Fight to the death in the Thunderdome to prove who is correct.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having been in a similar situation myself, you are pretty much screwed OP. the DM is showing favoritism toward a cool fluff idea, but at this point, the DM has laid down the law and cannot back down without losing face. Most DM are unwilling to lose face and admit screwing up for fear of losing authority. The hurt and damage is done, and "Going along with it" is just going to let lingering resentment build up. It will eventually rear up like a hydra at a later date.
I seriously doubt this can be talked out at this point. Quietly and politely find another game.
I feel the GM and ranger player are wrong denying the OP to play his character properly, clearly it detracts from his fun to play his character, which seems reasonable to me..
The OP just has to decide if he can enjoy to play his character as a more shallow but not necesarily less fun gaming experience, if this destroys the character for you retire it and create another, less commited character if you can be bothered to go through the trouble, otherwise you might want to consider doing more productive things, like finding a different gaming group.
I removed some posts and the replies to them. Play nice.
Wow and I thought I got into big fights with other people :P. You two have been going at it since page 1 if I recall correctly? lolIt is kinda funny. AD thinks I'm rude because advocate for out-of-game solutions rather than in-game responses. Table manners first, RP second.
Oh the horror!
Well, AD and a substantial majority of the other posters.
Basic Answer in the form of questions:
1. Have you sat down with both friends and aired EVERYTHING OUT WITH THEM?
2. Are they still ok with screwing you over?
3. Is this game worth your friendship?
4. If not, why? These guys seem to be disrespecting you on every level so why do you want to hang with them at all?
I'd say I'd split even if the out of game convo went my way unless they profusely apologize but then again I'm an a~$+%~% who has the YFYP fallacy as opposed to the other 5 social geek fallacies
I'm pretty sure the OP has repeatedly described his efforts to work this out OOC and the complete lack of success he's had in that endeavor.
As for questions 3 and 4 I've been wondering about that myself.
Quite simply, the OP is no more wrong than the victim of a robbery is.
Robbery, by it's nature is as case of right and wrong. How has the OP been wronged? Are you saying he's be wronged both in-game and out-of-game? One or the other?
I'll agree that the OP's character was wronged by his traveling companion. I'll agree that in a group of friends, it would be fairly well accepted that the zombie horse would be destroyed. Inner-party conflict, you're RP'ing your guy and I'm doing the same. I get that. Doesn't seem to be the case here.
If you're saying that the OP has been personally wronged, actually robbed perhaps, out-of-game, then I definitely get that. He has been wronged. His character was gang-ed up on, he was on the verge of tearing up his character sheet. That's bad news and the in-character stuff becomes irrelevant.
Has the OP reported any subsequent dealings with the DM and other player?
I'd like to remind you that table manners where first broken by the Ranger player and DM. I think that the OP is in no way obligated to follow table manners at this point.Wow and I thought I got into big fights with other people :P. You two have been going at it since page 1 if I recall correctly? lolIt is kinda funny. AD thinks I'm rude because advocate for out-of-game solutions rather than in-game responses. Table manners first, RP second.
Oh the horror!
Who started it is immaterial at this point. Just doesn't even matter. I'd hazard to say that this in-game scenario might very well be the product of other, unrelated, out-of-game issues. That is often times the case.
Who started it is immaterial at this point. Just doesn't even matter. I'd hazard to say that this in-game scenario might very well be the product of other, unrelated, out-of-game issues. That is often times the case.I'd like to remind you that table manners where first broken by the Ranger player and DM. I think that the OP is in no way obligated to follow table manners at this point.Wow and I thought I got into big fights with other people :P. You two have been going at it since page 1 if I recall correctly? lolIt is kinda funny. AD thinks I'm rude because advocate for out-of-game solutions rather than in-game responses. Table manners first, RP second.
Oh the horror!
loaba, this is precisely where you and I diverge, and when I try to explain why, this is where you start getting personal and offensive.
It is my opinion that there is a point in interpersonal relations where if someone wrongs you, you not only no longer have an obligation to "play nice" but that in fact doing so runs the risk of becoming a regular target of bullying.
I'm sure you and I disagree on this point, but I've had pretty good success with bullies in my life by refusing to let them make me a recurring target.
Adamantine Dragon said- "It is my opinion that there is a point in interpersonal relations where if someone wrongs you, you not only no longer have an obligation to "play nice" but that in fact doing so runs the risk of becoming a regular target of bullying."
From what I've read if I was in the position of the OP I'd have taken my toys and went home before this situation even got this far. This DM seems to be lording it over the player a bit much for my liking. And has a little henchman to help it along. I'm a pretty easy going dude when it comes to games, as long as it's all in fun. But it really seems that the situation is more about some petty power trip than a stupid horse. Been there, stopped playing with that. Save yourself the time and grief and find another gaming group.
|
I'm starting to think that the DM is testing the OP. Some of the comments made suggest the DM is not willing to give a direct answer as to what the cleric should do. I'm wondering if he wants to see how committed you are to your character, and maybe he has some sort of reward in mind. The other players might even be in on it.
