|
would you prefer I just withhold healing?Non sequitur. I would prefer that you didn't get mad at a fellow human being and deliberately ruin their night because they had the temerity to reach a different conclusion than you about how the Rasmussen poll on Razmirs divinity went.
I disagree. if someone had the audacity to commit blasphemy against a cleric of torag, that cleric would have every right to deny them torag's healing. no cleric expects party members to convert to their faith (but bonus if they do), but to actually blaspheme against that deity? that's just bad form. talk about ungrateful.
and I'm confused as to why this is a one way street. I have created a character that obviously took a lot of time and thought to build, creating an elaborate backstory and over the top persona fitting the son of a god, and I'm not supposed to have my fun ruined when some min/maxer I don't even know walks in and says "razmir's not real, bra"?
it seems simple to me. you want razmir's healing, you play along with the idea that razmir is responsible for the viable healer in your party. even if just for four hours.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Razmir be praised!
Im honestly surprized theres so much dislike of secretive characters. I absolutly love characters who arent defined by their class.
While I am perfectly willing to describe most of my characters I have a few that I prefer to keep secret.
The biggest examle is Farak, the MOST powerful mage in all Absalom.
I absolutly loved playing him and I felt the mystery added to the table fun. On occasion when players pressed I would further describe his abilities and explain in detail what sort of roles Farak would be likely to cover. Rarely have I provided his mechanics to people who werent his GM.
It had never occured to me that some people would classify said behavior as jerkish.
|
Sometimes the best way to play a secretive character and have the roleplaying experience you want is to openly discuss the kind of experience you are looking for--especially when gaming with strangers.
I like this part, we as consenting adults are supposed to use this approach in a variety of situations, why should we excluding gaming
?
|
Razmir be praised!
Im honestly surprized theres so much dislike of secretive characters. I absolutly love characters who arent defined by their class.
While I am perfectly willing to describe most of my characters I have a few that I prefer to keep secret.
The biggest examle is Farak, the MOST powerful mage in all Absalom.
I absolutly loved playing him and I felt the mystery added to the table fun. On occasion when players pressed I would further describe his abilities and explain in detail what sort of roles Farak would be likely to cover. Rarely have I provided his mechanics to people who werent his GM.
It had never occured to me that some people would classify said behavior as jerkish.
I suspect that some of us have been victims of people who hide what their characters are, and have had problems during the game because of it.
Back in LG, we had a game with a couple of PCs like that. Absolutely NO information on what the PC was, not even the race. Not fun for anyone else, I will assure you. Especially since you don't know what, if any, support that PC would need, nor how they will interact with your PC's abilities.
I want to play WITH people, not IN SPITE of people. If you don't let me know something about your PC, I won't know if you would be detrimental to my ranged PC, or would suffer disadvantages to adventuring with my combat maneuver PC.
So, I don't really care much if you don't want to tell me your class, but I will likely need to know if you have issues with positive energy, or tripped opponents, or if you need clear charge lanes, or what.
But if your entire character introduction is, "My PC wears a cloak that obscures everything about him.", and I have suffered through that exact intro, it does NOT help.
On the other hand, an intro like, "Kinevon wears a wizard's robe and spell component pouch, although he is careful to let his allies know that he does, indeed, wear armor under his robes that is not obvious to most viewers, and he usually wields a silvery polearm in his hands. On occasion, he actually appears to do some spellcasting, even though he is not a member of a spellcasting class."
|
|
Sometimes the best way to play a secretive character and have the roleplaying experience you want is to openly discuss the kind of experience you are looking for--especially when gaming with strangers.I like this part, we as consenting adults are supposed to use this approach in a variety of situations, why should we excluding gaming?
that doesn't mean I need to pass around my character sheet so everyone can see how I built my character. which is what several people on this thread have said.
|
|
I want to play WITH people, not IN SPITE of people. If you don't let me know something about your PC, I won't know if you would be detrimental to my ranged PC, or would suffer disadvantages to adventuring with my combat maneuver PC.
So, I don't really care much if you don't want to tell me your class, but I will likely need to know if you have issues with positive energy, or tripped opponents, or if you need clear charge lanes, or what.
But if your entire character introduction is, "My PC wears a cloak that obscures everything about him.", and I have suffered through that exact intro, it does NOT help.
and for a player like that, I wouldn't offer any help and just hope they aren't a drag on the party. most of the pro-"secretive" players on here have offered up a lot of information about their characters, just not mechanical details. if I tell you what I bring to the table, why does it matter how I bring it?
I disagree. if someone had the audacity to commit blasphemy against a cleric of torag, that cleric would have every right to deny them torag's healing. no cleric expects party members to convert to their faith (but bonus if they do), but to actually blaspheme against that deity? that's just bad form. talk about ungrateful.
If you had started with that argument I would have bought it. As it stands now though its a fallback position to punish another player over a disagreement about lore. That's worse gamer etiquette than showing up with a kender.
and I'm confused as to why this is a one way street. I have created a character that obviously took a lot of time and thought to build, creating an elaborate backstory and over the top persona fitting the son of a god, and I'm not supposed to have my fun ruined when some min/maxer I don't even know walks in and says "razmir's not real, bra"?
