DanQnA's page

My problem is the secrecy.

Forget everything else, wanting to hide this from the other players? That's where I would take issue. In my group we're mature players nowadays and we were discussing last time we met how we were going to bring back PVP because it CAN add to role-play and we as PLAYERS can act co-operatively while our CHARACTERS can struggle with each other to a reasonable degree.

However, if I ever thought up a concept that involved taking control away from a player I would immediately raise that with the whole group and see how they took it. Discuss it, hear everyone's opinions. They may think of circumstances or have a character concept that would not fit. Personally I would cautiously agree to play with your character, but at the first hint of megalomania it would be over. I would also design a character in co-operation with you to purposely force conflict - after all, if you don't get to use your concept there's no use in playing it.

I did play a druid once that I "hid" from the CHARACTERS, but the players knew I was a druid.

Note: By dedicated healer/healbot I mean someone who builds the entire character primary around healing.

I do think some people are missing that point a little bit. If your party needs a "healbot" it should be a GM PC, coz it would bore the hell out of a player :P

"Hi guys, I'm your new party member Jack. I'm great at healing, like seriously great. I'm so great last time anyone died within a mile of me they auto-resurrected. Then there was this one time me and a buddy were swallowed whole and I healed for three days straight before they came to rescue us! Did I mention the time we had a healing contest and I overhealed my volunteer and he turned into a beam of pure positive energy?"

"What? Weapons? Pffft, I'm a pacifist. Did I mention I heal?"

First round: fighter fights defensively against BBEG and minions, none of them hit.

Cleric: Does nothing.

Second round: rogue aids fighter giving bonus to AC, no damage

Cleric: Does nothing.

...

Cleric: THIS SUCKS, TAKE DAMAGE GUYS!

Party: Hell no, THAT's why I wear armor!

Yeah...right.

Then we'd have the wizard player registering an account on these boards and whining "We have a lawful stupid paladin in our group, he's soooooo dumb" and we'd have another opportunity for a wonderful alignment thread.

In my head I'm reading another thread as I read this one. It's a thread where a paladin is complaining about how a GM set him up to lose his power.

"My GM gave me an impossible situation and it's not exactly fair. I can't rescue the children by any means, and if I do nothing they die, if I do something they die. Then our wizard throws a spell and the GM rules I lose my powers."

By the way, I already know the counter-arguments that there was a lot they could do, although personally I would have walked away from the encounter (with children involved, I probably would have walked away from the game.)

I'm with Mabven - take a look at the proportion of posts in this thread where the author CLEARLY didn't have a GM rape their character but is talking about that particular corner case.

DE-RAAAAAAAAILED

I think locking it is stupid, but uh, the couple posts above me aren't really talking about the evil things GM's do are they?

Most evil thing our GM recently did was take Valentine's Day off from our gaming group to be with his wife. THE INHUMANITY! :<

DanQnA wrote:

I'm just sayin', if you want to wear a dress then go to a culture where they wear dresses!

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't read to much of what Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin had to say about the "tyranny of the majority" and the need to guard against it. "If a man believes in one god, or a hundred, or none at all, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The same could be said if a man wears pants or wears a dress.

I'm just sayin', if you want to ignore the Founding Fathers than go to a country they didn't found!

I'm Australian, and I respect your Founding Fathers opinions, but did Franklin really believe that his "tyranny of the majority" should be extended to say that anything a person does is OK because they shouldn't be held in check by the actions of the majority? Is there no context to that statement in which it should be interpreted?

I can't accept non-conformist teachings without significant disclaimers because the logic behind such a statement is generally layered in hypocrisy. Troublemakers are put in prison for "drunk or disorderly" behaviour, should they be walking the streets free because otherwise we'd be imposing "the tyranny of the majority"? If I were to extend what I think you've suggested as the teaching of Franklin I'd have to ask the question, "Is anything wrong ever or is it just non-conformist?"

I understand you feel strongly about your argument but I believe you mistook my argument and think I am proposing fines or corporal punishment. Nowhere did I suggest communities should offer fines or corporal punishment for beliefs, but I apologise if my post could lead people to think I had as it was not my intent.

@Adam: I'm sorry you felt I was being philosophical, I tried to use real-world examples to illustrate the realism of my post.

Anyway, one day you'll all be as liberated as Australia where all us blokes wear thongs. :)