So i have a big problem with the campaign i'm playing.
First a few data:
We are all good outsiderds, in a faerun-like setting, battling against a powerful evil.
The gm really stressed that we must all be good and now he decided that he'll give experience based only of "interpretation".
______________
My problem is that:
1 - 1'm the rougue of the party (alchemist trap breaker), so i kinda have to be sneaky and smart, this is a problem because it seem that being sneaky and smart is not a thing a "good guy" will do (but they specifically requiest a guy who could disarm traps and so on). This arrived to the point that, after a loooooog combat while the main church of our deity was besieged (and we couldn't let it fall), the master "advised" me to not play with an "hit and hide" style since this led the other melee pc to take90% of the damage (being the only one visible) and this wasn't "good" (while it permited me to do a lot more and probably helped a lot saving the church).
2 - in my opion my pc is good, but a "batman-like-good" not a "superman-like-good", it's a calculator, cold-minded and try to minimaze the global damage by looking at the bigger picture, often he's even too cold-minded but that's part of the pc character. But again it seem that this is not good and that a good guy should be "more human" and by more human i mean that he should be the stereotyped good but dumb good guy.
So what can i do with the personality of this guy to be more "good" by this standard but not totally and utterly boring?
Also, i know that the best thing is "talk to your dm", but belive me, we talked A LOT and we simply can't seem to agree on anyting about this subject.
Thanks in advance for the help.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ugh. I'm having a reaction to this. It seems like your DM wants to play your character for you. In my mind, this is a game about coming together to tell a story. You should get to contribute in a way that feels fun to you.
Now I will admit-- I almost always tell my PCs that "the camera only follows the good guys." Now, a good guy can be good or neutral. I do this mostly because I want to avoid party discord created by evil-aligned folks. I also generally disallow chaotic neutral unless there is a VERY compelling reason for the alignment. I find folks often use it as an excuse to play an evil character with no repercussions. I want the game to maximize player fun through collaborative story telling... but, its a story of a group and its on the players to find a narrative that creates cohesion. I digress.
I think you called it at the end of your post. If I were you, I would talk with the DM. I don't think negotiating about what "good means" is the way to go. I think he has a rigid and narrow view in which he wants to place you. I would share with him that it feels as if he is taking control of your character or punishing you for playing what feels fun to you. If your character is not ruining the other players' fun, what's the problem? I know if a player came to me and suggested that some of my expectations felt controlling and they were not enjoying the campaign as designed, I'd listen.
At the end of the day, the game is just not fun if my players aren't having fun. I'd hope your DM feels the same. If not, then he is playing the wrong game... there are plenty of RPG video games out there where you get to control the whole party.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The GM demanded you play a "rogue" and now he wants to you to play it like a fighter? Sounds kinda dickish to me. Besides how is hitting a guy upfront any more "good" then from the shadows? The other melee PC will be killing people too.
If the GM simply won't budge, then let me see the error of his ways. Play it like he wants to to and let him see how that works. Let him see what happens when Batman tries to play it like Superman.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
eleclipse wrote:
My problem is that:
1 - 1'm the rougue of the party (alchemist trap breaker), so i kinda have to be sneaky and smart, this is a problem because it seem that being sneaky and smart is not a thing a "good guy" will do (but they specifically requiest a guy who could disarm traps and so on). This arrived to the point that, after a loooooog combat while the main church of our deity was besieged (and we couldn't let it fall), the master "advised" me to not play with an "hit and hide" style since this led the other melee pc to take90% of the damage (being the only one visible) and this wasn't "good" (while it permited me to do a lot more and probably helped a lot saving the church).
So what can i do with the personality of this guy to be more "good" by this standard but not totally and utterly boring?
You DO have to talk to your GM, if for the very least to find out what he means by "Good". There are quite a few good characters who sneak around and you don't have to descend to the dark pit of Batman (whose alignment is always dependent on the beholder) to find them. Robin Hood for instance, comes to mind. Tarzan is another. And even Flash Gordon, and most pulp heroes do a fair amount of sneaking when they have to. Even the big boy scout Superman has been known to be sneaky when having to deal with a situation that his brute strength alone wouldn't be up to the task.