For example, when asked how the cleric would deal with the consequences (not sure how the question was phrased) the DM pointed to the atonement spell...but that didn't say that the character shouldn't proceed to kill the horse, only that not killing it would have serious consequences.
If that is the case, they seem to have good poker faces, but you never know. This is a big "if", but maybe the DM realizes how much the player likes RP, and gave him a non-combat challenge. Solving the problem in-game might be worth it.
At this point, I'm going to say go for it in-game and kill the horse (in a way that no-one can stop you), and deal with the consequences, and here's why:
1) If the DM and players are really angry, he can just give the player another undead horse.
2) If your character dies, big deal you were probably going to have to make a new one anyway, at least the RP was fitting.
3) If the DM is secretly trying to correct his mistake, he can save face by giving the player a construct horse.
4) If the others a REALLY angry and kick you out of the group, it saves you the awkwardness of leaving.
Just preface your destruction of the horse by saying "I'm really sorry guys, but I feel my character has no other choice, and I want to play my characters appropriately." >BAM!<
I removed some posts. Flag it and move on.
|
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.
this statement could be used to say that the people RPing a character that conflicts with a current member is "bad manners".
if they cared about you, then their rp wouldnt screw you over. you killing there horse is simply you doing to them what they did to you. is that right, is that wrong? i dont know, but i wouldnt look at this situation as "if i RP my character im going to screw them over." i would look at it as, "they did something THEY KNEW in advance would make my character mad, and they did it anyway!" so when i act accordingly they should have known the concequences.
but im a RPer first and dont take the game seriously enough to get mad in real life.
I never said the OP was wronged.
I am curious what you were trying to say...
I, for one, will say that yeah - of course the OP was wronged. As much as I hate blaming already overworked GMs for dumb player mistakes, the GM was clearly a jackass in this situation.
If the cleric was in first, then it behooves the GM to understand what adding something new into the party might do to the current party dynamics. This particular jackass GM doesn't even do that, but when the cleric character tries to get information from the GM as to how to proceed in the given no-win situation, the GM gives nothing (not in game - the deity is "silent" - and not even clearly out of game "the horse is cool". Uh huh. And?).
Douchebaggery all around by the GM and the ranger's player.
I was answering the question 'Am I wrong?' with a 'no'.
I never said the OP was wronged.
But... but...
*head explodes*
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that the primary problem here is not the undead horse. It is the differing expectations of the players and GM in the group (mirrored by the differing expectations of all the posters in this thread.)
The OP seems to expect that a Pathfinder is a roleplaying game, where enjoyment is derived from acting like your character. To him, his character has motivations and beliefs that are applied consistantly in all situations. Even if it causes inter-party conflict, he wants to stay in-character. This is a perfectly valid way to play.
The GM and the ranger seem to expect that a Pathfinder game is a social game, where enjoyment is derived from interaction with friends. To them, they want to solve in-game challenges with help and cooperation from people that they enjoy spending time with in real-life. To them, if this requires a certain amount of metagaming (i.e. You treat an undead party member/pet differently from an undead non-party member/pet), then they are happy with that. This is *ALSO* a perfectly valid way to play.
The conflict arises from different expectations. The OP expects the rest of the group to understand that he isn't being a jerk, he is trying to play his character as faithfully as possible. The rest of the party expects the OP to understand that a different set of rules apply to PCs, and he is supposed to play along, even if it means compromising his character.
This misunderstanding about expectations is made worse by the fact that some players will use "roleplaying" as an excuse to be a jerk. They intentionally create a character whose personality allows them to be very disrespectful to other players, and then use "roleplaying," as an excuse for their horrible behavior. They will "roleplay" a kleptomanic rogue so they can steal from other players, or a over-zealous paladin so they can bully and threaten other players, or any other combination that allows the player to hog the spotlight and/or antigonize other players. I do not think this applies to the OP, but the rest of his party might.
EDIT: To me, this is one of the ways to have bad table manners. Do not create a character in a cooperative game whose primary purpose is to frustrate other players. This makes both you and your character jerks.
The conflicting opinions of the posters on this board represent the same difference in expectations. Some see the OPs reaction as perfectly valid (some would say necessary) roleplaying. Some see the OPs reaction as bad "table manners," because he disrupting the social aspect of the game.
So, IMHO, that is the problem. What is the solution?
That part is harder.
First, if I were the OP, I would make clear to the other players that I am not trying to ruin the game. I am not trying to frustrate anyone. I am not trying to be overly dramatic.
Then, I would express that I think everyone has different expectations, and that my expectations are X ("Roleplaying is consistant towards PCs and NPCs"), and if their expecations are Y ("PCs are treated differently because they are your real-life friends"), then we have a conflict. I would start a conversation about how this particular group plays Pathfinder.
Finally, after talking to the group, I would evaluate how well I fit in with this group. Will I have fun if I continue playing? Will everyone else have fun if I continue playing? Are people (including myself) willing compromise so that everyone gets what they want out of this particular Pathfinder campaign?
