What do you expect from D&D?

[gartius]

if i remember it was on his whim based on how he felt like at the time as well as if JP liked the player and if he perceived you as a problem player. 'good player' random! 'problem player' bad stuff!

[eggynack]

Was it ? I misrembered then. A mistake but not misrepresentation since that has a malicious intent behind it.

It's an easy mistake to make, as the summoning rules have been explained in a manner similar to the way you remember them in the past. It was just later made apparent that the rule is somewhat more reasonable. As for the cleric mis-casting thing, I've yet to find the actual place where the rule is stated, but I've found Jedipotter talking about the rule as a thing that exists, which I think is about enough to confirm my memory of events.

Edit: Just found a citation for the cure/inflict thing in the spoiler hereabouts. I haven't found the silence/shout thing yet, but my suspicion is that it would be nearby, if it exists. The cure/inflict thing pretty much covers the same ground, though.

[Arkhaic]

Someone needs to make a JP Statements compendium to keep track of her current stances on things. There's no way I can avoid making mistakes without that.

[Phelix-Mu]

As much as it may or may not be fun/easy to point out what I see as another person's flawed reasoning/policies/houserules, it really does me little good to harp on it along with the rest of the bandwagon. Nor does anyone else benefit from such harping. The general consensus is well-established. Nothing left to see here.

[Flickerdart]

Someone needs to make a JP Statements compendium to keep track of her current stances on things. There's no way I can avoid making mistakes without that.

That's because jedipotter is capable of having two completely different stances on something across two different threads...or posts.

[jedipotter]

"Your god decides to change your Spell into something else because I don't like how you're playing." - jedipotter

I'm paraphrasing you because I can't be bothered to read through your older posts.

Here's an example I remember. Corellon changing a clerc's Cure spell to an Inflict spell because ot was used on a drow. That seems pretty controlling to me.

This is one of best house rules, and not a secret one.

Ok the story:

Group fights drow in the dark woods. A goblin slave mentions ''the drow have a secret vault full of treasure''. So the next fight they capture a drow. The drow won't talk, and they have no persuasive magic really available. This is where Keith the player of the cleric of Corellon gets his idea: He will torture the drow for the information, healing and bringing the drow back to life as needed, until the drow tells in information. The drow is already wounded, so the cleric goes to cast a cure on him, so he can start the torture and not kill the drow too quickly. He goes to cast the spell, and Corellon twists the cure into an inflict and kills the drow.

Now this was a great event. Keith was shocked. He sure got the message that ''using torture to get information is not approved of'' and that he ''might have gone too far''. And it started him on a little quest to ''make sure he knew the true path of Corellon'' by visiting other clerics and temples. Keith even accepted that he killed the drow, not Corellon. At no time did this single act make Edgar's character a NPC or have the DM have ''control over the character''....

[eggynack]

As much as it may or may not be fun/easy to point out what I see as another person's flawed reasoning/policies/houserules, it really does me little good to harp on it along with the rest of the bandwagon. Nor does anyone else benefit from such harping. The general consensus is well-established. Nothing left to see here.

That would be more true, except the problems keep changing and growing and shrinking and turning every which way. Like, I spent roughly 100-150 thread-pages participating in this stuff, without knowing anything of Jedipotter's weird chess thing. It's just one of the strangest positions I've seen. There's tons left to see here, because even with all I know, I still don't feel like I have anything like a grasp on the situation, and the longer things go, the less of a grasp I have.

Also, ya gotta flex your arguing muscles somehow, and these are the best arguments that I'm aware of hereabouts at the moment. I suppose it can look a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but they're at least pretty unique fish, and breaking apart easy but different arguments can be interesting in its own way. Also, with the ever-changing landscape of the situation, it's not always all that easy. You have to keep track of this dynamic tapestry of conflicting viewpoints, and that's tricky as hell, especially when one of the viewpoints treads into reasonable territory without any warning.

Edit:

At no time did this single act make Edgar's character a NPC or have the DM have ''control over the character''....

I'm not really sure how you can think the latter thing. That's pretty much exactly what you're doing. Your player says, "I want to do this," and you say, "Nah, you do this instead."

[geekintheground]

This is one of best house rules, and not a secret one.

