|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally only invite people I like to the game. Since I invited them, I always extend a willingness to make allowances for them
I too tend to only game with friends, and I am willing to bend a little here and there for them, but the difference between your experiences and mine seem to be, when I come up with a campaign concept, my players, my friends, are always more than willing to work within the concept's parameters from the get-go - so rarely do I ever have to "make allowances for them".
My post form the last page edited for narrative/context that might clear the issue up for you
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think RDM and Grey have valid points... I am firmly on the side of 'in the rare chance that I get to be a player instead of running the game, I want the game to be as much about me doing my thing my way as it possibly can, since when i'm running a game I run it so that its as much about the players doing the player's thing their way...
And to Grey's point I have one player at my table who has unapologetically announced 'My player did something I didnt like when I was running his game... I cant wait until i'm a player in a game he's running so I can dish out his personal version of hell in return.'
The only response I can have to that is 'i'm a very tolerant guy. I'll tolerate it until I can't, and when I can't the game is over... No harm no foul.'
I'm as adamant about not running the kind of campaign full of players who want to play something I'm not interested in running as I am about not playing in a campaign I'm not interested in playing. 'No game' is better than 'a game I wont enjoy', and I have enough experience to know what I don't enjoy.
If someone wants to run a game, and I say sounds good. I want to be a player... What kinda campaign are you considering? And the response is an enthusiastic 'Eberron!!!' or 'Spelljammer' I'm going to have zero time responding 'I'll sit this one out'. Its just not my kind of game. If the kind of game you want to run is Eberron or Spelljammer, the only way I'm going to say yes to it is if your name is Ed Greenwood, Zeb Cook or maybe Mr. Bulmahn.
The playstyle that confuses me is the people who say yes to that kind of thing... If you find out you're not enjoying a game but you what... keep on playing anyway? Thats kinda sad.
A gm that sets a restrictive setting or narrative usually has the salespitch of 'just try it. I think it will surprise you how much you'll enjoy it' and I can firmly say that when i've given in to that argument it has turned out not to live up to the hype. I dont count those experiences among the dozen times I count as having gotten to play a character, but those experiences far outnumber the times I have had a chance to play 'my guy my way for me'
I have a strong desire to make a ranger whenever I play, but I am not solely a ranger player. The slayer might take over the slot if Paizo gives me some decent slayer talents beyond the ones in the ACG.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to play the same race much of the time. When I think of a new character, she's almost always of one specific non-human race. I also like playing a certain class. I have a mental image of how I want that character to turn out, and I have yet to achieve fulfillment of that image in a game.
I just want someday to play exactly my character, my way, for me. I've got pretty close several times, but never quite hit 100%. As long as my friends are willing to put up with me trying again and again to achieve that 'sweet spot', I'm going to keep playing my favorite race/class combination.
It's not to the exclusion of all else - I do play other races and classes now and again. And I wouldn't turn down a campaign where my favorites were restricted or eliminated, if I really wanted to play with that GM and there was a viable in-game reason for those restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even my characters with a good alignment avoid getting into a party with a paladin.
Too Much Dramaaaaa
In 3.0 onward, I have played human because of the extra feat. But in our most recent Pathfinder game I decided to play a half-elf because of some of the options.
I have a friend who is a big anime/manga fan and he plays a cat girl every chance he gets in what ever game system allows it.
|
|
Too Much Dramaaaaa
I can agree with that! :-)
I don't out-right ban paladins from my games, but unless the player and I can get on the same page and agree about what defines their code, I won't allow them... It would be too disruptive to the game, and unfair to the paladin's player.
I usually don't play them myself. In fact, now that I think about it, I can only recall ever having played one, and that was an NPC I took over from another DM's campaign (and this was back in the early 1980's, so we were playing 1st edition AD&D at the time)...
...Back on topic.
About 2/3 of my characters tend to punch things. I like unarmed fighting. I don't particularly care what class it is (Monk, Fighter, Brawler, some mix of the above. Want to try a Sacred Fist some time.).
Also I tend to play a lot of Aasimar. Partly because they're mechanically solid for a great many classes, and partly because they're just really cool fluff-wise, or you can make them that way anyway.
