| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to share part of this recent conversation.
Me, “So you really play the same character all the time?”
Him, “Well not really the same character. They’re all at least a little different. But yeah, always cleric as the primary class. They have just about the perfect blend of martial, caster, survivable, support, and power. Sometimes I’ll dip a level or 2 in another class but not usually. Sometimes it is mostly a caster, sometimes mostly weapon wielder, whatever… Usually a half-orc or half elf. Always neutral good or lawful good. I guess I’m just a holy crusader for goodness at heart.”
Me, “Well I suppose you know your builds, plans, and purchases down pat by now.”
Him, “Yeah but the first few levels you know are really hard to manage. That’s why I hate playing below 6th level. After that it isn’t a problem.”
Me, “Really? I always thought that was the biggest draw of the cleric. It is so easy to play and survive at low levels since it can buff and heal itself.”
Him, “Sure, but your gear is absolute crap!”
Me, “Well no one has great gear at low level. Or do you mean your gear is worse than everyone else’s? {he nods} Uhmm… Why?”
Him, “All the Atonements man! You just can’t make any progress or get things done if you don’t do bad things. Ya gotta figure you need at least 3 attonements each level. More if it is a hard campaign. Those are really tough for a low level guy to afford. You’re probably even gonna need loans or something. Sure once, you get to high level, they’re just pocket change. But in the beginning they’re murder on your gear.”
Me, ”Uh… Or you could just, you know, not do bad things. I mean that isn’t that kinda the point. If you are a good guy, you’re supposed to try and figure out how to do stuff without doing evil things to people.”
Him, “Can’t be done!”
Me, “Uhmm… Yeah, that’s what pretty much everyone else does. I’ve never heard of anyone having a budget for continuous Atonement spells. I know I’ve never had more than say 2 or 3 and I’ve been playing since the blue and pink books.”
Him, “You GM is just being too easy on you and letting you get away with too much.”
Me, “…”, “So where did you learn to paint figurines?”
|
Either -
A) This guy has no idea how to play good, and he likes 'good' for the mechanical benefits. After all, in most games or adventure paths "Protection from Evil" will be far more useful.
or
B) He has had some really douchey DM's (or is one himself) that make no-win situations a part of every campaign. Basically, "Kill this innocent child or else the village will burn to the ground killing everybody. Nope, there are no other choices. One or the other." Yeah, to play in that kind of game you'd better have a handy supply of atonement spells available.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Him, “All the Atonements man! You just can’t make any progress or get things done if you don’t do bad things. Ya gotta figure you need at least 3 attonements each level. More if it is a hard campaign. Those are really tough for a low level guy to afford. You’re probably even gonna need loans or something. Sure once, you get to high level, they’re just pocket change. But in the beginning they’re murder on your gear.”
Me, ”Uh… Or you could just, you know, not do bad things. I mean that isn’t that kinda the point. If you are a good guy, you’re supposed to try and figure out how to do stuff without doing evil things to people.”
Him, “Can’t be done!”
I'm pretty sure its "... has no idea how to play good ..." since I know some of his GM's. Though I've never played with him as a player myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just can't get passed the "I'm a crusader for good" at heart and "There's no way to succeed without doing evil things" were said by the same person about the same situation. As if these things were not mutually exclusive.
Good by technicality only.
I just can't get passed the "I'm a crusader for good" at heart and "There's no way to succeed without doing evil things" were said by the same person about the same situation. As if these things were not mutually exclusive.
Good by technicality only.
I thought about pulling up an online dictionary for him, but I didn't think it would do any good.
And I don't think he manages good even by technicality.
Either -
A) This guy has no idea how to play good, and he likes 'good' for the mechanical benefits. After all, in most games or adventure paths "Protection from Evil" will be far more useful.
or
B) He has had some really douchey DM's (or is one himself) that make no-win situations a part of every campaign. Basically, "Kill this innocent child or else the village will burn to the ground killing everybody. Nope, there are no other choices. One or the other." Yeah, to play in that kind of game you'd better have a handy supply of atonement spells available.