Because you get to make your character and they get to make theirs. If they think their character is smart enough to figure out that Razmir's a scam then the grounds for overturning that don't appear to be strong enough to do so.
|
|
. and if a cleric walks up to you and starts performing miracles in the name of razmir, that is compelling evidence of his godhood.This gets kind of funny in a D&D world.
On the one hand, the claim that my god gives me miricles is... less than miraculous. Every god gives their followers the same thing so it would be like claiming "my doctor took my organ out! BEHOLD!" While people would be inclined to believe you, what they're believing is an every day event. Ok. You have a god. Uhm, I think we got a bare spot for a shrine on third and main, you want that?
On the other hand casting spells doesn't prove anything really. A wizard goes ickity ackity ook and fire shoots out of his hands. A cleric goes ickity ackity ook and you're healed. Whats the difference really to any commoner? It gets even worse when you consider that bards can heal, and so can wizards.
am I wrong in assuming that the average, non-adventuring NPC, should be somewhat impressed by such acts? your 8th level fighter might scoff at a cure light wounds as trivial, but to a commoner, such a spell truly is a life saving miracle.
adventurers are quickly jaded by what they have seen. common people should still be in awe of even minor magic. and that's where the allure of razmir lies. with the false focus and casting and all that, the cultists can fool an average commoner into believing they are just as divine as that cleric of sarenrae up the street. they show the same pomp and get the same results.
and the same should apply to your 8th level fighter with no ranks in knowledge religion. if my cleric of razmir heals you after combat and tells you razmir shines upon you, you have little reason to be skeptical of my claims, and even less so after the healing than before.
non-magic users don't really understand how magic works. you said yourself, he says ickity ackity ook and something amazing happens. if you don't have ranks in spellcraft, you honestly have no idea how...
Sorry, but I have a problem with this line of deduction in the context of PFS. It is pretty much a matter of fact, that source and effect are not the same thing.
As pathfinders our characters routinely burden themselves with rather obscene numbers of potions and scrolls, among other things, ad large number of them are spellcasters, if only in a limited capacity.
Cure light wounds is a mandatory business expense, it is not special in any ways, and the fact, that you can make a character without any spellcasting at all and let him brew those potions should be an indication.
Most of the things divine casters can do, can be replicated by other classes/items/monsters, "behold the power of my healing" doesn't really work if the Bard can do it.
You might be able to "fool" NPCS, but considering the number of scenarios that start in Absalon, access to the PFS libraries, or making friends with a certain bard, chances are that most character can access information about Razmir.
I have serious doubts, that "really no other faith god, seems to accept his godhood, including yours" really needs more than a DC15 knowledge religion check. However I will not argue the point, since the other players quite likely don't actually want to poke holes into your concept unless you force it.
Pathfinder agents are not "normal" by any stretch or the imagination, and if your character wants to get the same reaction a follower of Norgober. Hanspur or Gyrona gets, be my guest, but it is not a positive connotation.
|
|
I disagree. if someone had the audacity to commit blasphemy against a cleric of torag, that cleric would have every right to deny them torag's healing. no cleric expects party members to convert to their faith (but bonus if they do), but to actually blaspheme against that deity? that's just bad form. talk about ungrateful.If you had started with that argument I would have bought it. As it stands now though its a fallback position to punish another player over a disagreement about lore. That's worse gamer etiquette than showing up with a kender.
I'm not doing it to be a dick, but if someone did show up at the table and give me crap about my cleric, I would have no qualms not healing them, because it's the logical thing to do. to me, that's no different than disagreeing about lore. don't look a gift healer in the mouth.
and now you're ragging on my kender? yeesh, I can't win with you people.
I disagree. if someone had the audacity to commit blasphemy against a cleric of torag, that cleric would have every right to deny them torag's healing. no cleric expects party members to convert to their faith (but bonus if they do), but to actually blaspheme against that deity? that's just bad form. talk about ungrateful.If you had started with that argument I would have bought it. As it stands now though its a fallback position to punish another player over a disagreement about lore. That's worse gamer etiquette than showing up with a kender.I'm not doing it to be a dick, but if someone did show up at the table and give me crap about my cleric, I would have no qualms not healing them, because it's the logical thing to do. to me, that's no different than disagreeing about lore. don't look a gift healer in the mouth.
and now you're ragging on my kender? yeesh, I can't win with you people.
Look at what you're saying. You are going to take a PLAYER fight and have it have character consequences. Its the definition of metagaming.
|
|
While I was back in school, is was imperative for us to show our math, rather than just writing down the right answer, and someone who is unwilling to show his work is very suspicious.Going back a bit on this one, but to prove a point: I'm one of those who almost never showed their work in math. It made it harder, for me, to actually do my work. Some people do math in their head. When the teacher calls you out on it, and have you go to the board to solve a problem, and you just look at it and write the answer on the board. I did this once, teacher was speechless...It's not that you're cheating, you just know...