In my experience with Paladins more of the drama is caused by the other characters than by the paladin.
IME the drama with Paladins is never caused by the other characters, the other players, or the Paladin player.
It's always the GM.
The majority of my characters are Paladins. I've played fighters, barbarians, alchemists, a couple of wizards, and I'm having fun playing a brawler now, but most were paladins. I make it a point to never play the same paladin twice though. One of them was an earthbreaker-wielding Half-Orc Knight in Sour Armor, while another was an upbeat, sarcastic Half-Elf archer who used feats to get a wolf companion. On three occasions, I've had my paladins fall on purpose because I thought their story would be better for it. This way neither I nor my friends get bored. I have fun playing other classes and character concepts, but Paladin is just my favorite.
I'm never allowed to play evil characters, because no matter what they are, they're always so damn charismatic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
In my experience with Paladins more of the drama is caused by the other characters than by the paladin.IME the drama with Paladins is never caused by the other characters, the other players, or the Paladin player.
It's always the GM.
Have to disagree with you here.
My current game group has had a paladin in each of the last 2 campaigns. Different player of the paladin and a different GM.
Both campaigns, the play often came to a screeching halt while the rest of the party argued about a paladin can't / must / always / never / should / wouldn't do whatever. The player of the paladin and the GM had already agreed whether the action was acceptable, iffy, or problematic. It was the rest of the table that wouldn't shut up about it. For a while we were getting less than 50% of time spent on gaming the rest was listening to them argue. Once I even ended the game early because of it and sent everyone home. They stood in the dark out in my front yard and argued for close to an hour.
The arguments would continue through about the first 3-5 levels of play until they finally got tired of it. Then it started back up again in the next campaign. For a while when I was GM I started changing the campaign pulling out anything that might be morally ambiguous because I was tired of listening to them.
Sometimes when a wall is put up people just feel the need to knock it over. ... A long list of 'you can't' makes the players feel that stuff is being taken away from them, and that can make them want the stuff even more.
I started to type in a long example demonstrating this. But it was getting me irritated all over again.
I will just leave it as saying that you are correct. Some people very much only want what they can't have.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you have seen it does not make it cease to seem strange to me.... Which seems like a really ... weird ... attitude(to me). I want things because I want them, or don't want them because I don't. Whether or not someone else wants or likes them has zero to do with whether I want them or not.Not really. I notice that when evil alignments are banned the number of Chaotic Jerkwad alignments go up, often from people who would otherwise never play in such a fashion. For some people, the mere existence of a hard restriction is reason enough to push against it.
Pretty much this, as I was getting to on the last page. I understand it happens, and I have a vague understanding why it happens, but I think if this is normal human standard I am just too much of an unusual exception to the rule that I just can't follow the logic.
I've never considered myself normal, so I guess there's that to add to the mix, but it doesn't change the fact that if this is "normal" then I'm apparently "not normal" enough that I can't even comprehend the train of thought that "normal" follows to get from point A (this restriction is here/not here) to point B (restriction = push against; no restriction = play as if there was a restriction but you were okay with it). My own reaction would be point B (restriction = try to find compromise or a way around that everyone is happy with; no restriction = yay! play what I want!).
...
In my experience with Paladins more of the drama is caused by the other characters than by the paladin.IME the drama with Paladins is never caused by the other characters, the other players, or the Paladin player.
It's always the GM.
Have to disagree with you here.
My current game group has had a paladin in each of the last 2 campaigns. Different player of the paladin and a different GM.
Both campaigns, the play often came to a screeching halt while the rest of the party argued about a paladin can't / must / always / never / should / wouldn't do whatever. The player of the paladin and the GM had already agreed whether the action was acceptable, iffy, or problematic. It was the rest of the table that wouldn't shut up about it. For a while we were getting less than 50% of time spent on gaming the rest was listening to them argue. Once I even ended the game early because of it and sent everyone home. They stood in the dark out in my front yard and argued for close to an hour.
The arguments would continue through about the first 3-5 levels of play until they finally got tired of it. Then it started back up again in the next campaign. For a while when I was GM I started changing the campaign pulling out anything that might be morally ambiguous because I was tired of listening to them.