Ok the story:

Group fights drow in the dark woods. A goblin slave mentions ''the drow have a secret vault full of treasure''. So the next fight they capture a drow. The drow won't talk, and they have no persuasive magic really available. This is where Edgar the player of the cleric of Corellon gets his idea: He will torture the drow for the information, healing and bringing the drow back to life as needed, until the drow tells in information. The drow is already wounded, so the cleric goes to cast a cure on him, so he can start the torture and not kill the drow too quickly. He goes to cast the spell, and Corellon twists the cure into an inflict and kills the drow.

Now this was a great event. Edgar was shocked. He sure got the message that ''using torture to get information is not approved of'' and that he ''might have gone too far''. And it started him on a little quest to ''make sure he knew the true path of Corellon'' by visiting other clerics and temples. Edgar even accepted that he killed the drow, not Corellon. At no time did this single act make Edgar's character a NPC or have the DM have ''control over the character''....

of course not, the deity did all the controlling. its not like a DM has any control over those rascals. and sure it was flavorful, but its still lording your DM power over the players. there were other ways to do that than to mess with someones SPELLS. you dont mess with a paladins attacks do you?.. do you?

[jedipotter]

I'm not really sure how you can think the latter thing. That's pretty much exactly what you're doing. Your player says, "I want to do this," and you say, "Nah, you do this instead."

Corellen is a good god. He does not approve of torture(for the most part). He sure does not approve of it out of pure greed. So he sends a message to the cleric ''I do not approve''.

So, sure, if the player was to say do nothing else but (try) to torture helpless prisoners, then you could say ''the DM''(playing the role of the god) says you can't do that''. But it does not stop the player from taking other actions.

And Corellon only cares if his power is used in a way he does not like. The cleric could have used countless mundane ways to torture and heal with potions or such.

[eggynack]

Corellen is a good god. He does not approve of torture(for the most part). He sure does not approve of it out of pure greed. So he sends a message to the cleric ''I do not approve''.

So, sure, if the player was to say do nothing else but (try) to torture helpless prisoners, then you could say ''the DM''(playing the role of the god) says you can't do that''. But it does not stop the player from taking other actions.

And Corellon only cares if his power is used in a way he does not like. The cleric could have used countless mundane ways to torture and heal with potions or such.

You actively altered a spell into another one. That's practically the definition of controlling the player's actions. It doesn't really matter if you have reasons, or if you don't do it all the time. It's just what you did.

[bjoern]

You actively altered a spell into another one. That's practically the definition of controlling the player's actions. It doesn't really matter if you have reasons, or if you don't do it all the time. It's just what you did.

Honestly, I'd say in this situation something should be done to the cleric. He's either playing out of alignment or at least way out of character. A good cleric abusing his good spells to torture someone cause he wants their money.......you can't just ignore that.

If you want to be "good" and do evil stuff......don't be a cleric or paladin. Your god has veto power over you if he disapproves.

Now that being said , if the cleric was going to heal him so he could take him prisoner and interrogate him then I'd say that's OK. But not torture, heal, torture, heal. I would expect a "good" god to keep his clerics in line.

[WhamBamSam]

Corellen is a good god. He does not approve of torture(for the most part). He sure does not approve of it out of pure greed. So he sends a message to the cleric ''I do not approve''.

So, sure, if the player was to say do nothing else but (try) to torture helpless prisoners, then you could say ''the DM''(playing the role of the god) says you can't do that''. But it does not stop the player from taking other actions.

And Corellon only cares if his power is used in a way he does not like. The cleric could have used countless mundane ways to torture and heal with potions or such.

You do realize that clerics fall if they grossly violate their deity's code of conduct, right? That the cleric in question would not have been able to torture the drow without consequences with or without magic just going by the standard rules?

Do you have an example of the "gods work in mysterious ways" mechanic that doesn't already fall under the "gross violation of deity's code of conduct" rule?

[eggynack]

Honestly, I'd say in this situation something should be done to the cleric. He's either playing out of alignment or at least way out of character. A good cleric abusing his good spells to torture someone cause he wants their money.......you can't just ignore that.

If you want to be "good" and do evil stuff......don't be a cleric or paladin. Your god has veto power over you if he disapproves.

There are, as WhamBamSam noted, perfectly RAW consequences for this sort of action. The point is that you shouldn't control the action itself. The action is the player's to take, and the consequence is the DM's to roll out. Play and counterplay, as I mentioned before in a separate context.

[bjoern]

There are, as WhamBamSam noted, perfectly RAW consequences for this sort of action. The point is that you shouldn't control the action itself. The action is the player's to take, and the consequence is the DM's to roll out. Play and counterplay, as I mentioned before in a separate context.