What the...
Does your DM know what a Solar is?
Solars are geniuses, and they don't give a damn about a single church being destroyed. Obviously they don't like it, but they don't go "alright, time to go down there and show those Imps who's boss." They look at the big picture, the huge, multiversal picture.
Your rogue is like that, in a way. He might seem cold because he focuses on the bigger picture, but he's still good.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It might be how you are describing your character's actions. Doing things like asking the other PC's in character to buy you time while you execute a plan or describing your character's reaction when his allies are injured on his behalf may go a way toward the appearance of good.
You can be calculating without being dark and brooding. Dark and brooding characters don't really work in the game because you don't get a chance to narrate those character' sinner thoughts. So you have to say things like "thanks to your sacrifice I was able to damage their flank and break their formation, you sacrificed honorably my friend, the glory this day is ours."
I imagine the whole dark, brooding thing is probably the problem. Say good aligned things to narrate your characters inner monologue after the fact. Play positive PR in character rather than out of character.
While I agree that a GM shouldn't be telling a PC how to play his character, this seems like an exception. All players and GM went into this campaign with agreement on a specific notion: all PC's are Good aligned. With this in mind, I would expect this campaign to be a heavily RP-influenced one.
To be fair, maybe the GM didn't properly outline specifically what the parameters of "Good" were before starting, hence this debate. Now, a sneaky character is in no way default un-good, but (and I guess it would depend on how badly your friend was taking a beating) if you saw that your friend was in trouble, maybe you could have found a sneaky way to get him out of trouble; maybe make a distraction, or taunt the enemies from the shadows, taking their focus off your friend and onto you, who is now darting from hiding place to hiding place, frustrating the attackers, and allowing your friend to recoup. If you tried something like that, and it didn't work, and the GM STILL had that talk with you, then I would say that he's definitely in the wrong, because being Good doesn't make you a martyr by default.
At the very least, I think your character should feel pretty bad for his friend, maybe buy him a Ring of Protection as a present for all those hits he took?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Uhh, yeah, your actions sound pretty typical NG or CG to me. Not everyone has to be a freaking Paladin to be "good".
Do it in the little things.
Make sure that there are no civilian casualties, give enemies the chance to surrender (once you've beaten the crap out of them). That sort of stuff.
eleclipse wrote: Also, i know that the best thing is "talk to your dm", but belive me, we talked A LOT and we simply can't seem to agree on anyting about this subject.
Try something like this
"The way you're requiring me to adhere to your rigid definition of "good" is taking the fun out of the game for me."
This is the DM worthiness test if he hears that one of his players isn't enjoying themselves and nothing budges then it's not worth the aggravation of playing under him.
- Torger
When you talk to your dm, I would propose two more things to discuss with him (aside from the suggestion from others to define good):
1) what it means to be good vs what it means to be lawful or honorable. Being good doesn't mean that you can't be a tactician and play (do things) in a sneaky way. Hitting and hiding has nothing to do with good or evil; it's more whether it's lawful or not. Actually, I would go even further by saying that it's even a question about honor. Aside from paladin and/or cavalier, some people might see it as dishonorable, but this as nothing to do with good. Good is based on values and why you do things and blah blah blah...which is not related to you being sneaky
2) the roles of each party member. Being a rogue means you don't have as many hp as the fighter and don't hit as hard. You are NOT the TANK...So you have to find ways to avoid damage. Being sneaky is one of those. It's the fighter's job to take the damage and hit people in melee, not the rogue's job. If he thinks that you should get damage, why not the spellcasters also...same logic should apply. Well the answer is obvious, it's not their role to get damage. If you start getting damage and fall, then you won't be able to help the party, and you will miss the overall goal of the mission.
Now, that being said, you might want to consider sharing the damage sometimes to make sure that your TANK doesn't fall too quickly, but that is party dynamic and tactics. Talk about your different roles in the party....
