Who's had or witnessed a *lighthearted* disagreement between characters or players at the table? Not just someone getting in the way of the game (pic related).
Has anyone ever had an issue go unresolved for years with neither player agreeing who was "wrong?"
We've had one, where my dm withheld exp from me for breaking alignment in an "incident". We've debated it for years.
What made it worse, is my guy was on a quest to become a different class, and 100 exp would have allowed me to create psionic items even after the class change.
Neither of us think we were out of line, and honestly, we've both got a solid case. Who's right? Well, I think I am of course.
In fact, I'll put it up here for Veeky Forums to attempt to resolve it.
Relevant facts:
>2nd edition
>Psionic
>Lawful Neutral
>my charc was hired to investigate a string of attacks on wagons leaving the city.
>much investigation put me in touch with an ex thieves guild member, who agreed to help me find info
>Thief says he'll tell me someone I should "talk to", if I help him rob said person
>I say I won't help rob the guy, but I will question him loudly, and if he happens to get robbed at that time, well.......shit happens
>The merchant wasn't being helpful, so I began making knocking shit over and threatening him
>I ended up killing the merchant after he attacked me (sorta justified really)
>I also had to kill a couple of his lackeys
DM ruled that this incident (worth about 350 exp for the kills), was outside of my alignment and this negated the exp from it.
>I argued that I was doing my job, by any means necessary as a good LN person would do
>I used the example in the Phb, "An inquisitor who is determined to ferret out the truth at all costs", as my defense
>The dm countered that my main reason for handling it that way, was to rob the guy
There's the facts.....was I correct?
I have never heard of alignment having anything to do with EXP.
Facts are people who grant EXP are dead and the person doing the killing gets said EXP. It's not about why you did it but, that you did it, which gains them.
I personally do milestone leveling unless I'm running a sandbox campaign. How XP is granted can differ depending on the system and what type of game the DM wants to run, but a DM should be up front with how it's going to work in his game and be willing to hear the players out if they want to play something a bit different. If a DM wants to run a game where the theme is alignments, XP is rewarded for being alignmenty, and everyone is fine with it, then that's fine.
Alignments don't feature heavily in my games, so all I can offer is how similar circumstances were handled in some D&D vydia:
>Making threats with the intention to act on those threats is Evil, while making threats without the intention to act on them is Chaotic.
>Acting in self-defense is Neutral.
>Keeping to your promises is Lawful.
Make of it what you will. I don't know what this means for you.
>I have never heard of alignment having anything to do with EXP.
DMG pg 29, 2e
Acting outside of your alignment can cost a player exp
Many times.
My friend and I argued about how our DM who doesn't know 3.5 very well, is the main reason his psion character has been so powerful, because the DM didn't know how to use magic for shit (he's a great DM though, he comes up with so much great stuff, in fact I hate 3.5 magic because it ruined so many of his cool challenges). I explained if I had been DM, he wouldn't have gotten away with some stuff quite as easily. It wasn't really an argument though.
We also had an argument when my friend's Lawful Evil character who worshiped Tiamat, died. He was a ruthless character who killed prisoners but it was debatable whether he truly acted evil or not. Especially given how much he adventured for the good of others, even though his motives were allegedly impure. The result was Tiamat torturing him for failing her, until we resurrected him and the entire rest of the group got butthurt over "she wouldn't have done that cause she's LAWFUL evil and lawful evil follows their code" and other dumb shit. That stupid argument lasted three hours. No one was even mad at each other, it was just one of those stupid discussions we had cause we were bored.
We're good enough friends we can have like huge-ass arguments and debates over pointless D&D crap for hours on end and enjoy it. One person in the group gets pissed when we argue cause he hates the arguments, but we are doing them mostly for fun. Another one sometimes takes them too seriously and starts shouting and thus we try not to include him in them anymore.
But yeah as long as you don't take them seriously, arguing about RPGs with your real-world friends is fun. Especially because there's actual context and not just wasting time typing posts online like we are right now.
My old Pathfinder DM had us roll characters without knowledge of any of what the others were making. He neglected to tell me the rest of them would be playing evil characters. I rolled a paladin. All he could do was keep shrugging as I was forced to partake in horrors. I eventually left the game and yes, I talked to him before, hence the 'shrugging' comment. I told him I didn't want to be a pill. That I'd roll another character. But he just kept shrugging. Dude used to be one of my childhood friends and I haven't spoken a word to him in years...I'm just not sure what happened at that table, but in a lot of ways, it kind of felt like he was supplanting me with his new set of friends (most of the rest of the table I didn't know very well, and met them there.) I didn't like his new friends, but I couldn't tell him to ditch his new friends...honestly I'll never really understand what happened at that table but it was a turning point in that part of my life.
