of them, I don't know.
He's pretty self assured, assumes he's right. Made a small mistake to call him on favoritism (we've called him on it in the past and he got really bent out of shape) and he actually told me that he would punish my character if I argued my point any further.Sounds like the undead horse is more of a symptom than the problem. What is the GM like?The GM's words: "I'm not going to change this animal. It's cool and it's not hurting anyone."Has anyone suggested asking the GM to retcon the horse to a construct made out of a dead horse?
As the ranger gains levels he can advance the horse by *shudder* swapping out pieces for better parts.
As well as this:
This actually was pointed out to the GM. He pointed at the atonement spell and said that would take care of it. Meaning my cleric would have to shell out 2500 gold a day to keep getting it cast on him.The GM's words: "I'm not going to change this animal. It's cool and it's not hurting anyone."Has anyone suggested asking the GM to retcon the horse to a construct made out of a dead horse?
As the ranger gains levels he can advance the horse by *shudder* swapping out pieces for better parts.
Did you point out that your character would probably be hurt if they lost the favor of their god and became an Ex-cleric?
Your DM sounds like a prick.
Emphasis mine.
This opens a window to what kind of GM this is. I say leave. I wouldn't want to deal with a GM like that and I'd rather not deal with this using in game passive aggressiveness.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry mate, but after reading this entire thread. It sounds like (unless you live in the middle of nowhere and this is the only gaming group around) you need to find yourself another gaming group. Your DM sounds like quite possibly one of the worst DMs I've ever heard of in my life. If you're in the DC metropolitan area please hit me up and I'll find a place for you in my game.
I should really find out what Thunderdome is.
It's where we should put your two aliases. Two go in, one comes out.
Reminds me of raising rabbits.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tatsua: I'm a little late to this discussion, but as far as I can tell... based on what you've described, no; you're not in the wrong. There was a D&D article a while back that suggested players should be willing to significantly compromise their character concept/personality to keep the table flowing smoothly. What started as good advice about making your character flexible enough to be willing to help friends/party-mates with their own agenda even if it doesn't advance the character's own goals ended up going way too far. By the end it seemed to be advocating complete character re-writes on the fly to keep play going.
I'm starting to think that's a load of nonsense, with both my own experiences and your own to back it up. I was in a situation similar to yours with the exception that the GM was actually very cool, told a good story, fun person to work with; they just had a hands-off approach to party conflict. I had a neutral GM on that side of things, and found myself gutting my character concept to tolerate decidedly Evil, irresponsible actions by another PC. It sucked. I destroyed character consistency in doing so, and table harmony wasn't restored. The disruptive player in question continued to play a dangerous nut who attacked innocent people, provoked unnecessary fights, and would randomly sit back not helping the party at all in combat. Just like you, I tried various compromise/solution seeking... and it went nowhere. His character was still a wild, needlessly violent (but not towards the party's legitimate enemies? Bizarre) twit and this continued to cause conflict in the party.
This leaves me with two sentiments. One, screw the advice in question (minor rewrites/compromises may be okay, of course)... and two, you seem to be in the right if everything is as you say. The notion that a Cleric of Pharasma cannot tolerate undead that they can realistically destroy is not obscure; it's a major tenet of their faith and a commonly known part of Pharasma's concept as a deity! The GM approved a Cleric of Pharasma, and should not be particularly surprised when you opt to have them follow Pharasma's standing orders.
You should make it clear at the table that this is outright ruinous to your character concept; it guts your character's narrative coherency, full stop. If nobody cares (and by your efforts to find a compromise solution, it seems they don't), then... my advice would be to pack it up and leave. Don't stick with a group that clearly has no respect for your contributions to the story, no respect for the setting's lore, no respect for the time you invested in your concept. This advice stands even if it's the only group in town. Tolerating a bad group for notions like "the sake of the hobby" or "this is the only way I'll be able to play" never works; I know that from personal experience. You end up just being miserable. If there is no local group, find an online one. It may not have quite the same atmosphere as a table game, but it will work provided you find the right players.
Option #3: Continue playing with those at the table who aren't prone to fits of douchebaggery on a separate night. Too tired to dig through at this point, but it sounded like you had a sizable circle of players in this game.
|
Option #3: Continue playing with those at the table who aren't prone to fits of douchebaggery on a separate night. Too tired to dig through at this point, but it sounded like you had a sizable circle of players in this game.
It's not all doom and gloom. One of my current groups survived just such a deconstruction. The original group lasted about a year. The reformed group has been going strong for almost six years.
|
At my table, the cleric woulld be playing right. However, ithis case, I would have the player ask the GM how to rectify what's going on. If the GM interprets Pharasma differently, then just go with it. If he's outting a player in one of those no-win situations usually reserved for "That GM" when someone plays a paladin, then just "accidentally" catch the horse when you channel....
Better yet, leave it up to Pharasma! Use your undead turning ability on the horse. If Pharasma lets it live, then there's no issue. If not, the ranger can take up her issue with Pharasma...