This might be really helpful for you both. Alignment Described.
Unless you are playing an alignment dependent class, then the GM really should not be micromanaging your fluctuations (I have seen some brutal falls for paladins: Paladin gives poor farmer a dagger and leather armor to help him defend his farm from bandits, farmer murders his rival, paladin falls for providing the means, ouch!).
If he wants you to play a trapfinder rogue he should give you opportunities to do just that. You are NOT a front line fighter, let him know this. If you had stood beside your ally, you would have gone down, and then THEY would have been "bad" for not saving you, and you would be "bad" for making them defend your body while you were down (thus hurting him). It quickly turns into a no win situation where you are wrong no matter what you do.
I agree that you should work on PR. Be Han Solo, not Batman. Be Westley Not Superman. Show your GM what kind of anti hero you want to play. Let him see examples of them in action being good.
Good does not mean stupid. Han Shot First because he knew who his enemy was and he did not want to fight fair, he doesn't kill innocents, he doesn't let good people die needlessly, he comes from behind and blows the enemy away when they aren't looking. He runs when he can't win, hides when he must, and still manages to save everyone and get the girl.
Westley (Princess bride), he focused on his goal giving up his life to pursue a single task (not "good" to abandon others), he reasoned and bargained with his enemies ("bad", good should never cavort with evil), he deceived his foes ("Bad", liar, poisoner, gambler), and abandoned his allies... save the entire kingdom and rescue the girl.
If all else fails, retrain and go CON Mutagen +Fighter and stand there and tank, boring and safe for the GM. But boring.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Guardianlord wrote: Good does not mean stupid. Han Shot First because he knew who is enemy was and he did not want to fight fair, he doesn't kill innocents, he doesn't let good people die needlessly, but he doesn't fight fair either.. And at the time, arguably, Solo had buried his good nature under decades of cynicism. It would take hanging around with some "bad influences" to bring it back to the surface again. Until then, Chewbacca was his morality chain.
LazarX wrote: Guardianlord wrote: Good does not mean stupid. Han Shot First because he knew who is enemy was and he did not want to fight fair, he doesn't kill innocents, he doesn't let good people die needlessly, but he doesn't fight fair either.. And at the time, arguably, Solo had buried his good nature under decades of cynicism. It would take hanging around with some "bad influences" to bring it back to the surface again. Until then, Chewbacca was his morality chain. It is telling that Han Solo never dropped down to (E), he was a smuggler, not a (likely more profitable) pirate. He helped an old man and a cocky farm boy go against an empire he knew was evil, and he didn't abandon them/ sell them out, when things got dicey.
Cynicism could not cover over all of the (G) in his alignment.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Guardianlord wrote: ...I have seen some brutal falls for paladins: Paladin gives poor farmer a dagger and leather armor to help him defend his farm from bandits, farmer murders his rival, paladin falls for providing the means... Sometimes I think what the Paladin class really needs is a "GM Code" in which the GM 'falls' if he inflicts certain stupidities on his group, and may never again be a GM.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You GM sounds like a "bad-wrong-fun" kind of guy.
I'd dump him like a hot potato, but that's just me.
Lincoln Hills wrote: Guardianlord wrote: ...I have seen some brutal falls for paladins: Paladin gives poor farmer a dagger and leather armor to help him defend his farm from bandits, farmer murders his rival, paladin falls for providing the means... Sometimes I think what the Paladin class really needs is a "GM Code" in which the GM 'falls' if he inflicts certain stupidities on his group, and may never again be a GM. That would be a nice thing to have. There are a lot of "Does my Paladin Fall" threads to kinda justify this. After all, does an AntiPaladin fall for NOT killing everyone on the street he meets? If he is supposed to go AGAINST order... does that mean he doesn't follow his own church's order?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guardianlord wrote: LazarX wrote: Guardianlord wrote: Good does not mean stupid. Han Shot First because he knew who is enemy was and he did not want to fight fair, he doesn't kill innocents, he doesn't let good people die needlessly, but he doesn't fight fair either.. And at the time, arguably, Solo had buried his good nature under decades of cynicism. It would take hanging around with some "bad influences" to bring it back to the surface again. Until then, Chewbacca was his morality chain. It is telling that Han Solo never dropped down to (E), he was a smuggler, not a (likely more profitable) pirate. He helped an old man and a cocky farm boy go against an empire he knew was evil, and he didn't abandon them/ sell them out, when things got dicey.