The same thing can be applied in Pathfinder, to an extent. I have a Fighter/Hunter who plays as a flying charge-based Cavalier, and acts as a taxi service around obstacles and such. I also have a character that fits the classic "Cleric" that everyone is in a tizzy about, but won't have a level in Cleric until 10 or 11. She also looks like the D&D Dragonborn race with blue flames in her mouth, due to class and race mechanics that mix and allow her to. What about my Kitsune, that has only revealed itself as such twice? He's a Diplomat and Spy, with a disguise of +30 to look like any specific human he's met. I've also got an Occultist, Harry Dresden, who hands out business cards proclaiming him a Wizard. He's been feared as a necromancer a couple of times, since I have "Bob the skull" floating along beside him. You don't need every aspect of a character to have fun with that character.
I've Played with both Melferburque's and Pinstripedbarbarian's oddity characters, and have had no issues with any of them. Hell, from across the room at Paizocon, I heard Pinstripe's battlecry last year. Made me laugh at my table.
The math example comes from the realization, that people cheat if they are able to do so, especially in a written test. Wispering that the answer to No. 35 is 547,17 € is far easier than including the math.
This very much applies to PFS, when a level 1 character has a +15 bonus to anything, you really have to explain to the GM how that number comes together.
Regarding your characters, mostly I don't have a problem with it, unless the secrecy can have real consequences. I think in that concept the burden of making sure, that this is not the case falls very much on the secretive player - this is not something you can just let your busy GM handle.
Everything I want, is that people to not lie to other players, if you want to play a "Wizzard" and have fun with the concept, while not casting spells, more power to you. It becomes a problem, when other characters intentionally provoke AOOs to allow you to cast your spells.
If you want to play something like a dragonborn, or a furry ( sorry could not resists ^^) you are welcome in the Pathfinder Society, the big thing, is that you will always be able to find a bigger freak in there. It is frankly liberating.
|
|
Look at what you're saying. You are going to take a PLAYER fight and have it have character consequences. Its the definition of metagaming.
I have a character that truly believes he is a divine caster of razmir. he has an 8 INT and an 8 WIS, and through sheer force of will has found the ability to spontaneously heal, per the arcane healer bard archetype.
he travels with the pathfinder society to evangelize the good word of razmir. he can make insanely high DC bluff and diplomacy checks to do so.
if he encountered a character that was belligerent to his god, that blasphemed his faith, why would he feel any desire whatsoever to help out that infidel?
this is not metagaming. this is perfectly justifiable in game. there is no reason why I should feel compelled to help an enemy of the faith.
I'll spam cure light wounds all day long to total strangers, as an act of goodwill. if my party rolls their eyes and tolerates the blathering zealot, I'm not wise enough to figure out that they're humouring me or tolerating me just to get the healing. I am smart enough to figure out if someone is actively attacking the faith.
I don't see any inconsistency or problem in playing in such a manner. if someone is stupid enough to piss off their healer, why should they expect to get healed? would you slap someone in the face right before you ask if you could borrow five dollars?
|
|
Cure light wounds is a mandatory business expense, it is not special in any ways, and the fact, that you can make a character without any spellcasting at all and let him brew those potions should be an indication.
yet at the same time, there are numerous references where a single potion of CLW represents an entire family's life savings. it IS special in the grander scheme of things. it is literally the difference between life and death for a commoner.
that's what I've been arguing this whole time. the difference between an adventurer and a layperson is HUGE. so to make a blanket statement like "everyone knows that" is just preposterous. razmir's identity is not some universal truth. its a carefully guarded secret by a very powerful cult.
|
|
Its not meta-gaming.
If you go through the boards and the lore and come accross things that make it look like its a known/suspected scam (Like maybe the characters have played masks of the living god) having your character act on what you think is proper lore is all you can expect a player to do. Expecting a player to more closely match your vision of lore than the creative directors or else be a bad role player is just nuts.
if a character has encountered razmiri faithful before, no, it's not metagaming. if a character can roll a sufficiently high enough knowledge religion check, that's cool too. that is NOT what I am talking about.
my problem is the player who knows razmir is bunk, but there's no possible way his character could know that, yet he plays it that way anyway. that's just crap role playing. it's the very definition of metagaming.
there aren't many characters that have dealt with razmir in PFS, because there's only so many chances to do so. if I sit down at a table, and ask who has experience on their character with razmir (masks of living god, silverhex, glass river rescue, etc) or even the river kingdoms, and no one does, I'm going to be upset when they start calling me a fraud without so much as a spellcraft check. it's breaking the illusion and ruining the fun. and it's especially harmful to the players who haven't heard of razmir and haven't yet formed a opinion, because it's denying them the chance to learn about the religion in a more organic way than opening a book and reading "razmir is a phony." I'm portraying a far more accurate representation of razmir that the skeptical player is.
Why should they take the time to ruin your fun without a reason?
If the party has divine casters, bards, and characters with good knowledge religion checks, I think it is entirely reasonable to think that you are a fraud. That is not an excuse to pick a fight or make your character feel bad about his "delusions".
It is frankly not even of the same page as the summoner who thinks he is summoning his own personal god, or the occultist with the phantom (?) that claims that is is a fallen god.
Frankly I don't care what you roleplay as, unless it interacts with my character in a fun way. Depending on the sitation, that could result in hours of intellectual debate... which are likely to result on me saying " So what, even if he is a god, even drunkards manage the test of the Starstone, and that one has temples that work as bars " ^^.
