My cleric of pharasma was put in a similar situation when two party members decided to rob a tomb. The dm even gave me a way to lock them inside. I didn't do it.You can't be right either way you go, and it sucks. Either you're the a+~@@$@ saying "that's what my character would do" or you just ignore the fact that you are holy warrior sworn to destroy all unread for the sake of getting along with the other people at the table.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh no, the religious extremist is a religious extremist! How dare he hold to the tenets of his faith when it causes them problems!
Honestly folks have you not seen how the religious are in the real world? And you think they would be any less zealous in a world where they absolutely know their god is real and giving them actual spells and power?
You were absolutely right to play your character the way you are/did and I applaud you for not just letting them have their way when it goes against everything your character stands for.
You're right, they're wrong. I personally couldn't play that character in that party. Options include, but are not limited to:
1) Rolling a new character (easiest, probably, but not the most satisfying).
2) Killing the horse and pointing out that they really should have seen this coming (more appropriate, all told, but not necessarily what people would enjoy).
3) Finding a new group to game with (if you want to play consistently RPed characters and this is symptomatic of their unwillingness to allow you that option).
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 would argue that the other players were the ones being rude. The cleric was there first, and by all accounts was being treated fairly by the party up until the mount arrived.
I agree with TOZ that the simplest solution may be to just move on, but perhaps you could talk to your DM and voice your concerns - but don't approach it in character; your concern is that the other players are ganging up on you, disrespecting your character, and this is making the game less enjoyable.
My general policy as a DM is to resolve intra-party complaints immediately. Things like this can fester and result in the loss of gaming groups.
By the way, this thread should be titled "Beating a Dead Horse"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Yes, by all means, go with the flow. Let them bully you into submission. By all means, don't assert yourself.
That would be rude.
Funny, loaba didn't say anything like that.
Hmm... sounded like he did to me.
Some of you guys are really cool about this i mean when i first read what the OP said what came to my mind is that the DM put this here to kill some of the synergy in the party and cause RP problems.
In other words i feel that this problem is nothing more than a test a trial your DM has put in front of you to see how you react.
I say go with the flow and kill the thing but get the DM on your side of the table then attempted to show everyone your perspective.
Sure he will be mad at first but that can easily be solved with a few gold.
May i ask OP what is the character that is attempting to ride this mount and what other classes/races are in your party with you?
BTW your the Cleric if you leave so does there cheap heals so heals or the horse? Also wouldn't a undead mount cause problems with you channel positive energy that alone is a reason to get rid of the mount.
If they do happen to pick the undead mount over you then roll up a new character.
I think that's just how you interpreted it.Funny, loaba didn't say anything like that.Hmm... sounded like he did to me.
Here is how I interpreted it TOZ:
The OP's post indicated that he was playing with a group whose characters turned on the OP's character for in character actions completely consistent with the character's concept.
There was no indication of rudeness. No indication of bad table manners. No indication of anything except the OP's desire to gain some sense of solidarity on the notion that he should play his character as the character was conceived.
Loaba's response was, at BEST, and utter non-sequitur. Out of the blue Loaba makes a statement that "table manners come first" and "role playing comes second."
So go ahead TOZ, you tell me how to interpret that unless you want to argue that it truly is a totally random comment unconnected in any way with the discussion at hand.
Because if it IS relevant, then it implies that there is some way that role playing is superceding table manners here.
And I don't see that at all.
Yeah, my response was deliberately snarky because I felt that Loaba's comment was, at best, totally irrelevant, and at worst, rude itself for implying that the OP had allowed RP to lead to bad table manners. Something I see absolutely no evidence of from the OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Worshipers and Clergy
Many of Pharasma's worshipers are those closely aligned with either burgeoning life or terminating death. These include midwives, grave diggers, and morticians. Her priests are typically clerics, diviners, and necromancers that choose not to create undead. Her followers view the undead with hatred and consider them a great abomination. They view putting the undead to rest as a holy duty. The creation of undead is outlawed, and commanding undestroyed undead is not much liked either.[2]
How can you not destroy it?
BTW your the Cleric if you leave so does there cheap heals so heals or the horse? Also wouldn't a undead mount cause problems with you channel positive energy that alone is a reason to get rid of the mount.
Not quite. When channeling you choose whether your energy will heal the living or harm the undead, not both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player can survive without an undead mount.
If you suffer the mount to live, you lose your powers. Pharasma wouldn't take kindly to that.
|
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.
As I said above, this was a GM mistake, not a player mistake.
The GM should not have put the player in a situation where he would have to be against the party in this way.
It is no different than forcing a paladin to be evil. He is a cleric of a god that kills undead. The GM either should have said no from the start about the concept or made sure the campaign could work with the concept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting how this parallels certain Real World, 21st century arguments.