Cynicism could not cover over all of the (G) in his alignment. Han was getting paid for it though, and basically almost up and left them once he did get his money. So that doesn't count.
I would say that him showing up to help Luke out after all counts more as an alignment shift.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CommandoDude wrote: Guardianlord wrote: LazarX wrote: Guardianlord wrote: Good does not mean stupid. Han Shot First because he knew who is enemy was and he did not want to fight fair, he doesn't kill innocents, he doesn't let good people die needlessly, but he doesn't fight fair either.. And at the time, arguably, Solo had buried his good nature under decades of cynicism. It would take hanging around with some "bad influences" to bring it back to the surface again. Until then, Chewbacca was his morality chain. It is telling that Han Solo never dropped down to (E), he was a smuggler, not a (likely more profitable) pirate. He helped an old man and a cocky farm boy go against an empire he knew was evil, and he didn't abandon them/ sell them out, when things got dicey.
Cynicism could not cover over all of the (G) in his alignment. Han was getting paid for it though, and basically almost up and left them once he did get his money. So that doesn't count.
I would say that him showing up to help Luke out after all counts more as an alignment shift. Almost left = didn't leave, so that counts. He was tempted, but overcame the temptation and did the right thing.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Cuttler wrote: When you talk to your dm, I would propose two more things to discuss with him (aside from the suggestion from others to define good):
1) what it means to be good vs what it means to be lawful or honorable. Being good doesn't mean that you can't be a tactician and play (do things) in a sneaky way.
2) the roles of each party member. Being a rogue means you don't have as many hp as the fighter and don't hit as hard. You are NOT the TANK...
NOTE: I apologize for the length. But this ended up being more of an article than a comment. Thanks for your patience.
Cuttler hit the nail on the head Eleclipse. I strongly suggest you follow his suggestion and discuss with your DM the two points Cuttler mentioned (abbreviated above).
Based on what you said, it seems to me that your DM is one of those players who simply don't understand "good."
"The ways of good are confounding to...less morally aware people."
As a volunteer counselor who has studied and observed human behavior (both "good" and "bad") most of my life, those who say "Good is stupid," or "Good is weak," are generally those people that just don't get it (and are generally not on my list of babysitters...hehe).
When playing your Good character, consider this (psychology based) perspective: Evil is weakness. In other words, bad people are bad people because they are weak inside. They are people who are incapable (to varying degrees) of overcoming their (often trivial) carnal desires. They are literal slaves to their whims. It's pop culture that thinks "it's cool" or "tough" because it stimulates the power fantasies that most young men (and sometimes older men) have. What young man didn't admire Darth Vader? It wasn't until we got older and wiser that we realized that he is simply a broken, broken man (cue the Breath sound effect). Lucas got it:
LUKE: Is the Dark Side stronger?
YODA: No. No. Quicker. Easier. More seductive.
On the other hand, Goodness is strength. They are people who are strong enough to resist their urges. They have no fear of the negative opinions of others, and so have no urge to submit to negative peer pressure. They are their own man or woman, and are willing to do what's right even at the risk of their own safety or comfort (much like my volunteer firefighter brother-in-law).
The morally deficient calls this "self-righteous." But that's like teasing your neighbor because he has a hot girlfriend.