However, I think that you can't assume the chance to enlighten others about your religion, you really have no grounds to state, that unless a character has had ingame contact with Razmir or his faithful.
|
Frankly I don't care what you roleplay as, unless it interacts with my character in a fun way. Depending on the sitation, that could result in hours of intellectual debate... which are likely to result on me saying " So what, even if he is a god, even drunkards manage the test of the Starstone, and that one has temples that work as bars " ^^.
You're just jealous YOU didn't think of it first. HIC
|
|
my problem is the player who knows razmir is bunk, but there's no possible way his character could know that, yet he plays it that way anyway. that's just crap role playing. it's the very definition of metagaming.What if the player knows razmir is bunk, but has gotten the impression that everyone knows razmir is bunk? How else are they supposed to play their character?
for one, not calling the cleric of razmir that just healed them a fraud? or opening a dialogue about razmir that can be refuted?
or even, out of character, asking for clarification?
when I sit down at a table and tell people I'm playing a cleric of razmir, and they tell me that isn't possible, I ask how their character knows that. if they can't give me an answer that makes sense IN GAME (such as playing masks of living god), I expect them to play along. this is partly why I don't like divulging all the shenanigans I pull on the character. I want other players walking away thinking razmir might actually be legit after all. call it a personal crusade.
and even the source material available in PFS that would cast doubt on razmir being a god isn't definitive. yes, most of his faithful are thugs and charlatans, but that doesn't prove anything other than the cult is full of thugs and charlatans. it's an evil theocracy.
the only sources that flat out prove razmir isn't a god are not available in game, they are things like the inner sea world guide. using those sources to form character opinions is metagaming.
See, this is the point where you are lying to other players, you really have differentiate players/player characters.
If this happens:
You: Today I will be playing a cleric of Razmir.
Me: While Razmir is very much a legal god, according the the Inner Sea World Guide, either you don't have spells and domains - which could make your character illegal, since you have no legal domain choices, or you are not a "Cleric" cleric. Didn't you mean Priest ? Spellcaster ? You can claim what you want in the game, but if you tell my now that you are playing an illegal character ...
-
Or course you might as well just say:
You: I am playing a servant of the allmighty good Razmir, and scourge his enemies with his holy wraith. My spells will heal the stick and burn the unbelievers.
Me: Gotcha, should I give you my wands of CLW right now or later?
|
|
would you prefer I just withhold healing?Non sequitur. I would prefer that you didn't get mad at a fellow human being and deliberately ruin their night because they had the temerity to reach a different conclusion than you about how the Rasmussen poll on Razmirs divinity went.
I disagree. if someone had the audacity to commit blasphemy against a cleric of torag, that cleric would have every right to deny them torag's healing. no cleric expects party members to convert to their faith (but bonus if they do), but to actually blaspheme against that deity? that's just bad form. talk about ungrateful.
and I'm confused as to why this is a one way street. I have created a character that obviously took a lot of time and thought to build, creating an elaborate backstory and over the top persona fitting the son of a god, and I'm not supposed to have my fun ruined when some min/maxer I don't even know walks in and says "razmir's not real, bra"?
it seems simple to me. you want razmir's healing, you play along with the idea that razmir is responsible for the viable healer in your party. even if just for four hours.
We really need pathfinder T-shirt is with the word cooperated written in a rather big font...
I have played with characters who openly claimed that they did not believe in gods - obviously that particular Zen Archer is delusional so we try not to agitate him. On the flip side, he doesn't complain, when we buff or heal him.
So let me reiterate, unless you force the issue, the matter of your religion should not be a source of conflict. This is exactly in the same ballpark as necromancers and paladins, it is better to just play nice with each other.
Sebastian's Dialogue Option #1 is great, because it speaks a lot about the sort of player who would respond in such a way.
-Matt, liar?
|
|
that doesn't mean I need to pass around my character sheet so everyone can see how I built my character. which is what several people on this thread have said.Sometimes the best way to play a secretive character and have the roleplaying experience you want is to openly discuss the kind of experience you are looking for--especially when gaming with strangers.I like this part, we as consenting adults are supposed to use this approach in a variety of situations, why should we excluding gaming?
None says that you need to let other players audit your character, that is the GMs job. However the others players are entirely entitled not to play with you, if they come to the conclusion, that you straight faced lie to them.
If you come to a table where the players (not their characters) know the real situation, claiming that you play something impossible, that might cause some doubts, especially since players tend make plenty of mistakes.
By all means, you are allowed and encouraged to peddle your snake oil in game, but don't expect the actual players to believe something the know isn't true.
Tricking new players is a fine and dandy (betrayal of trust) until they come to the boards, since they want to create a cleric of Razmir, and can't find his domains.
|
|
I disagree. if someone had the audacity to commit blasphemy against a cleric of torag, that cleric would have every right to deny them torag's healing. no cleric expects party members to convert to their faith (but bonus if they do), but to actually blaspheme against that deity? that's just bad form. talk about ungrateful.If you had started with that argument I would have bought it. As it stands now though its a fallback position to punish another player over a disagreement about lore. That's worse gamer etiquette than showing up with a kender.I'm not doing it to be a dick, but if someone did show up at the table and give me crap about my cleric, I would have no qualms not healing them, because it's the logical thing to do. to me, that's no different than disagreeing about lore. don't look a gift healer in the mouth.
and now you're ragging on my kender? yeesh, I can't win with you people.
