| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be sure to let my GM know that my Caiden Caylen Cleric is cleared to assemble his halfling slave ring because the crb and splats never explicitly say that's a gross violation of his ethos. If for some bizarre reason my GM argues otherwise, I'll be sure to take offense to his oppressive house rules.
/s
Seriously dude, the pure RAW computer code parsing is an untennable position. Unless of course we want to go completely down that rabbit hole in which case I'm grabbing Diehard since per RAW the Dead condition doesn't prevent me from taking further actions.
Sounds like something a problem player would do. Also, I never said that I agreed with it, just stated the rules as they stand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like something a problem player would do. Also, I never said that I agreed with it, just stated the rules as they stand.I'll be sure to let my GM know that my Caiden Caylen Cleric is cleared to assemble his halfling slave ring because the crb and splats never explicitly say that's a gross violation of his ethos. If for some bizarre reason my GM argues otherwise, I'll be sure to take offense to his oppressive house rules.
/s
Seriously dude, the pure RAW computer code parsing is an untennable position. Unless of course we want to go completely down that rabbit hole in which case I'm grabbing Diehard since per RAW the Dead condition doesn't prevent me from taking further actions.
If you're not a capable enough gm to run a game with a core class most people have no real problem with, you probably don't have the standing to label players "problem players". The issue is likely with your own ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, my issue is with people using a class' ambiguity and quadratic interpretation as an excuse to walk all over me as a GM.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't occur to you at all that when you set up an antagonistic relationship with your table you're going to notice a lot more attempts to "walk all over you" from your own perspective?
Again Wrath of the Rightous brings this up as a plot point. "I feel drawn to evil but I want to do good". Fighting back against the impulses brought on by teaching or even race in order to do good is indeed a trope/idea. Heck that's built into Teiflings and Changlings. Half Orcs at times too.So while she *wants* to, for example, piece by piece remove all the skin from a captive who made her angry and feed it to themthat is still an evil act and she would fallThere's a pretty big difference ethically between "I want to do a thing, so I do it" and "I want to do a thing, but I stop myself because I realize that it's wrong and I do not do the thing" though.
Like if you get really angry, and you want to hurt someone really badly, but you choose not to, you're not evil because of what you felt. One's actions are judged moral or otherwise, less so their private thoughts.
This is a really good point... And I'm totally including Paladins in my next game.
It doesn't occur to you at all that when you set up an antagonistic relationship with your table you're going to notice a lot more attempts to "walk all over you" from your own perspective?
I fail to see how disabling a class for the overall health of the table is creating an "antagonistic relationship," when allowing it isn't really a much better option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't occur to you at all that when you set up an antagonistic relationship with your table you're going to notice a lot more attempts to "walk all over you" from your own perspective?I fail to see how disabling a class for the overall health of the table is creating an "antagonistic relationship," when allowing it isn't really a much better option.
I get that you fail to see how your attitudes indicate an antagonistic relationship with your table.
I get that you fail to see how your attitudes indicate an antagonistic relationship with your table.It doesn't occur to you at all that when you set up an antagonistic relationship with your table you're going to notice a lot more attempts to "walk all over you" from your own perspective?I fail to see how disabling a class for the overall health of the table is creating an "antagonistic relationship," when allowing it isn't really a much better option.
No, you clearly don't.
Disabling a class for the health of the table and then proceeding to complain about my choice, despite its positive reasoning, is precisely the sort of thing a disruptive player would do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, bad gms who think their job is to kafkatrap a class into uselessness often view challenging their antagonistic behavior as disruptive.
I wonder what kind of stockholm syndrome your players have to be at a table with a gm that has such a paranoia about "being walked all over" that he edits core classes out of his table rather than working cooperatively with the player and extending benefit of the doubt.