If their is no resolution (either you bend, they bend, or both sides meet half-way), then you should walk away. No dramatics. No blame. No anger. Just say "We want different things out of a Pathfinder campaign. I think it's best if I find a group that I fit with better. Have a good time, guys."
Also, if you do end up being dramatic when talking to your group, you should apologize. Just because people disagree with you, this does not mean they are no longer your friends.
However, overreacting to disagreement can end a friendship.
I do not recommend continuing to play Pathfinder in a group you do not have fun with, but just because you don't want to play Pathfinder with them doesn't mean they arn't your friends. Pathfinder *IS* just a game. Friendship *IS* more important.
Read this excellent list of social fallacies. (I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but regardless, it is worth repeating.)
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.
I played that campaign! I was on team good! IT WAS AWESOME!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having been in a similar situation myself, you are pretty much screwed OP. the DM is showing favoritism toward a cool fluff idea, but at this point, the DM has laid down the law and cannot back down without losing face. Most DM are unwilling to lose face and admit screwing up for fear of losing authority. The hurt and damage is done, and "Going along with it" is just going to let lingering resentment build up. It will eventually rear up like a hydra at a later date.
I seriously doubt this can be talked out at this point. Quietly and politely find another game.
As I scrolled by I read the bolded part as:
"It will eventually rear up like a hydra with a laser dart."
|
In my party's current campaign I play a cleric of Pharasma (Death/Repose Domains) and one party member has acquired an undead horse as a mount. My cleric has made it perfectly clear that he cannot stand undead creatures. Having come across several, he has shown to be fair in his treatment to them by attempting to relieve them of their curse (by means of deity intervention he managed to cure a case of vampirism) before destroying them.
Then this horse comes along and instantly several party members turn against my cleric and claim that he is being over-zealous in his undead slaying as the horse "isn't going to hurt anyone".
My problem is that clerics of Pharasma are suppose to destroy undead they come across, and the Repose domain says that my cleric views them as a mockery of what they hold dear. So wouldn't allowing an undead horse to not only survive, but be around and actively interacting with it risk angering Pharasma?
So am I in the wrong trying to deal with the horse?
No. You have not done anything wrong in wanting to deal with the undead horse, and you are not doing a bad job of role-playing your cleric. A cleric of Pharasma sees all undead creatures as a fundamental perversion of the natural order of the universe, which he or she must find a way to rectify in order to send souls to their final punishment or reward. And speaking as someone who likes animals, how terrible must it be for the poor horse whose soul has been twisted and body resurrected to serve as a fell mount for some cruel necromancer? Just because the horse serves some utility to the group does not mean it should be used in such a way.
Put the poor creature out of its misery.
|
First, never be afraid to play the character as is you tell the other what your cleric does and let their characters respond even with hostility and then your cleric would likely leave if still alive and everyone that died or left the party makes new characters.
Just explain to everyone that your character is acting according to character as he has always done and if that means getting a new character to join party then so be it. I myself have had characters leave, or die for what they believed in, if you are ooc calm and polite about it then eventually the other players will learn your style and be ready for it next time.
I'm starting to think that the DM is testing the OP. Some of the comments made suggest the DM is not willing to give a direct answer as to what the cleric should do. I'm wondering if he wants to see how committed you are to your character, and maybe he has some sort of reward in mind. The other players might even be in on it.
A great theory, and it had me wondering for a moment, but then I flashed on some of the OP's followup details, like the holy crusaders of Pharasma he'd been loaned who couldn't be bothered to leave the city when the horse's owner decided to take a bit of a ride in the country. At this point, I don't think the DM is encouraging RP.
I'm starting to think that the DM is testing the OP. Some of the comments made suggest the DM is not willing to give a direct answer as to what the cleric should do. I'm wondering if he wants to see how committed you are to your character, and maybe he has some sort of reward in mind. The other players might even be in on it.
If this ended up being the case, it would make for a great GM story later.
Why not blow the whole game up? The DM and some of the other players obviously don't respect the OP so why should he respect them?One camp basically says blow the game up via in-game disintegrates and assorted PvP violence.
Because that is burning your bridges.
If you leave and say something to the effect. "I don't like where this game is going. I feel like I am getting a raw deal, and it just isn't fun anymore. You guys have fun, and I'll see you around"
One of two things will happen.
1. They won't care that you are gone. In this case, screw em. They weren't really your friends to begin with.
2. Once the heat and pressure of the situation fade, they will realize that they were being unfair and miss the player. They may very well invite the player back with an apology.
If you decide to go out with a bang, you are basically making sure that result 2 doesn't happen.
Wow. Can't think in non-binary answers. I'm sorry.
But it is binary, it just has multiple variables.
Is the player wrong? No
Are the other players wrong? Unknown, we don't have their side of the story.
Just because the player isn't wrong doesn't make the other party at fault.
I meant he can't see those multiple variables and how the OP can be right but not wronged at the same time, instead of one side having to be wrong.
I know what you meant. It was just fun being able to correct you....
I meant he can't see those multiple variables and how the OP can be right but not wronged at the same time, instead of one side having to be wrong.
Ah! Now I'm following!