So, someone comes to the table with a heretic, a character that is unwilling to believe and be subservient to gods, maybe a member of the pure legion.
If you are saying, that you are unwilling to use that characters wand of CLW (made by bards, obviously) on him while he is lying dying on the ground... I really doubt, that you would not heal him.
|
|
if he encountered a character that was belligerent to his god, that blasphemed his faith, why would he feel any desire whatsoever to help out that infidel?this is not metagaming. this is perfectly justifiable in game. there is no reason why I should feel compelled to help an enemy of the faith.
No, I really don't believe, that you actually believe that. You have been playing PFS long enough, that a character backstory is no reason do be a jerk.
There is a pretty big difference between offering something for free, and being unwilling to offer emergency services.
|
|
Cure light wounds is a mandatory business expense, it is not special in any ways, and the fact, that you can make a character without any spellcasting at all and let him brew those potions should be an indication.yet at the same time, there are numerous references where a single potion of CLW represents an entire family's life savings. it IS special in the grander scheme of things. it is literally the difference between life and death for a commoner.
that's what I've been arguing this whole time. the difference between an adventurer and a layperson is HUGE. so to make a blanket statement like "everyone knows that" is just preposterous. razmir's identity is not some universal truth. its a carefully guarded secret by a very powerful cult.
The availability and price of magic items is a pretty major metagaming item.
Facts are like this, the Pure Legion loves bards, since they can heal, considering the number of available PFS classes, I think that about 75 % of pathfinders will be able to use such a wand.
Frankly we are special, as are most metropolitan characters. People on Absalon literally live in a city created by a god, that has at least one bridge created from the cloak of a god, has plenty of temples, magic users etc.
Nearly every town in Golaron has some sort of divine character, and since Razmir has the total of 1 divine ally, chances are that when your villages cleric tells you about the gods... Razmir won't get a good review.
The way I read the Razmir and Razmiran entries is that the only reason, that he is getting so little attention is, that he claimed his little domain at the arse end of Golaron.
Considering what is in his neighborhood (River Kindoms) he can thank his lucky stars that most Kindmaker groups have better things to do than stomp over his nation.
|
|
Sebastian's Dialogue Option #1 is great, because it speaks a lot about the sort of player would respond in such a way.
-Matt, liar?
You can literally read hundreds of pages of GMs complaing about the rules bloat of this game, and that checking character legality.. well it is difficult.
I have argued in the past, and continue to do so, that the burden to make sure, that everybody has a legal character, does not fall just on the GM.
If the fact, that I am likely to call others on their BS, if they lie to my face - which playing "I am playing a Cleric of Razmir" can be - makes me unpopular, I can live with that.
I am IRL pretty unlikely to behave like that, chances are that I will just, you know, talk to people about their motivations and intentions.
If a player wants to have fun with a concept like this, more power to them, players having fun with the RP part of their concept, tends to make the session more enjoyable for everybody. But people need to know what they can expect from other characters.
A player claims to be a noble healer, we play a 7-11 scenario where a bit of in combat healing can sometimes be necessary ( and wands of CLW are not an option at that level) only to learn later that said character channels negative energy, and has no healing spells prepared.. that is less than ideal.
Most parties will be able to counter this problem with other tactics, buying healing items etc. but that has to happen before you enter the dungeon.
|
|
A player claims to be a noble healer, we play a 7-11 scenario where a bit of in combat healing can sometimes be necessary ( and wands of CLW are not an option at that level) only to learn later that said character channels negative energy, and has no healing spells prepared.. that is less than ideal.
Most parties will be able to counter this problem with other tactics, buying healing items etc. but that has to happen before you enter the dungeon.
why do you assume this is some nefarious plot to screw over players? you're jumping to a LOT of conclusions, and none of them are even remotely accurate.
my cleric of razmir is a level 9 arcane healer. he can channel positive as a level 7 cleric. he can cast cure spells all day long. he has a high enough UMD to cast any wand he wants and pretty much any scroll you could hand to him. he has first aid gloves.
how is my playing a "cleric" of razmir anything at all like the situation you described? I am not an ass, I just don't tell people the mechanics of my character.
|
|
A player claims to be a noble healer, we play a 7-11 scenario where a bit of in combat healing can sometimes be necessary ( and wands of CLW are not an option at that level) only to learn later that said character channels negative energy, and has no healing spells prepared.. that is less than ideal.
Most parties will be able to counter this problem with other tactics, buying healing items etc. but that has to happen before you enter the dungeon.
why do you assume this is some nefarious plot to screw over players? you're jumping to a LOT of conclusions, and none of them are even remotely accurate.
my cleric of razmir is a level 9 arcane healer. he can channel positive as a level 7 cleric. he can cast cure spells all day long. he has a high enough UMD to cast any wand he wants and pretty much any scroll you could hand to him. he has first aid gloves.
how is my playing a "cleric" of razmir anything at all like the situation you described? I am not an ass, I just don't tell people the mechanics of my character.