I lean towards b. I've heard similar things from players before and a jerk DM teaching them to play this way is often the problem.
I have no idea. After he started saying me and my GM's didn't know how to play, I changed the subject then ended the conversation as quickly as I could. I didn't feel like getting in an argument with a complete stranger.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there were ever such a thing as a tabletop gamer's edition of Saturday Night Live, this would be a skit on it.
Him, “All the Atonements man! You just can’t make any progress or get things done if you don’t do bad things. Ya gotta figure you need at least 3 attonements each level. More if it is a hard campaign. Those are really tough for a low level guy to afford. You’re probably even gonna need loans or something. Sure once, you get to high level, they’re just pocket change. But in the beginning they’re murder on your gear.”
Me, ”Uh… Or you could just, you know, not do bad things. I mean that isn’t that kinda the point. If you are a good guy, you’re supposed to try and figure out how to do stuff without doing evil things to people.”
Him, “Can’t be done!”
I am with Mikaze, here.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Him, “All the Atonements man! You just can’t make any progress or get things done if you don’t do bad things. Ya gotta figure you need at least 3 attonements each level. More if it is a hard campaign. Those are really tough for a low level guy to afford. You’re probably even gonna need loans or something. Sure once, you get to high level, they’re just pocket change. But in the beginning they’re murder on your gear.”
Me, ”Uh… Or you could just, you know, not do bad things. I mean that isn’t that kinda the point. If you are a good guy, you’re supposed to try and figure out how to do stuff without doing evil things to people.”
Him, “Can’t be done!”
This is why people end up needing an atonement budget.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never before met a player for whom it was always a good idea to buy a Wand of Atonement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... an atonement every four encounters? Sound about right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He said at least, so 4 is aparently the maximum number of encounters on average.
This is starting to sound like a Jeff Foxworthy joke. "If you can't go 4 encounters in Pathfinder without doing something unspeakably evil, you might be a... I don't even know, man."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could also just play a Samsaren Empyrial Sorcerer with cure spells and not care about atonement?
But... I think they lack some of the things about clerics he likes mechanically, including proficiency with weapons and armor and fortitude saves. At least, based on my reading.
You know, although unlikely, it's possible that he's just reading into it, and feels the need to atone. Did he describe some of the things that led to his need for atonement?
No he didn't describe anything and I didn't ask.
After he started saying me and my GM's didn't know how to play, I changed the subject, and then ended the conversation as quickly as I could.
So. Weird.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall during one of his game sessions. It could be something as simple as conflicting views on alignment:
Player: I do bad things for good reasons!
DM: Doesn't matter, you must atone!
No he didn't describe anything and I didn't ask.
After he started saying me and my GM's didn't know how to play, I changed the subject, and then ended the conversation as quickly as I could.
Sounds sensible. I was just curious.
Of course, I realize you already said that, now. Sorry for making you repeat yourself.
|
I imagine something like this:
DM: "The kobolds are going to slaughter the babies in the orphanage your church founded."
PC: "I kill the kobolds to save the babies!"
DM: "Your god condemns murder, you loose all spells and abilities until you can atone."
Or possibly this:
DM: "You have tracked the bandits to the village of Daggermouth. A successful knowledge(local) lets you know the town has a bad reputation as the home to a fence that liquidates hauls of several bandit gangs."
PC: "Ok, well, we wait until the middle of the night, seal the exits on every building and burn the place to the ground. It's the only way to be sure we get them all."
The 2nd seems most likely to me.
I suppose the 1st is possible sometime in the past. But I know 2 of the people he sometimes has for GM's now. They often GM at our PFS events. I can't imagine either of them doing that to him now.
If I get a private chance sometime, I might ask one of those 2 guys about it.
Please do. I also wonder what is his problem.
But I think that he is similar than one player I know. He always play paladin, who take control of party cash to buy himself better equipment than any else, give first aid to prisoners until he fumbles them out of their lives and keeps killing random bystanders from slightest blib on detect evil.
Though, somehow he never had need for atonement. Even after he called his god of law & judgement and told him that he got better deal from goddess of free & carnal sex, but would stay if he could get something extra.