"Leave it alone, it's not harming anyone."
"No, its existence is an affront to my senses, and an obscenity to all I hold sacred."
Perhaps OP, you should learn to be more "tolerant", after all, that horse was "(un)born that way". In-fact, we should campaign for the rights of all undead creatures.
/sarcasm
God, I love RPG's. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
If I wanted to deal with real world problems and real world people, I wouldn't be roll playing in the first place...bah...reality is overrated...
If the other players were role-playing their characters disrespectful veiw of the clerics vow to destroy undead, then that's merely in game conflict disconnected to the players outside the game (who we are now assuming are mature and well mannered after said in-game disrespect). For them to throw a fit outside the game after he has destroyed the horse would violate this "table manners first" approach, also voiding said maturity.
The thing is to not be steamrolled by the other players. This action is them telling you how, when, and where to play your character. That's disrespectful, and you should inform them of such as you send that fictional creature back to it's fictional grave.
*Edited because I quoted for some stupid reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or if you really really want to show your belly, just ask them straight out: "Do you want me to kill the horse or roll a new character?"
Let her realize that the consequences of you letting it survive means you lose your powers. All of it. You'd have to atone and then you'd have to get rid of it anyways.
I love how my statement is being completely butchered. No, really, I do. ;)
AD - the people at the table are what is important. That was and is my point. The Cleric has a problem with dead things. Someone else wants a dead-thing horse. Why do the pretend Cleric's predilections override someone else's pretend dead horse?
It's a game; it's not real. The game needs to be fun for all concerned. Clearly there is a people-issue at the table.
To the OP: suck it up and deal with the dead horse. Give the other PC in-game hell for it, that's what he expects anyway. If the game is otherwise fun for you, don't let this problem derail it.
Everyone else: pile it on! :)
Thanks for all your ideas. I've offered her a replacement mount, but she doesn't want a Nightmare, even if we could get one she could ride, as it doesn't scale off her ranger levels. *Not sure how undead grow as they're rotting*
How? I've never seen anything that would let an undead grow with character levels. Is this new mount his "animal" companion?
|
|
I love how my statement is being completely butchered. No, really, I do. ;)
AD - the people at the table are what is important. That was and is my point. The Cleric has a problem with dead things. Someone else wants a dead-thing horse. Why do the pretend Cleric's predilections override someone else's pretend dead horse?
It's a game; it's not real. The game needs to be fun for all concerned. Clearly there is a people-issue at the table.
To the OP: suck it up and deal with the dead horse. Give the other PC in-game hell for it, that's what he expects anyway. If the game is otherwise fun for you, don't let this problem derail it.
Everyone else: pile it on! :)
If you design a character that at it's core kills undead, and it is approved by the GM, it is wrong to expect that player to not do what the character is designed to do.
I would have an issue if a player at my table wanted to ride around on an undead horse, knowing another player in the group is a cleric of a god who finds undead to be anathema to the deity.
Not to mention how it is going to be perceived by anyone they meet along the way...
The GM blew it and the GM should fix it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
loaba:
Your comment presupposed that there was some reason that table manners and role playing cannot completely co-exist at the same table. In other words you were presenting a sort of "Stormwind Fallacy" about role playing vs table manners.
Furthermore, in the situation where players are immature enough so that role playing is confused with table manners, or else bleeds into table manners, you are outright asserting that players should not role play their characters as they are conceived if doing so creates some sort of "table manners" issue. But that is ALREADY A TABLE MANNERS ISSUE since the rest of the table is forcing the player to play differently than they wish.
Thus your "solution" appears to be "roll over and let the other player(s) have their way because to assert your own desires as being as important as THEIR DESIRES apparently is bad manners."
No loaba. I got you totally. 100%
In situations like this, I think of it as letting something that's relatively small slide because the other people are still helping the greater good, ie smiting a horse will lose you powerful allies in your greater fight against the undead. That said, don't worry about protecting it and be willing to put it in harms way if possible.
To the OP:
Your character should blow the horse away. You are under no obligation to try to "make it up" to the other character, although if you want to play your character that way, that's fine too.
To play your cleric any other way is not consistent with the character's concept.
Out of character you should talk with the table and explain that this cleric you are playing is simply not going to allow undead in the party. Period. This is non-negotiable.
If that is something the rest of the party can't handle, then either play another character or find another group.
What class is she anyways? Also is she new? She may not realize the repercussions of you allowing it to live.
If you design a character that at it's core kills undead, and it is approved by the GM, it is wrong to expect that player to not do what the character is designed to do.
Go kill Undead, no one is stopping you. Well almost no one, the player with the Undead mount might have a problem with it.
It's called inner-party strife. When dealing with zealots, you tend to fall into much strife.
