| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
For what it's worth the OP had another thread in the Advice section asking how he should deal with this from a roleplaying perspective. After ten minutes or so of not getting any answers he created this thread which has blown up around post 100 (just in time for Boggard's First Law of Internet Forums to come into play). The next 1900 posts will be angry bickering between posters completely unrelated to the original post and sometime around post 2000 we will all ashamedly let this thread die. Several months from now a new poster will write something in response to the OP and I'll reply by citing this post that I just finished writing
That was how it worked in the olden days before they invented the "hide thread" square thingy.
|
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.
Was he cool with Pharasma just letting it slide? At that point you have a serious disconnect.
Was he cool with Pharasma just letting it slide? At that point you have a serious disconnect.
That ismy question too. If he wants the horse in the party, he should just have Pharasma tell the cleric to let the horse be.
Just pretend like it is not undead and get on with the game.
I have yet to be able to kill the horse as the GM is getting really peeved at the entire situation and seems to be leaning further toward punishing my character.
The group itself is split three ways. Some just want this fight to end, some find it bull that my character is getting punished and chased down by cannon golems to save an undead horse(did not know a ranger could take an undead horse as an animal companion) and the rest feel like my cleric is being over zealous with trying to kill this horse.
I guess there are groups that enjoy this intra-party conflict stuff. I don't. If I were in your shoes, by now I would have just had my cleric retire and roll up a new character that doesn't end up embroiled in this mess. Which I suspect is the GM's actual goal here.
I would also be seriously considering if I wanted to continue playing with the group if I had any other options available.
I am one of those who plays my characters. So if my characters end up being the source of conflict, I create new characters that don't and play them. I like creating characters anyway.
I suggest you build a gravewalker witch.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP is not wrong. I can't believe how many of the posters are actually blaming him.
The GM has made a serious bad call and is unwilling to fix it. I would retire your character and make a new one or quit the group.
Tell them that your action is to fix the rift in the party, but that you cannot keep playing your CHARACTER to proper form with an undead COMPANION in the party.
To bad you don't live near me, or you'd be welcome at our table anytime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like the game has become a dead end for you as a player, if the gm is blatantly punishing you for trying to work through this challenge. You're screwed either way, maybe its time you just walked away and looked for a different group. It doesn't sound like they'll treat you any better, even if you give in and try to move on. undead animal companions. the gm's obviously catering to this player already.
Not to beat a dead horse, but is the GM enforcing your character's tenets by taking away your cleric powers if you don't do this?
*sorry, I couldn't resist*
Your cleric's insistence on killing the horse makes sense, if it's backed by the world that you and the other players presume you share. If the GM is not enforcing it, then Pharasma not really caring is a part of the GM's game world. So it's a question of making that world consistent. (Or, in this case, about whether the players care about this world at all.)
And... are folks open to a compromise? Can the character get a LIVING mount instead or one that has comparable immunities?
If this is a matter of your respect for the game world being trumped by "he deserves to have his undead horse with kewl powers," then I'm sorry but that's pretty lame and it doesn't sound like they're not the kind of people I'd want to play with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They player really just wants to keep the horse because it doesn't eat and ever gets tired. While my alternatives do, the player refuses to look past that...
This just keeps going more and more from the ridiculous to the absurd...
Good luck Tatsua. The more you describe the situation, the more convinced I am that the horse is not really the issue here.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They player really just wants to keep the horse because it doesn't eat and ever gets tired.
Step 1) Secretly dispose of the undead horse and replace it with a living horse with an illusion cast on it to make it look undead. Fit it with a set of horseshoes of sustenance.
Step 2) Let the illusion wear off while reverently praying to Pharasma.Step 3) Declare it a miracle and get on with the rest of your day.
Table manners come first, RP issues come second. Worry more about your relations with real people, and less about pretend problems in a pretend world.
I agree with this. But it'a not specific nor fair enough.
Yes, worry about your relationships first. Start by explaining to everybody that you had hoped to play this character in the way it was meant to be, but that you don't want to make this impossible for them, either. Remember, you also have a right to have a fun game, and your character was there first. And, after all, this guy could have any horse. YOU'RE the one with a whole character who might have to be ditched.
Now, being friends is more important, and that goes both ways. So if they remain dicks about it, don't get mad or make a fuss, but do make a mental note that maybe these aren't the droids you're looking for.