...
Though, somehow he never had need for atonement. Even after he called his god of law & judgement and told him that he got better deal from goddess of free and carnal sex, but would stay if he could get something extra.
I would have been more likely to give him a "SMITE FROM ON HIGH" than the better deal.
I lean towards b. I've heard similar things from players before and a jerk DM teaching them to play this way is often the problem.Either -
A) This guy has no idea how to play good, and he likes 'good' for the mechanical benefits. After all, in most games or adventure paths "Protection from Evil" will be far more useful.
or
B) He has had some really douchey DM's (or is one himself) that make no-win situations a part of every campaign. Basically, "Kill this innocent child or else the village will burn to the ground killing everybody. Nope, there are no other choices. One or the other." Yeah, to play in that kind of game you'd better have a handy supply of atonement spells available.
I agree. Our one biggest "problem players" who routinely killed other PC's, only in it for himself, etc, came from a group where this was the "one true way" to play D&D; almost like a pecking order in a prison yard. Every campaign to them, was a contest to see who was still alive at the end. This behavour bled over into almost all other games he played in, until we finally sat him down and staged a player intervention on him.
The 2nd seems most likely to me.
I suppose the 1st is possible sometime in the past. But I know 2 of the people he sometimes has for GM's now. They often GM at our PFS events. I can't imagine either of them doing that to him now.
If I get a private chance sometime, I might ask one of those 2 guys about it.
Please do, I'd love to know what the deal is!
And hey, if you can talk to the player about this again without punching him in the face, I'd love an example of atonement-worthy things that come up so often.
I agree. Our one biggest "problem players" who routinely killed other PC's, only in it for himself, etc, came from a group where this was the "one true way" to play D&D; almost like a pecking order in a prison yard. Every campaign to them, was a contest to see who was still alive at the end. This behavour bled over into almost all other games he played in, until we finally sat him down and staged a player intervention on him.I lean towards b. I've heard similar things from players before and a jerk DM teaching them to play this way is often the problem.Either -
A) This guy has no idea how to play good, and he likes 'good' for the mechanical benefits. After all, in most games or adventure paths "Protection from Evil" will be far more useful.
or
B) He has had some really douchey DM's (or is one himself) that make no-win situations a part of every campaign. Basically, "Kill this innocent child or else the village will burn to the ground killing everybody. Nope, there are no other choices. One or the other." Yeah, to play in that kind of game you'd better have a handy supply of atonement spells available.
Is this a happily-ever-after story, or a "Remember that dude we had to boot even after staging an intervention" story?
Is this a happily-ever-after story, or a "Remember that dude we had to boot even after staging an intervention" story?I agree. Our one biggest "problem players" who routinely killed other PC's, only in it for himself, etc, came from a group where this was the "one true way" to play D&D; almost like a pecking order in a prison yard. Every campaign to them, was a contest to see who was still alive at the end. This behavour bled over into almost all other games he played in, until we finally sat him down and staged a player intervention on him.I lean towards b. I've heard similar things from players before and a jerk DM teaching them to play this way is often the problem.Either -
A) This guy has no idea how to play good, and he likes 'good' for the mechanical benefits. After all, in most games or adventure paths "Protection from Evil" will be far more useful.
or
B) He has had some really douchey DM's (or is one himself) that make no-win situations a part of every campaign. Basically, "Kill this innocent child or else the village will burn to the ground killing everybody. Nope, there are no other choices. One or the other." Yeah, to play in that kind of game you'd better have a handy supply of atonement spells available.
Happily ever after, actually. I know I told the whole story in the "Worst PC/DM thread," but the gist of it is that he didn't realize how damaging he was being to the group, and changed his PC-killing ways. He still plays evil characters(albeit mostly Lawful, with good common sense), but plays very strong support roles, and is overall just awesome to play with. It's been going good for several years now.
I read the darndest things on the internet.
I'm glad I have a group almost entirely isolated from things/people like... this.