All the problems I've ever had from Paladins is GMs being stupidly inflexible on bits of the Code, and making up shit as they go along.
"Setting an ambush for your opponent is basically lying to the enemy. You'll fall if you do it."
Yeah well f$*~ you too I guess.
To keep the thread a little on track: my girlfriend will never play a class unless she can have a companion. Whether it be a witch's familiar or a druid's AC, she always wants an animal adventuring with her. Most of the time they're cats, but she also likes birds. She statted out 3 different Hunters the day I picked up the ACG. And a wild child brawler based on Kiba from Naruto (which I'm currently playing lol).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem playing a paladin, but if I know that there are Chaotic Neutral characters in the party, I refrain from doing so. Why? Because I don't want to deal with the drama that CN characters would create with a paladin in the party. I will also refrain from any sort of LG character. ALL Chaotic Neutral characters I have ever had experience with have been Chaotic Evil in every aspect except name. Someone won't let us enter a building? KILL THEM! The local drunk is starting a fight with us in the tavern? Better use lethal damage!
The only thing that is practically identical with all of my characters is the alignment. Neutral Good is my go-to alignment. And each time I see "CN" on a character sheet, I groan and have the feeling that I won't be having a good time because of that character.
...
In my experience with Paladins more of the drama is caused by the other characters than by the paladin.IME the drama with Paladins is never caused by the other characters, the other players, or the Paladin player.
It's always the GM.
Have to disagree with you here.
My current game group has had a paladin in each of the last 2 campaigns. Different player of the paladin and a different GM.
Both campaigns, the play often came to a screeching halt while the rest of the party argued about a paladin can't / must / always / never / should / wouldn't do whatever. The player of the paladin and the GM had already agreed whether the action was acceptable, iffy, or problematic. It was the rest of the table that wouldn't shut up about it. For a while we were getting less than 50% of time spent on gaming the rest was listening to them argue. Once I even ended the game early because of it and sent everyone home. They stood in the dark out in my front yard and argued for close to an hour.
The arguments would continue through about the first 3-5 levels of play until they finally got tired of it. Then it started back up again in the next campaign. For a while when I was GM I started changing the campaign pulling out anything that might be morally ambiguous because I was tired of listening to them.
All the problems I've ever had from Paladins is GMs being stupidly inflexible on bits of the Code, and making up s~+~ as they go along.
"Setting an ambush for your opponent is basically lying to the enemy. You'll fall if you do it."
Yeah well f#*@ you too I guess.
I had DM's like that back in the eighties. But they weren't trying to be jerks. It seemed like everyone did that and it was the way it was 'supposed' to be played. Everyone expected it. It wasn't upsetting for any of us because we knew it was going to happen.
Since then, I've only seen 1 GM that played like that. Be he was at least up front about it and told us before starting that he was super strict on the paladin code and it would be almost impossible to not fall in his game. The only guy that played a paladin in his group wanted to play a fallen paladin.
|
|
I'm pretty varied when it comes to classes - I think my last five were like Slayer, Sorcerer, Bard, Witch, Paladin.
But I play human way too often. They're just too damn good. I'm not an immense power game - I'll sacrifice optimization for theme, especially when it comes to casters (I love enchanters, even though I know they're one of the weaker choices) - but too often humans are the only way I can do what I want my character to do without sacrificing too much. Bonus feat means I get to be effective at my schtick from level 1, extra skill points makes playing a 2+INT class hurt a lot less, floating +2 with no negatives is ultimately better than +2 to something I probably won't care too much about. And they have all of the BEST feat options, outside of Paragon Surge.
I have no problem playing a paladin, but if I know that there are Chaotic Neutral characters in the party, I refrain from doing so. Why? Because I don't want to deal with the drama that CN characters would create with a paladin in the party. I will also refrain from any sort of LG character. ALL Chaotic Neutral characters I have ever had experience with have been Chaotic Evil in every aspect except name. Someone won't let us enter a building? KILL THEM! The local drunk is starting a fight with us in the tavern? Better use lethal damage!
The only thing that is practically identical with all of my characters is the alignment. Neutral Good is my go-to alignment. And each time I see "CN" on a character sheet, I groan and have the feeling that I won't be having a good time because of that character.