So, considering this, if you have the ability to END A FIGHT quickly (in your case by doing a lot of damage by flanking), are you REALLY being helpful to your party by prolonging the fight by allowing it to drag on longer [Ask your DM that question]? I tell my students often (I teach historical rapier combat), "You goal in every fight should be to end it." Either reason the fight to an end, withdraw safely if you can without endangering others, or drop the opponent as quickly as possible. Baring brutality or cowardice...dude...you BETTER flank. End this fight NOW! Not to avoid the party taking 90% of the damage because you aren't "sharing the party damage" as your DM suggested, but before the party ends up taking 90% or more of their hit points in damage because you were too selfish and stupid in your pride to end the fight quickly and efficiently, with as little bloodshed as is reasonable.
Still, considering what you said in your post and the "high calling" the characters appear to have, Robin Hood is not a good model. He was a HERO, but his "goodness" was somewhat ambiguous, just as el Zorro was. Much better models are Batman or Aragorn from Lord of the Rings (the book, not the whiny loser from the movies).
Stealth? Sure. Fighting from the shadows when possible are fine tactics in battle. Your goal is to END THE FIGHT. End it. We are talking about mortal combat, not a lunch meeting. Sun Tzu said (paraphrased) that battles are fought not on the battlefield, but in the mind of your enemy. If you are close, make him think you are far. If you are strong, make him think you are weak. In the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) it is considered inappropriate to "kill someone from behind" in honorable or formal combat (such as tournaments or melee battles for fun). But in wars (like when a kingdom or principality is scheduled to fight another)...KILL HIM (following the rules for Death From Behind of course)! If you don't, the fighters on your side may be a little annoyed, and your opponents will use that failing to their advantage. In WWII we didn't call the Germans on D-Day to let them know we were coming.
And go ahead and give your character a grim, quiet or even brooding personality if you want. That doesn't matter. Just remember...you are much, much stronger than the "other guy." You don't give in to your rage, you have no need for revenge; and your urges, dark or otherwise, have about as much control over you as does a distant cloud. You don't have a subconscious need to rebel, dominate, belittle, or despise. You, and only you, are in control of you. You care about other people, big and small, but not about what they think of you; and you consider the needs of others before your own because you are strong enough to bear it. You can live your life adding to the world around you, not chipping away at it as bad men do; and you can live your life without being haunted by the inevitable consequences that plague the weak of character. You are a hero, not because you think you're great...but because you are, even though you sometimes don't even know it. You are what men...real men...wish they could be.
Does this mean tossing yourself in front of a sword to "share" injuries with more heavily armored people? Does the cleric who is healing your party have to draw fire for the same reasons? Does the archer? Does the Wizard?
Of course not.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CommandoDude wrote: Guardianlord wrote: LazarX wrote: Guardianlord wrote: Good does not mean stupid. Han Shot First because he knew who is enemy was and he did not want to fight fair, he doesn't kill innocents, he doesn't let good people die needlessly, but he doesn't fight fair either.. And at the time, arguably, Solo had buried his good nature under decades of cynicism. It would take hanging around with some "bad influences" to bring it back to the surface again. Until then, Chewbacca was his morality chain. It is telling that Han Solo never dropped down to (E), he was a smuggler, not a (likely more profitable) pirate. He helped an old man and a cocky farm boy go against an empire he knew was evil, and he didn't abandon them/ sell them out, when things got dicey.
Cynicism could not cover over all of the (G) in his alignment. Han was getting paid for it though, and basically almost up and left them once he did get his money. So that doesn't count.
I would say that him showing up to help Luke out after all counts more as an alignment shift. Also keep in mind that initially it took Chewbacca's urging and his current financial situation to get Solo to take on a rather dubious passenger commission. And initially getting over his debt was a nearly overriding priority. Luke has to appeal to his baser self interest to get him interested in rescuing Princess Leia, but by the time Act IV had ended, he came back to fight for the Rebels despite his better interests. (what we will never know is how much Chewbacca had to egg him into doing so first.)
CommandoDude wrote: You GM sounds like a "bad-wrong-fun" kind of guy.
I'd dump him like a hot potato, but that's just me.
Yep.
BTW, for the melee-crunchers out there, is sneaky-fighter who hides more effective than flanker when the build is a trapsmith alchemist?