True.

I'd say the difference in this situation is trivial though. It only matters since it created something to disagree about.

For myself , if I was the cleric, I would expect the DM to turn to me OOC and say
"If you want to be evil, why didn't you make an evil guy?" "If you want to play a character that's a greedy murderhobo just roll one up."

Honestly, what if the DM doesn't want to deal with having a fallen cleric in the party? Who is now a liability to the party (he's been neutered). And is now disrupting the game for the rest of the group by putting the other players (presumably good) in a situation that conflicts with their alignment.

Now, I'm.not taking sides in this pointless thread, but it takes 2 to tango. If a player wants to do something that is out of character and alignment because the player is greedy then he is causing a problem.
This is no different then the player who steals from the party, every thread about that issue is almost 100% against the greedy player.

On the flip side, the DM shouldn't play the mean kid frying ants with a magnifying glass either.

Again, in this case the PLAYER broke the rules of the game by shattering the illusion of role play. So he got burned (somewhat cleverly)
Had I done something dumb like that with an old DM of mine a bus would have fallen on my guy. And when I say "there's no busses in d&d" the DM would say " dumb people die in dumb ways"


If the players and the DM can't agree on the terms of the game and what kind of game they want to play, it'll never work out. If I was a good cleric that was doing evil crap I'd just expect to be stricken dead where I stood. Regardless of what the rules might say.

[jedipotter]

You do realize that clerics fall if they grossly violate their deity's code of conduct, right? That the cleric in question would not have been able to torture the drow without consequences with or without magic just going by the standard rules?

Do you have an example of the "gods work in mysterious ways" mechanic that doesn't already fall under the "gross violation of deity's code of conduct" rule?

Sure, by the default rules I could have made Elmond an ex-cleric on the spot. I like my way better.


Example: Corellon likes elves. Any beneficial spell cast on an elf will have slightly greater effect, such as cure wounds healing one more point of damage. And races he does not like at all, like orcs and drow, get the slightly greater effect for harmful spells, like a point more of damage.

Corellon does not like elves fighting, so any harmful spell cast on an elf has minimum effect. Clerics of Corellon often just kill other elves with their swords (and buffs on themselves) or use arcane magic.

Corellon likes magic, so he gives the slight effect if the cleric also supports magic or magic users....as long as it is good magic. Elven magic gets much bigger support with a bigger effect.

It's also case by case. Not all elves get the protection, for example. Say the cleric is bored and wants to go kill a couple elf farmers to get some experience. Then the elf farmers get the protection. But if the cleric gets attacked by some evil elven bandits....they will find the evil bandits have lost their protection.

[kellbyb]

You do realize that clerics fall if they grossly violate their deity's code of conduct, right? That the cleric in question would not have been able to torture the drow without consequences with or without magic just going by the standard rules?

Do you have an example of the "gods work in mysterious ways" mechanic that doesn't already fall under the "gross violation of deity's code of conduct" rule?

That's a paladin you're thinking of, bro. Clerics do not RaW lose their powers for breaking any codes or deific edicts.

[jedipotter]

For myself , if I was the cleric, I would expect the DM to turn to me OOC and say
"If you want to be evil, why didn't you make an evil guy?" "If you want to play a character that's a greedy murderhobo just roll one up."

Like most of my house rlues, this one keeps the game going. I really hate bringing the game to a halt and talking OCC. The evil, greedy murderhobo OOC could easily waste a half hour of game time. My way keeps it all in-game.

Honestly, what if the DM doesn't want to deal with having a fallen cleric in the party? Who is now a liability to the party (he's been neutered). And is now disrupting the game for the rest of the group by putting the other players (presumably good) in a situation that conflicts with their alignment.

I'm fine with a fallen cleric, mine just take longer to fall with more role play.

Now, I'm.not taking sides in this pointless thread, but it takes 2 to tango. If a player wants to do something that is out of character and alignment because the player is greedy then he is causing a problem.
This is no different then the player who steals from the party, every thread about that issue is almost 100% against the greedy player.

Yes, I'd say he was a ......problem player.

If the players and the DM can't agree on the terms of the game and what kind of game they want to play, it'll never work out. If I was a good cleric that was doing evil crap I'd just expect to be stricken dead where I stood. Regardless of what the rules might say.

Guess I just have thicker skin. I'll give the player a chance to be good and change their ways.