Just and example for the sake of argument, not talking about your specific character. I assume that your character will confirm, that he is capable of healing, and doing clericy stuff.
Since this discussion is about more than one specific character, I wanted to point out, that as long as people take the time to outline their the benefits, that their character can bring to the group, things should be fine.
If there are mechanical implications to your choices, I expect a player with a "mysterious" character, to be prepared for that.
|
|
This was apparently moved to the Pathfinder RPG section, shame really since the nature of PFS is IMO pretty relevant to this discussion.
I a home game you usually always have zhe same GM, and thus the issue is unlikely to arise more than once. In PFS it is likely to flare up every time you come to a new table.
Edit: Also this makes it easier (for me) to throw the word "cooperate" around.
I'm wondering how many people are like me, and keep details of their characters secret from the other players? several of my characters don't fit an archetypal role, and it amuses me to leave the other players at the table wondering how I pulled it off (I always make sure the GM knows what's going on).
I've found these characters are the most fun to play, and I'm always entertained when other players use similar tactics.
as long as I'm contributing, do you care that my "cleric" is actually a bard, or my "depressed klown" is an alchemist? the results are the same, and there's usually a unique backstory as to how that PC ended up in the society.
Personally, I have a belief in there being a strong line between OOC and IC. I tend to gush about character ideas so much though, that some times it's hard to tell if I'm talking about my current character or the next one I'm planning or the one I made before this. :/
Ultimately though, it depends on the character I'm playing. I will tell players what kind of role I fill in the group, but I don't want to give away everything. I guess that's just a side effect of watching waaaay too much anime for inspiration... I love having a Secret Technique that I can pull out when I really need to succeed.
Of course, I wouldn't want to hide anything from the DM. I make sure they know these things, and also what parts I tend to conceal.
Actually, I think conceal is too strong of a word here... Not offering the information unless asked directly is probably a better term. :)
Morely, I hide character history from other characters until it comes out via actual roleplay. My character is not a spigot of exposition ready to spray my life's story and emotional well being all over the first adventurer to ask me to join their party. At least buy me a few drinks, sheesh. ;)
After writing all that, I realize what I do is present the character organically in the game. If I don't have a good reason in-character to share what I do and what drives me, I won't. It just doesn't make sense to me to toss out what could be juicy roleplay opportunities before they're ripe.
|
|
I guess that's just a side effect of watching waaaay too much anime for inspiration...
No such thing exists, I have a couple of characters inspired by "Horizon in the middle of nowhere" on the back burner. Obviously the availability to mecha, synthesist summoners and thaoist magic... well it's not easy being ... ... amazing ^^
One of the players in my Kingmaker campaign is playing a Dhampir. He has Negative Energy Affinity but neglected to inform his teammate / temporary NPC followers that they shouldn't try to "heal" him. Once at the end of Book 1 he was dropped below 0 and a friendly NPC was about to give him a Cure Moderate Wounds potion - the only reason he didn't die (and hasn't so far) is because the other PC figured out his secret and stopped the NPC from accidentally killing him.
In short, you may want to tell your allies of any weaknesses you have before they come up, especially if it's a life-or-death matter. Same goes for important pieces of information such as "I may have wrecked someone's boat and they might be coming for me" or "I accidentally killed a child when I was younger and their vengeful mother has been chasing me for decades".
In short, you may want to tell your allies of any weaknesses you have before they come up, especially if it's a life-or-death matter. Same goes for important pieces of information such as "I may have wrecked someone's boat and they might be coming for me" or "I accidentally killed a child when I was younger and their vengeful mother has been chasing me for decades".
That last one sounds like it had an interesting story behind it. Personal lesson? :)
I had a dhampir character who actually had the equivalent of one of those red cross bracelets that listed allergies to medication. His listed him as allergic to positive energy. :/ It was kinda funny but it saved my butt once or twice.
After writing all that, I realize what I do is present the character organically in the game.
I have no problem with that. In fact, I prefer it to the person who feels the need to tell me their character's entire life's story.
In general, I have no problem with someone who declines to present their character by class name. I'll trust you tell to me what I need to know until you give me a reason otherwise.
I do have a problem with someone who sits down and proudly declares "I'll be playing my Cleric. of Razmir(!), and then stares at the rest of the table, hoping against hope that someone will challenge him so he can put them in their place and hold his secret over their head*.
*I am not saying melferburque does this. I've never, to my knowledge, sat with him at a table. I have sat at a table with Jiggy and had a great time. I used melferburque's character as an example because I just got home from the FLGS and I'm too tired to come up with something else.
I have sat with players like that, and it just gets tiresome.
I also have a problem with a player refusing to answer another player's point-blank question. No, the rules do not require you to do so. But I was under the impression that we're playing a social, cooperative game, and I don't think holding secrets from each other fits that model. If your fun comes from playing "I know something you don't know" then I don't think I'm going to enjoy our time together.
Now that this is out of the Society forums I'm not seeing much point in continuing the conversation. It's a very different situation in a weekly game vs. the unpredictable nature of PFS.