The horse came in after your character already existed, yes? Then I don't see why you should have to mess up your character in order to accommodate a fluff mount for another PC. Neither the DM nor the horse's owner are being fair from the sound of it.
I'd blow up the horse and accept the consequences, bearing in mind I always have the option of leaving the group if need be. Good luck!
The horse came in after your character already existed, yes? Then I don't see why you should have to mess up your character in order to accommodate a fluff mount for another PC. Neither the DM nor the horse's owner are being fair from the sound of it.
I'd blow up the horse and accept the consequences, bearing in mind I always have the option of leaving the group if need be. Good luck!
You could always pretend you failed your Knowledge check, if you did you wouldn't know it is undead, thus wouldn't need to atone.
Asking a player to play his character as ignorant of or deliberately avoiding one of that character's core character concept issues for the sake of "fun" is a pretty big deal. There MIGHT be some situations where doing so made sense.
Allowing a fellow party member to not have to bother with feeding a mount is not one that should reach that level of coercion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could always pretend you failed your Knowledge check, if you did you wouldn't know it is undead, thus wouldn't need to atone.
If the horse's owner took careful precautions to hide its undead nature from others and the OP had no reliable way to tell otherwise, possibly. Over time it's fairly inevitable that a perception check will beat a disguise check.
I'm of the opinion that the horse's owner thought it would be "cool" to have an undead horse for a mount and the DM said "yeah, that would be cool!" completely ignoring the fact that there was a cleric of Pharasma in the group. And when called on it basically considered it fluff and not worthy of group strife, ignoring the OP's RP considerations. That's merely my take on it, of course, and I could be totally wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zealotry is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate character concept and is, in fact, built into some class descriptions. Saying "don't be a zealot" is, in some cases, saying "don't play one of these classes."
Furthermore, while playing a zealot is a time-honored and classic RPG trope, attacking and attempting to kill a party member to maintain a mount that doesn't need to be fed is truly a remarkable and, in my case, unheard of level of antagonism from one PC to another.
Barnard Fay, Vichy-regime Nazi collaborator and orthodox anti-Semite, protected Gertrude Stein and her companion Alice Toklas. Stein herself was a Vichy regime pro-Nazi collaborator. Treat the anti-undead cleric as Barnard Fay and the undead mount as Gertrude Stein. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This all sounds kind of goofy. I'm going to have to echo the 'it's just a game' comments from earlier in the thread. It's a classic fantasy trope for good guys to either team up or in some way align themselves with some dark power to fight the greater evil. One player's pet is no more/less significant than another's PC. They're all made-up and meant to be fun. Is being a zealot that wrecks someone else game concept fun for you? Just either 1. ignore the horse completely (how often do mounts really come up?) or 2. have your PC show his displeasure but respect that his companion of years has a different belief system than him
The real world is full of crazy zealots, but most of them are content carrying signs and whatnot without being overtly violent.
Sorry, but one player's CHARACTER far outweighs another player's character's PET. Particularly when said pet represents a gross violation of the prior character's religion, especially as a cleric. Even a devout, non-clerical worshipper of Pharasma would be chomping at the bit -- pardon the pun -- to destroy such a blasphemy.
And the 'respect the beliefs of his companion of years' thing OUGHT to be a two-way street.
... and this ongoing poking at each other detracts from any serious discussion about the OP's problems.
Not to mention being boring and/or irritating for the participants in the ACTUAL discussion on the thread.
If you must snark at each other, do it elsewhere, please.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
A construct horse would also not have to eat or sleep, and would not antagonize your PC.
Every time you try to channel positive energy to heal the party, opps, it was channel positive energy to injure undead instead. Every time, as long as the abomination exists.
This. Silence is Pharasma's answer? Silence it shall be.
Every time you attempt to cast a beneficial spell that affects the offending PCs, it either doesn't work and the spell is wasted, or has the opposite effect (if DM allows it). Pharasma is silent.
Every time you channel positive energy with offending PCs in range, it has no effect. For anyone. Pharasma is silent.
Every time you channel positive energy with the undead horse in range, it doesn't heal living, it harms undead. Pharasma is PISSED.
After a few battles with your Pharasma-given powers on the fritz, and the other PCs should come around. If not, time to find a new group.
I find it entertaining.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does it bother anyone that the name of this thread could literally be: "How to Beat a Dead Horse?"
Nope.
... and this ongoing poking at each other detracts from any serious discussion about the OP's problems.
Not to mention being boring and/or irritating for the participants in the ACTUAL discussion on the thread.
If you must snark at each other, do it elsewhere, please.
That's what I was suggesting too.
... and this ongoing poking at each other detracts from any serious discussion about the OP's problems.
The OPs problem has been addressed, Alitan, and there are two camps! YAY!
One camp basically says blow the game up via in-game disintegrates and assorted PvP violence. It is my position that this does nothing to resolve the actual out-of-game issue.
The other camp says look to your friends first. Try and resolve the personal issues that are clearly evident and then worry about the RP.
A sub-question for all: what do you do when the out-of-game discussion doesn't go your way? How do you proceed from there?