I mean I don't disagree the DM is insane and out of line, I'm just curious if you should be mixing it up more simply because it works better. I've been given that impression with rogues, but I'm not an expert at DPR and GAP and TLA.
boring7 wrote: CommandoDude wrote: You GM sounds like a "bad-wrong-fun" kind of guy.
I'd dump him like a hot potato, but that's just me.
Yep.
BTW, for the melee-crunchers out there, is sneaky-fighter who hides more effective than flanker when the build is a trapsmith alchemist?
I mean I don't disagree the DM is insane and out of line, I'm just curious if you should be mixing it up more simply because it works better. I've been given that impression with rogues, but I'm not an expert at DPR and GAP and TLA. It is all very situational, in the OP's situation, flanking, hitting and retreating (likely to conserve healing resources), is worth the sacrifice of action economy. A full round flanking double attack would be mitigated by a whole round drawing extracts/potions for healing and giving up the next turn. so 2 attacks for 1 round each = 2 attacks for 1 round, no attack for 1 round.
Full round attacks are more efficient if the player character can tank the damage, have someone else healing, drops the enemy after one strike or doesn't get hit. This sounds like the classic Ninja technique of Vanish, wait, fullround sneak attack vs flatfooted, vanish, move, wait, ... etc.
For Raw damage, nothing beats a great-sword wielding, STR maxed, power attacking vital strike fighter with focus and specialization. But a fighter also has Full BAB, alchemist and rogue do not, so that would result in less hits over time which equals less damage overall.
If the GM is letting all the players know up-front what kind of a campaign he's running, that's very different from dropping it mid-campaign, "Oh, BTW, you're all expected to be Good and you just did something not Good so you get no experience and also a boulder falls and you die." That having been said, consider the creed of Sarenrae:
Quote: The paladins of the Dawnflower are fierce warriors, like their goddess. They provide hope to the weak and support to the righteous. Their tenets include:
• I will protect my allies with my life. They are my light and my strength, as I am their light and their strength. We rise together.
• I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying. If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.
• I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that which I need to survive.
• The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.
• I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword.
• I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith, and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be bought for all the stars in the sky.
• I will show the less fortunate the light of the Dawnflower. I will live my life as her mortal blade, shining with the light of truth.
• Each day is another step toward perfection. I will not turn back into the dark.
The most pertinent parts to this discussion are bolded. First, if fighting alone would be a waste of your life, don't squander it and find allies. Honor is one thing but there's no honor in standing alone against insurmountable odds just for the sake of doing it solo. Second, if the fight isn't fair, you don't fight as if it were; you use strategy and tactic to pull it back in your favor. Again, a dead paladin saves no one. There's a big difference between a life spent and a life squandered. Last, when words aren't enough, it's OK to resort to 'bigger sword diplomacy'. That is to say, violence shouldn't be your first answer to every problem, but it may very well be the final answer and that's OK. Save those who can be saved but irredeemable people must be purged so that they don't harm others. Regrettable, but necessary. Now, granted, this is a divine Paladin code so it's not something that everyone will be held to in order to be considered Good; but if it's good enough for a Paladin, I think you can get away with being a Good sneak and liar.
Ack. This is the point at which I would carry on role playing MY character and disregard the GM. A player would have to stomp on his alignment pretty bad for me to take issue, such as murder motivated by boredom or using no actions while watching innocents burn to death. Play your own character.
A different issue could be how your party feel about your hit and hide tactics, if it causes you save your own ass at the cost of not contributing to combat. IMHO you are obligated to try to contribute an amount acceptable to your peers. RP with characters is on one side of the coin, and being decent to your teammates - the actual players at the table - is on the other.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Couple of questions
1) What does the player of the fighter think? Was he calling/asking for help?
2)How much in peril was the fighter for drawing the fire? Was he near death? What other options were there to sustain him if there was a problem (eg. the cleric healing, the mage conjuring summons to soak up attacks, etc.)?
|