Ignoring the Razmiran conspiracy with JJ and co., Not telling the players themselves everything about your character is being needlessly troublesome. Teamwork is a huge part of functioning as a party in Pathfinder. You can roleplay however you want, but get over yourself OOC and help the party out when they need to know something. It's just good manners.
Or, you can have a great story where your act worked perfectly and prematurely ended the lives of 3 other characters who were willing to give you full disclosure.
I like some mystery where it's warranted, when it doesn't make sense, then it gets a bit irritating.
For example, in kingmaker I played the spymaster role, I was extremely secretive about what i did on my off time (including nabbing some spies for his network and starting his own assassins guild). Only player that got any info from those things was the king, he didn't even know I had an assassins guild. But... some things are best not known. Plausible deniability and all.
On the other side of the spectrum, our groups fighter, was extremely secretive about his being an Aasimar. As such, he wouldn't tell us almost anything of his backstory. From what I understand he at least had some of a backstory, but he wanted to be "mysterious" and it was kind of annoying when trying to connect with his character during those particular times.
So. I think it depends on the info and the character itself. Realistically, no, the party shouldn't care about your characters class. They should care about his background. His story. If you hide that, then it starts to get irritating... depending on how and why you hide it.
|
|
Ignoring the Razmiran conspiracy with JJ and co., Not telling the players themselves everything about your character is being needlessly troublesome. Teamwork is a huge part of functioning as a party in Pathfinder. You can roleplay however you want, but get over yourself OOC and help the party out when they need to know something. It's just good manners.
Or, you can have a great story where your act worked perfectly and prematurely ended the lives of 3 other characters who were willing to give you full disclosure.
the players don't need to know the mechanics of my character. it affects nothing. I keep them alive. if I couldn't keep them alive, no healer would.
my "act" won't prematurely end the lives of anyone. why is it assumed I'm out there trying to kill everyone? I've explained three times what elrond can do.
In short, you may want to tell your allies of any weaknesses you have before they come up, especially if it's a life-or-death matter. Same goes for important pieces of information such as "I may have wrecked someone's boat and they might be coming for me" or "I accidentally killed a child when I was younger and their vengeful mother has been chasing me for decades".That last one sounds like it had an interesting story behind it. Personal lesson? :)
I had a dhampir character who actually had the equivalent of one of those red cross bracelets that listed allergies to medication. His listed him as allergic to positive energy. :/ It was kinda funny but it saved my butt once or twice.
During my last (and only) campaign as a player, my character (let's call him K) was an alchemist whose experiments drew the attention of a young orphan who later became his assistant. During a lab accident caused by a lack of caution on K's part the boy was killed, and he fled the country out of fear and shame. K spent years honing his skills and helping others as a member of a mercenary group, hoping to redeem himself, but word reached him that his assistant was in fact not an orphan, and his mother sought her son's killer to (presumably) take vengeance. K fled once more and spent decades traveling to evade her. During this time he met the other PCs and learned their mission required them to stay on the move, so he decided to use them as cover.
Lesson Learned:
One of the other PCs (A for short) had a similar idea - A had worked for a trader out of Riddleport, but upon learning he made a living by selling slaves she wrecked one of his ships. He was a relatively influential man who wanted revenge and eventually sent a group out to track A down and bring her back to him (presumably to make her a slave herself). A never told this to anyone, so when we were ambushed and she was taken prisoner we ended up traveling from Nirmathas to Riddleport to free her. After that, K decided honesty was the best policy and informed A (who was his closest friend in the group) of his past in case it ever caught up with him like hers did. Sadly that campaign ended, our PCs were retired, and I'll never get to resolve his story.
If you tell other players, that your character can heal without requiring a UMD roll in the middle of combat (you really don't want those to fail) can use a large number of scrolls, is a spellcaster and can use a lot of items using UMD. That is all fine, just don't use the game term cleric.
You can say, that you are a priest, a devoted follower, the high priest of Razmir... everything. But once you use a game term, people have expectations.I WANT them to have those expectations.
I can channel positive four times a day. I can cast cure light wounds 22 (!) times a day. I can cast cure moderate four times a day. I can cast cure serious twice a day. I can cast breath of life twice. I can also not fail to use a wand or a scroll lower than caster level 5th. and of those I have ample. all the cleric goodies. remove disease, remove paralysis, remove blindness/deafness, etc.
I want people to think of me as a cleric. I want them to wonder how I'm able to do everything a cleric can do without having a real deity. I want them to get interested in razmir as a viable option, because I love the fluff of it all.
what is wrong with people having expectations that I act like a cleric, when I do in fact act like a cleric?
I have to say, I really like the "cleric" of Razmir you have set-up. I agree with you, in that you give the party enough information on what you have to offer the party and you can actually provide it. As a GM myself, as long as you are up-front and clear with him/her, you're kosher. I personally love the class archetypes and the myriad ways a player can personalize and reshape classes to suite their character concepts. I know its taboo to ask a magician how they do their tricks, but I would like to know how your Razmiran "cleric" works. I may use something similar in an upcoming adventure. If you're ok with it. Lastly, the overall purpose of an adventuring party is cooperation. As long as you are contributing in your own way, it shouldn't matter how much you tell the party. It does go a long way to build trust if you are more open with them.