[Coidzor]

Initially? For the DM to be able to look me in the eye without flinching and demonstrate some basic social nicety when it comes to meeting someone new from the periphery of their social circle.

Definitely gonna get a bad vibe if I don't even get so much as a hello or acknowledged as a humanoid carbon unit before anything involving the game actually begins.

After that, if it hasn't been stated already, I expect some synopsis of the kind of game we're going to be playing and then tone we're aiming for, though generally I'd try to get that info before I showed up to play a game run by someone I don't know from Adam.

This would be where particular game version/edition would need to be mentioned if it had somehow been kept from me, otherwise if they still don't say what it is, I'm going to assume this is actually some kind of sick sex cult or they want to play FATAL. So same thing, I suppose.

Following that probably notable changes to the base rules and assumptions of the game followed by less notable changes that are still necessary for me to create and run a character in the game. In the case of premades or whatever, then it's just whatever's necessary for me to run one.

I guess somewhere around here, either now or as part of the previous step would be things like ability score generation method and other nitty-gritty that's multiple-choice, but one of the choices has to be taken, even if it's a fill in the blank that needed to be filled.

[Jeff the Green]

it takes 2 to tango.

I hate, hate, hate this phrase. Yes, it takes two to tango, but that doesn't necessarily mean that when one dancer trips over the other's feet that they're equally responsible for the resulting bruises.

[WhamBamSam]

That's a paladin you're thinking of, bro. Clerics do not RaW lose their powers for breaking any codes or deific edicts.

Straight from the SRD.

Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

[bjoern]

I hate, hate, hate this phrase. Yes, it takes two to tango, but that doesn't necessarily mean that when one dancer trips over the other's feet that they're equally responsible for the resulting bruises.

But of he hangs around then that's his problem.

If one person is the victim and one the villain, the victim should just leave. Otherwise they've got nothing to complain about.

If the player and the DM just keep it up for the sake of being asshats to each other, then who really cares who's right or wrong? They're both morons who are ruining the game for whoever is taking a seat to their power struggle.

[eggynack]

True.
I'd say the difference in this situation is trivial though. It only matters since it created something to disagree about.

I think the difference between changing the action and creating a consequence is a pretty big one, in that one impacts agency, while the other does not.

For myself , if I was the cleric, I would expect the DM to turn to me OOC and say
"If you want to be evil, why didn't you make an evil guy?" "If you want to play a character that's a greedy murderhobo just roll one up."

Well, what you do is you adjust alignment, cause that's the in-game mechanism for when someone's doings don't match their alignment.

Honestly, what if the DM doesn't want to deal with having a fallen cleric in the party? Who is now a liability to the party (he's been neutered). And is now disrupting the game for the rest of the group by putting the other players (presumably good) in a situation that conflicts with their alignment.

The former thing is why atonement exists. The latter is why kicking a character out of a group exists.

Now, I'm.not taking sides in this pointless thread, but it takes 2 to tango. If a player wants to do something that is out of character and alignment because the player is greedy then he is causing a problem.
This is no different then the player who steals from the party, every thread about that issue is almost 100% against the greedy player.

On the flip side, the DM shouldn't play the mean kid frying ants with a magnifying glass either.

Again, in this case the PLAYER broke the rules of the game by shattering the illusion of role play. So he got burned (somewhat cleverly)
Had I done something dumb like that with an old DM of mine a bus would have fallen on my guy. And when I say "there's no busses in d&d" the DM would say " dumb people die in dumb ways"

The issue with that is that I feel like we just end up conflating a bunch of issues this way. Like, sure, this guy is a butt face. That doesn't seem like a reason to have a rule that removes agency. That seems like a reason to talk to the fellow. This sort of thing happens a lot, too, where a player is being a butt in a way entirely separate from the rule being discussed. In the meantime, if this player posts about their dickery hereabouts, then I'll tell them that they're wrong, but since we're dealing with the DM, the thing of discussion is that she is wrong.

[Coidzor]

If one person is the victim and one the villain, the victim should just leave. Otherwise they've got nothing to complain about.

Thinking like that, however, is gonna be an unfortunate predictor of victim-blaming tendencies in other spheres of one's life.

[Arkhaic]

But of he hangs around then that's his problem.

If one person is the victim and one the villain, the victim should just leave. Otherwise they've got nothing to complain about.

If the player and the DM just keep it up for the sake of being asshats to each other, then who really cares who's right or wrong? They're both morons who are ruining the game for whoever is taking a seat to their power struggle.