I pretty much put chaotic neutral on my character sheet these days by default, but I've never played them as anything but neutral good. My character's 'philosophy' is that the good and bad results of laws are subjective, so better to be chaotic and decide in the moment, and while he predominantly does generally good things overall, he has to sometimes do things that would subjectively be bad. Thus the neutral.
As for always picking human, I'm a bit addicted to the Bestow Luck feat tree.
|
|
All the problems I've ever had from Paladins is GMs being stupidly inflexible on bits of the Code, and making up s&@+ as they go along.
"Setting an ambush for your opponent is basically lying to the enemy. You'll fall if you do it."
Yeah well f%$* you too I guess.
Since I run 2nd edition, I look to "The Complete Paladin's Handbook" to determine if or when a paladin's actions cause him to "fall" or not. According to that book, most actions that people talk about on these boards would not cause a paladin to loose his paladin's status, BUT... Most of these issues would require an atonement, and if the paladin does not atone for the action, then, then he'll "fall"
Using your example of setting an ambush within the context of "The Complete Paladin's Handbook", the rules don't see it as lying, so much as acting cowardly, because paladins like to stand up and face their enemies (but again, this is coming from "The Complete Paladin's Handbook" and a 2nd edition AD&D standpoint).
Personally, I get with the player and go over the code as written in the paladin's book, and try to hammer out a code that both the player and myself can live with.
YMMV...
And the reason i'm addicted to evolutionist summoner now and have always preferred wizards is because they have such range of versatility, both in crunch and in fluff. I love having tons of choices.
No matter how many feats you give certain classes on paper, I'll always feel like some classes are going to wind up being one trick ponies...
Ok so and so... You're up. What do you do?
I rage and smash. I smite. I power attack and cleave. I shoot.
The only versatility of theme and fluff they bring to the table is the stuff they do when they're not raging or smiting or cleaving or shooting. To me they end up seeming a bit cookie cutter. Maybe because all the players at my table are a bit wargamey and optimizery.
Yeah. I agree. 'Trapping evil' doesnt count as 'evil' to me.
Chivalry isnt for paladins. Its for cavaliers. It's 'chevaleresque!!!'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bathing is a lie, because it hides your true smell!
In that case a lot of players are paladins. Then they grow beards. Then they fall.
I like elves, but I play other races too.
Gestalt Gnome Bard/Scout
Half-Elf Warlock
Elven Rogue/Shadow Dancer
Human Inquisitor turned into a Cleric by her God (present)
So I'm pretty much all over the place. I have to say my Warlock was one of my favorites though.
Yeah. I agree. 'Trapping evil' doesnt count as 'evil' to me.
Chivalry isnt for paladins. Its for cavaliers. It's 'chevaleresque!!!'
The Knight has a Code of Chivalry that has more rules than any I've ever seen for a Paladin. For instance, the Knight "will never attack someone who is flat footed" (pretty close to the exact quote), but I don't recall a Paladin having that limitation.
|
All the problems I've ever had from Paladins is GMs being stupidly inflexible on bits of the Code, and making up s*@@ as they go along.
"Setting an ambush for your opponent is basically lying to the enemy. You'll fall if you do it."
Yeah well f+~# you too I guess.
That's ridiculous.
My reply (though it'd likely get me invited to depart): "A paladin cannot be held responsible for idiotic assumptions made by the tactically imprudent. Tell me, will a beard make me fall because I'm hiding my true face, Scooter? Stop being a myopic twit and run the game."
I just don't understand how so many intelligent people end up playing in campaigns run by pinheads.
You just made my day :D
Mora and more I regret that I will probably never get to play with most of you, and it seems that it would be immensely fun.
The Knight has a Code of Chivalry that has more rules than any I've ever seen for a Paladin. For instance, the Knight "will never attack someone who is flat footed" (pretty close to the exact quote), but I don't recall a Paladin having that limitation.Yeah. I agree. 'Trapping evil' doesnt count as 'evil' to me.
Chivalry isnt for paladins. Its for cavaliers. It's 'chevaleresque!!!'
Yeah the 3.5 Knight had a pretty long list of limitations.