I see this and I laugh... Hoenstly, if I had a player that ever needed more than one atonement (much less one atonement per level) I would have them make another character or leave the table...
i just cant believe this dude...
You know, now after reading this, oddly I want to play a character like that.
One that thinks they are good, but constantly needs atonement for the deeds they do!
EX. = I am trying to convert the village to Iomedae but they won't convert...so I will start giving them a choice, convert or die!!!
Not always, just a one off, for the heck of it. Seems in some ways like a ghast for a fun time...if done...ONCE for a joke type fun.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Either there are scrolls of atonement around to buy or the 9 lvl cleric casting atonement on him see nothing wrong in having the character show up every few days.
Maybe that friendly neighborhood cleric secretly follows Asmodeus, and considers those atonements a downpayment on the pally's inevitable and permanent Fall?
It'd be a great character hook for a willing player and GM:
Sir Oftenwrong: Sure!
(Secretly Evil) Cleric: You know, the church could really use your help... {casts quest instead of atonement} Here's what we need you, and your friends waiting outside, to do...
Sir Oftenwrong: {after listening to plan} That's evil!
(Secretly Evil) Cleric: No it's not. It's called looking at the big picture. These are difficult times, and we need heroes who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty. You have to stay focused on the Greater Good.
Sir Oftenwrong: ...
- or -
Sir Oftenwrong: Sure!
(Secretly Evil) Cleric: {instead of atonement, casts another layer of fiendish soulbindings} It lifts my heart to see a true paladin, one who remains focused on the big picture and Greater Good. These are difficult times, and the people need real heroes who aren't afraid to get their hands a little dirty to defeat Evil.
{hesitates} I... I've been having dreams for a while now... dreams of a great hero who would take the difficult steps necessary to rid the lands of Evil for all time. At first I just thought it was naive hopes playing out in my sleeping mind, but now... now, I believe these dreams are a true message from [our deity]. And I believe that hero... is you.
Sir Oftenwrong: {stunned}
(Secretly Evil) Cleric: {draws sword, offers it in outstretched arms, and kneels before the "paladin"} Sir Oftenwrong, I humbly offer my sword and magic in your Crusade.
Sir Oftenwrong: This... this is a lot to consider.
(Secretly Evil) Cleric: I'm certain you are the Chosen One, but it has been said that often those chosen are the last to know. Perhaps tonight our [our deity] will finally share His glorious vision with you?
Sir Oftenwrong: Perhaps...
(Secretly Evil) Cleric: Please, you, and your friends waiting outside, are welcome to stay here in our rectory tonight. If you are still uncertain in the morning, I can study and prepare commune so you can receive His wisdom directly from one of His trusted servants.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
UPDATE
Ok, I talked to one of his GM's a bit. He said it seems to be a combination of things.
1) His first GM was apparently a real jack-hole that liked to continually try to trap anyone playing a good character. So with that GM he did have to get an atonement anytime he did anything remotely iffy by the extremes of modern morals.
2) He doesn't seem to understand the concept of the alignments very well. Either you're Evil (serving the god of destruction trying to bring about the end of the world),
Neutral (a narrow slice of people that are really really nasty and mean but not serving the evil god or trying to destroy the world),
Or you're Good (everything else).
So by that definition he is playing a good character (most of us would probably say a fairly mercenary Lawful Neutral).
The GM says he's never made him take an atonement. He's even tried to tell him he doesn't need an atonement for things. But the player just automatically says I did a bad thing so I cast atonement from a scroll.
Some examples have been really rough questioning of prisoners, not taking prisoners, giving bribes, breaking into a suspects house without proof, spreading rumors about someone to make him do something stupid, and things like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the update!
Interesting: so it's reflexive, learned behavior based off of previous bad experiences carried over into better ones.
Sounds like. Still pretty weird to me though.
It is... but it's understandable. At least to me.
Reminds me of other learned-but-reflexive behaviors and attitudes, actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I suppose it is pretty similar to that after all.
|
Some examples have been really rough questioning of prisoners, not taking prisoners, giving bribes, breaking into a suspects house without proof, spreading rumors about someone to make him do something stupid, and things like that.