"Hey, it's not a religion for wusses!" -Carla Tortelly
This may not apply in PFS, but at one time I gamed with a guy (in a home game, I don't play PFS) who would conceal stuff about his characters from the party, in at least one case because he relied on dubious rule interpretations for the character to work. He could get them by the GM some way or another but would not have been able to get them past us all.
I'm sure you're a better person than that. But the people gaming with you may not know that and it's entirely fair for them to hold your secrecy against you.
Interesting Story / Personal Lesson:** spoiler omitted **...
In short, you may want to tell your allies of any weaknesses you have before they come up, especially if it's a life-or-death matter. Same goes for important pieces of information such as "I may have wrecked someone's boat and they might be coming for me" or "I accidentally killed a child when I was younger and their vengeful mother has been chasing me for decades".That last one sounds like it had an interesting story behind it. Personal lesson? :)
I had a dhampir character who actually had the equivalent of one of those red cross bracelets that listed allergies to medication. His listed him as allergic to positive energy. :/ It was kinda funny but it saved my butt once or twice.
That's an awesome story! Yeah I'm sad when some tales never get their ending. Like all those great tv shows that get canceled cause the network doesn't know their bum from a black hole.
We don't really talk about mechanics too much unless someone (Usually the GM) asks "how is your str/dex/int/damage/attack roll/CMB/whatever so large?"
I HAVE done this sort of thing in the past, but I always try to leave room for my character's hidden qualities to either A) be discovered by the other players or B) come back to bite me in the arse.
Back in 3.5 I played a paladin that pretended to be your run-of-the-mill Fighter... mostly by not being an overbearing arse. He was a very religious half-orc, pitching in a comment here and there about the gods disapproving this or the powers-that-be being on "our side," but he was a gruffer sort of paladin, and up until he started casting spells the other players didn't know precisely what he was. Nobody ever guessed it because he was a half-orc, and it just didn't click for the other players. Everything my character did made sense the moment I revealed that.
I played a halfling paladin/rogue of Arvoreen in 3.5 as well, but took a very different route: I was playing a trickster hero with him. This wasn't a very strong build, but I was able to play trapmonkey and weave my way through social encounters just fine, not to mention smite + sneak attack challenging evil enemies decently. This guy was posing as "just another wayfarer," and never used the word "paladin" because he didn't think of himself as one. He just thought of himself as a good man looking to spread joy and make the world a better place.
I also played a necromancer healer for a time. Infernal Healing + Heal skill + surgeon's tools meant I was able to do my job in the low level department just fine. I used UMD and scrolls to keep up the act for a couple more levels before it just wasn't reliable, and by that time people figured out "This lady has a creepy fascination with bodies and how they work; she's probably a necromancer." It wasn't my most subtle act, but it was fun.
In PFS Organized Play there isn't any time for mysterious backgrounds that are slowly revealed. You are joining a random group of people to do a specific mission. There will (over time) be people you recognize because you've adventured with them before. There will be new people who you've never even heard of. There will be certain people that GM more than others, but don't expect to consistently get the same GM even if going through a three-part series.
The feel is completely different than a home campaign.
The person who wears a dark cloak over them and doesn't want anyone to know what race they are is still not a good idea. Part of Cooperate is that you don't hide things that should be obvious. Having some deep, dark secret means you've got a bit of background that will most likely never be revealed in game.
As a number of people have said, let people know what role you provide and if mechanically it is different than normal give warning. Personally, with all the archetypes out there I don't find that the class name is that useful anymore other than hit-dice. Others disagree.
In PFS Organized Play there isn't any time for mysterious backgrounds that are slowly revealed.
On the other hand, you could say that in PFS, there isn't any time to dispel other players' tendency to metagame based on assumptions made about your OOC description. Revealing that you are playing, say, a Paladin, that will inspire certain assumptions about your character, assumptions which may act as a detriment to the experience. Your character might look nothing like a stereotypical Paladin and not act particularly stereotypical-Paladin-like, but the other players most often will treat your character like that stereotypical Paladin, just due to that OOC mechanical knowledge.
So, is it not easier for everyone to just tell the party about the mechanical aspects that lead to appropriate assumptions rather than the metagaming problem?
-Matt
To think this conversation could have been avoided with air quotes...
You can tell everyone is too emotionally invested in a topic when a whole page goes by without a funny post to favorite.
For the first 8 levels of an evil campaign (3.5) I was playing in, My Elan Telepath Psion told everyone he was just a cook. They believed him. -_-
Despite things mysteriously flying around during fights, or some monster's heads literally popping like squeezed grapes, or that everyone seems to just... know me, you know? Walked right into a castle's kitchen and started cooking along the chefs like I belonged, even though I admitted never having been there before.
Once I got to level 9 I think, it had finally been figured out. Of course by that point they had been eating my meals and travelling with me for months, so after a particularly fun argument they decided to keep me.
... I mean really, if I wanted I could have forced a few will saves and stayed anyways, since we're playing evil and the DM was allowing PVP since we were all pretty much a party of dicks. Yay telepaths in 3.5 and modify memory.
How many forums has this been in now?