At the same time, all they got from breaking it was losing one use of their Challenge for the day (per infraction, admittedly), so it wasn't quite as big a deal as a Paladin falling.
The Knight has a Code of Chivalry that has more rules than any I've ever seen for a Paladin. For instance, the Knight "will never attack someone who is flat footed" (pretty close to the exact quote), but I don't recall a Paladin having that limitation.Yeah. I agree. 'Trapping evil' doesnt count as 'evil' to me.
Chivalry isnt for paladins. Its for cavaliers. It's 'chevaleresque!!!'
Yeah the 3.5 Knight had a pretty long list of limitations.
At the same time, all they got from breaking it was losing one use of their Challenge for the day (per infraction, admittedly), so it wasn't quite as big a deal as a Paladin falling.
That makes the limits a little more understandable. :)
All the problems I've ever had from Paladins is GMs being stupidly inflexible on bits of the Code, and making up s*@@ as they go along.
"Setting an ambush for your opponent is basically lying to the enemy. You'll fall if you do it."
Yeah well f+~# you too I guess.
That's ridiculous.
My reply (though it'd likely get me invited to depart): "A paladin cannot be held responsible for idiotic assumptions made by the tactically imprudent. Tell me, will a beard make me fall because I'm hiding my true face, Scooter? Stop being a myopic twit and run the game."
I just don't understand how so many intelligent people end up playing in campaigns run by pinheads.
He was my first GM, the guy who introduced me to the game.
Got pissed, left my game (decided to try my hand at GMing Carrion Crown a few months in with the same people as the Serpent's Skull game he was running), and shut down the one he was running when I wouldn't let him Rend multiple times per round with his Eidolon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I figure why let one guy ruin a hobby I found very fun? I still play with a bunch of the same people, just not him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bathing is a lie, because it hides your true smell!
So, if I still stink even after I bathe, do I get off the hook? :-)
I have no problem playing a paladin, but if I know that there are Chaotic Neutral characters in the party, I refrain from doing so. Why? Because I don't want to deal with the drama that CN characters would create with a paladin in the party. I will also refrain from any sort of LG character. ALL Chaotic Neutral characters I have ever had experience with have been Chaotic Evil in every aspect except name. Someone won't let us enter a building? KILL THEM! The local drunk is starting a fight with us in the tavern? Better use lethal damage!
The only thing that is practically identical with all of my characters is the alignment. Neutral Good is my go-to alignment. And each time I see "CN" on a character sheet, I groan and have the feeling that I won't be having a good time because of that character.
I feel your pain. "Chaotic Neutral" exactly as you describe was for some reason very popular when I was in college in the 1980s. Of course, it doesn't help matters that the alignment grid seems to have been rotated and/or warped from very early times, such that Lawful Good is seen as the greatest Good and Chaotic Evil is seen as the greatest Evil (this includes the Paladin-Antipaladin dichotomy), and Lawful Neutral is seen as Lawful Good Lite, and Chaotic Neutral is seen as Chaotic Evil Lite. These players I ran across played to the latter to the hilt, except that the "Lite" part was rather touch-and-go, at best.
I feel your pain. "Chaotic Neutral" exactly as you describe was for some reason very popular when I was in college in the 1980s. Of course, it doesn't help matters that the alignment grid seems to have been rotated and/or warped from very early times, such that Lawful Good is seen as the greatest Good and Chaotic Evil is seen as the greatest Evil (this includes the Paladin-Antipaladin dichotomy), and Lawful Neutral is seen as Lawful Good Lite, and Chaotic Neutral is seen as Chaotic Evil Lite. These players I ran across played to the latter to the hilt, except that the "Lite" part was rather touch-and-go, at best.
Yeah, I think at least one official rulebook stated that CN characters were insane. One player I gamed with in the 80s would determine his CN PC's actions with dice to determine whether he would be good or evil at any decision-making point. Others have said they saw the same behavior. At some point after that, I noticed people would write it on their sheets when they really didn't have a personality in mind for their character, but they didn't necessarily obey the roll of dice, so much as player whim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's that the book stated that insane characters were often CN, and people took that as justification for the reverse.
CN was I think the second most misplayed alignment right after TN.