I would have an issue if a player at my table wanted to ride around on an undead horse, knowing another player in the group is a cleric of a god who finds undead to be anathema to the deity.
And so would wield the mighty DM Hammer of Doom and say "no! not on my watch!"
Not to mention how it is going to be perceived by anyone they meet along the way...
Now this is what a good DM would do. Rather than say no, he'll make the Undead mount have in-game repercussions. I applaud that style of DMing.
The GM blew it and the GM should fix it.
I'm not saying he blew anything, but this choice of mounts should reflect appropriately on the rider and his companions.
I think that's just how you interpreted it.Funny, loaba didn't say anything like that.Hmm... sounded like he did to me.
I'm agreeing with TOZ and Loaba here.
Here's a challenge: figure out how to roleplay your character in such a way that it DOESN'T annoy everybody else at the table, AND you don't sell out your character's ideals. OR, just chalk it up to your character being hypocritical and not making any sense. Lord knows, there's plenty of that in the world.There's a subtle difference between "allowing ones self to be bullied" and "getting along reasonably with everybody in the room."
These subtleties are *ahem* sometimes missed by some people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I take it back. Here's what your should do.
Tell the player that you will drop the issue as long as the entire party will help you atone for the act after you fall for letting the abonination "live". Then when you do fall, because letting it be will cause it to happen, force them to follow their word. This will waste plenty of group resources and lots of in game time.
When you get to your temple and ask for an atonement, make sure you mention to your senior priests and assorted clergy just why you fell. Don't leave out the part of how your group mate brought the offending undead thing with him.
Let the GM handle it from there...
So, from a "roleplaying standpoint," I'd say you're not using enough imagination, and from a "playing nice with others" standpoint, you're being a typical pain in the ass gamer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spanky appears to be an expert on demonstrating inappropriate table manners.
This is honestly why I don't play clerics and paladins unless I'm with a group of mature gamers. He's kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place without much wiggle room to allow the undead without losing all of his powers. That's a much tougher pill to swallow than losing a mount.
Tell the player that will will drop the issue as long as the entire party will help you atone for the act after you fall for letting the abonination "live". Then when you do fall, because letting it be will cause it to happen, force them to follow their word. This will waste plenty of group resources and lots of in game time.
You can't force players to do anything, especially if you're another player. If someone insists on something long enough that no one else wants to do both in and out of character and they're already angry with you both in and out, you just might be digging your cleric a shallow grave in the wilderness.
Just channel the poor thing into oblivion. It's your job and your role. If you can't play the role you were assigned, then you're wasting your time playing that character. Don't ask permission; just do it.
loaba:
Your comment presupposed that there was some reason that table manners and role playing cannot completely co-exist at the same table. In other words you were presenting a sort of "Stormwind Fallacy" about role playing vs table manners.
Lots of players behave badly at the table, as a direct result of in-game strife. It's common, human nature. You've even demonstrated the behavior (in text) on these very boards, AD.
Furthermore, in the situation where players are immature enough so that role playing is confused with table manners, or else bleeds into table manners, you are outright asserting that players should not role play their characters as they are conceived if doing so creates some sort of "table manners" issue.
If you're doing something in-game, to be a jerk, then you're being a jerk out of game too. It doesn't matter who was a jerk first. Seems to me, that there is mass jerkery going on at the OP's table. Both sides, mind you.
Thus your "solution" appears to be "roll over and let the other player(s) have their way because to assert your own desires as being as important as THEIR DESIRES apparently is bad manners
My solution, AD, because I can speak for myself, is that in these kinds of situations, you have to step back and look at the people involved. Forget the in-game stuff, look at the other players and the DM. Talk about the problem out of game.
Table manners first; pretend game strife/crap/drama second.
|
|
It's called inner-party strife. When dealing with zealots, you tend to fall into much strife.
Created by a player or GM who decided to get an undead mount when a member of the party is the cleric of a God who kills undead.
The GM should have told that player they can't have an undead mount. Not doing so created the conflict.
The OP created a character, got it approved. That character kills undead, because they are a cleric of a God that wants all undead destroyed. This is not news to anyone in the party or to the GM.
It is not hard as a GM to have a campaign where killing undead is a problem for party dynamics.
It is like the guy who wants to play Drizzt and is told they will be playing in a setting where people don't like Drow and gets annoyed when...you guessed it...people don't like him.
If the GM didn't want him to play a Cleric of Pharasma, it needed to be addressed at creation. Once the game is rolling, if you let the player concept come in and didn't tell them that the concept was going to be a problem, you can't force the player not to play what they asked to play.
Spanky appears to be an expert on demonstrating inappropriate table manners.
I call's em like I see's em, and I ain't gettin bullied by you, directly or dagger under cloak.