When has bribery been an evil act? Some days it prevents bloodshed. And spreading rumors to make someone do something stupid? Again, free will, you cant MAKE someone do something stupid.
I have to share part of this recent conversation.
Me, “So you really play the same character all the time?”
Him, “Well not really the same character. They’re all at least a little different. But yeah, always cleric as the primary class. They have just about the perfect blend of martial, caster, survivable, support, and power. Sometimes I’ll dip a level or 2 in another class but not usually. Sometimes it is mostly a caster, sometimes mostly weapon wielder, whatever… Usually a half-orc or half elf. Always neutral good or lawful good. I guess I’m just a holy crusader for goodness at heart.”
Me, “Well I suppose you know your builds, plans, and purchases down pat by now.”
Him, “Yeah but the first few levels you know are really hard to manage. That’s why I hate playing below 6th level. After that it isn’t a problem.”
Me, “Really? I always thought that was the biggest draw of the cleric. It is so easy to play and survive at low levels since it can buff and heal itself.”
Him, “Sure, but your gear is absolute crap!”
Me, “Well no one has great gear at low level. Or do you mean your gear is worse than everyone else’s? {he nods} Uhmm… Why?”
Him, “All the Atonements man! You just can’t make any progress or get things done if you don’t do bad things. Ya gotta figure you need at least 3 attonements each level. More if it is a hard campaign. Those are really tough for a low level guy to afford. You’re probably even gonna need loans or something. Sure once, you get to high level, they’re just pocket change. But in the beginning they’re murder on your gear.”
Me, ”Uh… Or you could just, you know, not do bad things. I mean that isn’t that kinda the point. If you are a good guy, you’re supposed to try and figure out how to do stuff without doing evil things to people.”
Him, “Can’t be done!”
Me, “Uhmm… Yeah, that’s what pretty much everyone else...
Dude I lol'd for like ten minutes, still laughing. Too good. Btw this is why I usually play evil clerics.
I went and read it again, 3 atonements/level; I totally am wanting to do this now. He's right though, must be murder on gear.
|
|
bribery isn't exactly lawfull eighter is it? and more often than not, it's not a Good act eighter.
on the second point, I beg to differ. greatly. I've made plenty of people do stupid things. Naivité is often a welcoming and easy to abuse quality.
LG? Sure its not. Not good? Yeah have to stop you right there. Bribing officals to do their job(paperwork wise or other works quite well for the greater good, especially NG. Bribing guards at the gate to get into or out of city gates prevent bloodshed, which is bound to happen.
People can do stupid things. But its their choice to do so. Not on you.
Ya, that's odd behavior. A shame no one has been able to bring him around to a different way of playing.
On GreyWolfLord's comment of actually playing that concept, it is... interesting. A year ago I joined a new table, the character creation rules were simple; no evil and someone has to be the plot point prince and heir. I made a rogue prince, LE, I was foolish, I disregarded the no evil rule decided I was going to show them the evil PCs can be team players too.
I generally succeeded at showing them evil =/= back stabbing player killer but the evil thing was not panning out plot wise. So after a tragedy that brought shame to his nation and King, caused by his absolute lack of compassion or mercy, he willingly took an Atonement from the King's paladin advisor to change his alignment from LE to LG and became a squire. It was a hard choice to take paladin levels or cheap out and take fighter levels. After consulting with the DM, I decided to commit to this path and go with the paladin levels.
Twice already he has had to seek Atonement. First for going Judge Dredd on a prisoner - "By the authority granted to me by the Nation of Allmore, I judge you guilty of treason, for which the punishment is death. /insert sparta kick". Turns out he wasn't guilty of treason... The second time was for entering a contract with a devil, turns out that my god does not believe the end justifies the means, Old habits die hard. Oh, and there are the unresolved arson charges... But he had just escaped from being drugged and imprisoned, and if he couldn't smite the bad guys he would smite their property.
It's been fun to play but me and the DM agree that he will eventually snap. I can't wait to see him become a NPC antipaladin.