Adjust as much as you can tolerate, have fun if you can, and remain open to kicking these guys to the curb reserved for bruising their heads as soon as a better group comes into view.
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.
A flesh golem horse mount? I like it! Freaky!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The crusaders don't feel like going after it anymore so I go after it alone.
Really?
"Well, we COULD go bring down some wrath on some undead abomination in the name of our God... but it's /ALL THE WAY/ over there? Meh."
They must have taken the Leisurely Oath Against Undead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, full-on interparty combat. Exciting.I had a great idea for a two-party campaign (one good and one evil) both pursuing the same list of artifacts over a long campaign and then at the end having the two parties face off.
It would alternate weeks, with the same people playing both groups, including in the final winner take all battle.
Couldn't get my group to buy in, but I think it could be great.
Years ago, one of the best DMs I've ever had the pleasure of playing with had always mentioned wanting to take part in a session where two DMs were directing two different groups. The first group would be a party of your usual heroic types, while the second group would be a party of evil-aligned humanoids. The basic premise would be the evil group is trying to invade a keep/castle/fortress that is being held by the Good guys.
I'm sad to say it never happened. Sounds like there would be a lot of downtime due to DM cross-communicating, but I always thought it was one of the cooler concepts for a one-off adventure I'd ever heard.
Kill it with fire.
Or Channel Positive Energy, whatever.
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.
Seriously, though, destroy the horse. It might also mean retiring the character, so be prepared for that.
The character is a Pharasmin cleric, and this undead horse was put in front of him. Pharasma is testing him. Urgathoa is taunting him. The undead must be destroyed.
If the party kills the Pharasmin cleric because he destroyed an undead horse, I'm thinking they might not be the good guys.
If the party is composed of a Pharasmin cleric and a necromancer (or necromancer sympathizer), one of them is going to end up killing the other or the group is going to fall apart.
Of course if the horse can be restored to life, that's also an option. Does your cleric feel like dropping the gold for a Resurrection for a horse?
As a mount, an undead horse is awesome. It never needs to be fed (unless it's a ghoul horse?) and it never suffers fatigue.
I still say kill it with fire. Putting it in front of your character and not expecting him to attack it is unreasonable.
The group itself is split three ways. Some just want this fight to end, some find it bull that my character is getting punished and chased down by cannon golems to save an undead horse(did not know a ranger could take an undead horse as an animal companion) and the rest feel like my cleric is being over zealous with trying to kill this horse.
If your Cleric was zealous he'd kill the ranger along with his companion and anyone who protected the monster.
If he was over-zealous he'd kill anyone not helping him kill it.
Do not suffer the undead to live.
There is no substitute for zeal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
idk, given that your character's teammates have just turned on him for a silly horse, the cleric may just realize that his allies value the undead more than him and just leave. He did his job to destroy the lich's isle and now he can go back home.
What'd be funny, but probably exacerbate the situation, is to switch out your cleric for a graverobbing, somewhat demented necromancer. Builds up an army of undead and decides, hey, I really like that mount. I want it.
Don't do that though. I just thought it'd be funny thinking about it.
(did not know a ranger could take an undead horse as an animal companion)
Under normal rules, they can't. It sounds like the GM likes to hand out freebies to some players. Cannon golems are normally beyond the reach of PCs as well (doable, but immensely expensive) but that story hasn't been told so I can't say anything about that.
I think this isn't an 'in game' conflict anymore, it's a reflection of the personal group dynamics as players. I'd be curious if the group has had issues like this and the rest have 'ganged up' against them.
idk, given that your character's teammates have just turned on him for a silly horse, the cleric may just realize that his allies value the undead more than him and just leave. He did his job to destroy the lich's isle and now he can go back home.
What'd be funny, but probably exacerbate the situation, is to switch out your cleric for a graverobbing, somewhat demented necromancer. Builds up an army of undead and decides, hey, I really like that mount. I want it.
Don't do that though. I just thought it'd be funny thinking about it.
Heh, thus my suggestion on the other thread on this subject to roll up a gravewalker witch. I was giving the OP the opportunity, if he wished, to return the favor with a character that could steal the mount and make it his own.
That might be exactly what I'd do. Then I'd ride the mount into the sunset and go find another group to play with.