Clearly you have never heard of abusive relationships. Or, for that matter, Stockholm syndrome.

[bjoern]

I think the difference between changing the action and creating a consequence is a pretty big one, in that one impacts agency, while the other does not.


Well, what you do is you adjust alignment, cause that's the in-game mechanism for when someone's doings don't match their alignment.


The former thing is why atonement exists. The latter is why kicking a character out of a group exists.


The issue with that is that I feel like we just end up conflating a bunch of issues this way. Like, sure, this guy is a butt face. That doesn't seem like a reason to have a rule that removes agency. That seems like a reason to talk to the fellow. This sort of thing happens a lot, too, where a player is being a butt in a way entirely separate from the rule being discussed. In the meantime, if this player posts about their dickery hereabouts, then I'll tell them that they're wrong, but since we're dealing with the DM, the thing of discussion is that she is wrong.

I feel that the player forfeits his rights to having his character affected by stuff RAW when that player chooses to have his guy do something that is completely 180° against his characters alignment, god, whole concept without any in game explanation.
Other than "oooo I want his money"
If the character had some greed disorder or something sure that's fine. Or if he's under some kind of enchantment.

Now, I'm looking at this as if it were to happen in my group. My group me members are busy, and we only have 2 short sessions per month. No one in my group would pull this crap because they wouldn't want to be the prick that derailed the DMs story. Kinda like the brat that starts talking in the middle of a movie about how the book was better and the most is is all wrong. Just shut up, watch the movie , or GTFO.

We game to have fun and hear and participate in a story. Not to argue about how someone wasn't treated fairly when they tried to sideswipe the story.

[bjoern]

Clearly you have never heard of abusive relationships. Or, for that matter, Stockholm syndrome.

D&d is not a marriage or any kind of relationship.

Its a game.


Y'all want to lynch someone go ahead. I'm just saying that maybe its not always 100% the DMs fault. Sometimes it is, but not always

[kellbyb]

Straight from the SRD.

Yeah, the problem with that is the code is never defined.

[eggynack]

I feel that the player forfeits his rights to having his character affected by stuff RAW when that player chooses to have his guy do something that is completely 180° against his characters alignment, god, whole concept without any in game explanation.
Other than "oooo I want his money"
If the character had some greed disorder or something sure that's fine. Or if he's under some kind of enchantment.

I don't think that you forfeit any claim to the rules, or to tend more towards this conversation, agency, at all when you act out of character. The two things are completely separate. He can forfeit a claim to playing in the game, or to not receiving a talking to, but your character is your character. Also, greed seems like a pretty solid in-game explanation to me, gotta say. It's a thing that strikes the best of us on occasion. In any case, I've gotta find that silence/shout example now. That one was crazy.

[Sith_Happens]

This is one of best house rules, and not a secret one.

Ok the story:

Group fights drow in the dark woods. A goblin slave mentions ''the drow have a secret vault full of treasure''. So the next fight they capture a drow. The drow won't talk, and they have no persuasive magic really available. This is where Keith the player of the cleric of Corellon gets his idea: He will torture the drow for the information, healing and bringing the drow back to life as needed, until the drow tells in information. The drow is already wounded, so the cleric goes to cast a cure on him, so he can start the torture and not kill the drow too quickly. He goes to cast the spell, and Corellon twists the cure into an inflict and kills the drow.

Now this was a great event. Keith was shocked. He sure got the message that ''using torture to get information is not approved of'' and that he ''might have gone too far''. And it started him on a little quest to ''make sure he knew the true path of Corellon'' by visiting other clerics and temples. Keith even accepted that he killed the drow, not Corellon. At no time did this single act make Edgar's character a NPC or have the DM have ''control over the character''....

Putting aside whether I'd like the idea of this happening in a game I'm playing in (as an isolated event I'd actually have mixed feelings at worst), I really don't see Corellon Larethian disapproving of one of his clerics torturing a Drow for the location of a stash of Drow treasure that the cleric then intends to steal, at least not strongly enough to act on it. Sure his alignment line says "Good," but when push comes to shove he's a racist and an asshat more than anything else.

[jedipotter]

We game to have fun and hear and participate in a story. Not to argue about how someone wasn't treated fairly when they tried to sideswipe the story.

I agree! A lot of my house rules are made around this idea: we only have a little time to game, so lets game!

I can't stand people who try and disrupt or stop the game: The Problem Players.

''Just play the game''