There certainly isn't just one right way to play, but if a certain way of playing causes real world arguments, insults, strife, the break up of groups, or even the loss of friendships just to stay true to a fictional character and their make believe code, then it might be time to reevaluate your playibg style.Your way of playing the game is fine for you Spanky, but is not the "right" nor the "only" way to play the game. Some people like to work within a more rigorous interpretation of character conceptual guidelines. If there are different playstyles in the same group, that might cause some issues.
But for someone to decide that their characters actually live according to their vows, that's a completely valid way to play the game and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as "stuff that doesn't matter." It does matter to some people. Some people like a very gritty game, some people like a casual game. Both are fine. I've played both ways and enjoy them both. I don't say one is "better" or one is focused on things that "don't matter."
This - 1000x this!
Who's right and who's wrong and who started it is totally irrelevant. There is a play-style breakdown at the table. You have to back away from the pretend world and talk with your fellows in the real world. Talk to the GM and ask him what the party can expect from associating with the rider of an Undead mount. His answer(s) will tell you how you need to proceed.
No you're playing your character how you should play your character. Convince the party that the horse must be destroyed through roleplaying.
There certainly isn't just one right way to play, but if a certain way of playing causes real world arguments, insults, strife, the break up of groups, or even the loss of friendships just to stay true to a fictional character and their make believe code, then it might be time to reevaluate your playibg style.This - 1000x this!
Who's right and who's wrong and who started it is totally irrelevant. There is a play-style breakdown at the table. You have to back away from the pretend world and talk with your fellows in the real world. Talk to the GM and ask him what the party can expect from associating with the rider of an Undead mount. His answer(s) will tell you how you need to proceed.
If a certain playstyle conflict in a group causes "real world argument, insults, strife, the break up of groups or even the loss of friendships" then the real problem has nothing to do with playstyle conflicts.
And trying to "play nice" with "good table manners" isn't going to do anything but extend the discomfort before the final blowup anyway.
There is a prevailing attitude among many people in this world that "being nice" solves problems.
In my experience that has rarely been proven to be true. Solving problems usually requires addressing problems honestly, promptly and with a willingness of each side to respect the other side's views.
That is manifestly not the case in this situation, and all the well-intentioned "good table manners" will do nothing to resolve that fundamental problem. As I said after your first post on this subject loaba, the table manners have already been well and truly broken by the others at the table. That ship has sailed. Telling the OP to "play nice" at this point is the rhetorical equivalent of telling the guy to "fight fair" after his opponent has picked up a broken bottle.
|
Well, full-on interparty combat. Exciting.I had a great idea for a two-party campaign (one good and one evil) both pursuing the same list of artifacts over a long campaign and then at the end having the two parties face off.
It would alternate weeks, with the same people playing both groups, including in the final winner take all battle.
Couldn't get my group to buy in, but I think it could be great.
Years ago, one of the best DMs I've ever had the pleasure of playing with had always mentioned wanting to take part in a session where two DMs were directing two different groups. The first group would be a party of your usual heroic types, while the second group would be a party of evil-aligned humanoids. The basic premise would be the evil group is trying to invade a keep/castle/fortress that is being held by the Good guys.
I'm sad to say it never happened. Sounds like there would be a lot of downtime due to DM cross-communicating, but I always thought it was one of the cooler concepts for a one-off adventure I'd ever heard.
The nice thing about the way I was going to run it was that both parties were more or less on the same quest, one for good reasons and one for evil.
There were 7 artifacts (the good group already had one) and each group would alternate a quest to retrieve the rest, until each had three artifacts and they both went to whatever place and fought for the final piece that would either be used to destroy or awaken the Macguffin.
If a certain playstyle conflict in a group causes "real world argument, insults, strife, the break up of groups or even the loss of friendships" then the real problem has nothing to do with playstyle conflicts.
And trying to "play nice" with "good table manners" isn't going to do anything but extend the discomfort before the final blowup anyway.
So what you're saying, AD, is that it's better to burn out then to fade away? Is that right? Rock on, (the) Kurgan.
You've clearly indicated in other threads that you have a "my way or the highway" kind of attitude. News flash; not everyone lays down the law like that. Most of us just want to have a good time playing the game and are generally willing to compromise to do so.