Probably not what you were looking for OP.
Not really lawful behaviour man
>Who's had or witnessed a *lighthearted* disagreement between characters or players at the table?
I mean, characters have small disagreements all the time. As far as players go, I got in a yelling match with another player in-character in which we had to keeping pausing to crack up out-of-character.
I didn't come to this thread for feels, user. Shame about your friend.
OMFG........Shane, is that you?
I'm a ruleslawyer and my brother is a minmaxer, our GM is a babysitting GM and, picking from our friends, one is the lolrandom guy, the coward spellcaster, the 20pages backstory guy, and the oldguy that read every edition of the game we are playing.
To answer your question: every time we gather one more is added to the list.
That ain't lawful dude. You were in the wrong. That said, it is near the border and in my opinion, not egregious enough to justify an experience penalty, unless you make a habit of it.
It is I guess? I can't help but wonder how much of it was me, but every time I go over it, it doesn't seem like his new friends were very friendly to me. It comes with a lot of mixed feelings. He and I were so close. Me and my family helped take care of his mother when she was sick with cancer and after she died we kind of drifted a little, but at our core we were still close. At least that's how I felt. Anyway, this Pathfinder session was fucking terrible, and because he's such a chill guy who rolls with the punches, I just assumed he was indulging the new guys for a while...and these guys werent completely out of left field. One of them was his coworker, the other the husband of a mutual friend. It was awkward. It still is. But after these sessions I really just haven't tried to contact him, and he stopped trying to contact me. This is really more of a blog post and less of a game post but ultimately I can't understand why he wouldn't just let me try again or at least give me a little direction. At least don't let me roll a paladin in a party of edgelords.
Yeah, that's rough to hear, when you drift apart from a friend. Similar thing in my life right now. Thinking I might reach out to him, just to say hi, you know? Maybe you should do the same, see how he's doing, rebuild that bridge.
I think you're probably right. I can put all of it behind us. And there's no better time than the present. Thanks user. I wish you best of luck with your friend too.
Not really over one issue. But I have a friend who has a knack of always being "that guy" when it comes to rule-lawyering. He cannot go through a session of even the simplest of boar games without an obligatory 30 minutes flipping through the rule book, checking the local forums and searching for an FaQ.
Its annoying as fuck, and I have commented this on several occasions that we could look it up after the game. And more than often its a rule with little to no impact on the game. Real issue I think is that most of the time Im the only guy standing up to him as he´s got quite a bit of pondus in our group.
I handled it badly, sure. And while I disagree with the decision of my dm, i can't really argue his logic. I was hoping someone would provide me a new angle of argument. We've only been arguing this one incident of about 12 years.lol
punch him in the dick
Honestly it could go either way, but I'm leaning closer to you were in the wrong. It seems more like a chaotic good action.
In same game and is about, the lawful good inquisitor refused to shoot a "civilian" who was on his way to a sketchy demon worshiping temple. He then summoned a greater demon that I had to save the party from with my amazing diplomatic skills and had to reveal my secret that I spoke demonic, which increased people's distrust of me. So to avoid that later I killed a couple of people we'd captured while I was watching them and the rest of the party were busy. I was beaten, bound, and arrested by my own party for that! I escaped my bounds and showed up to a fight in the temple just in time to save the party. But the inquisitor was unconscious and didn't know I'd saved them.
So I was still imprisoned for "murder" when we got back to base. But I escaped and was there for our mission briefing the next morning with much jaw dropping and face palming. She also never realized that I was the one who resurrected her later and that I used an infernal contract to do it... So she never trusted me and threatened to kill me once or twice, but it always worked out.
>Milestone leveling
Ewwww noo. That shit sucks, wowee. Please don't ever do that, user. It takes away so much if the individual effort someone might have put in were they awarded xp differently. "Co-op" 99% of the time sucks the fun right out of any sense of accomplishment.
*Co-op xp I meant to say, sorry gods of tg
Chaotic action (good or bad), in 2e psions, was a nearly fatal action.
Bad ju-ju........
>DM ruled that this incident (worth about 350 exp for the kills), was outside of my alignment
Correct
>and this negated the exp from it.
Why though? Why not just change your alignment?
Oh, yes, many times. Because our group consists of six people, four of which refuse to agree on anything political, I count my blessings if we get through a session without ten minutes of...
>Drumpf btfo
>Kill the bourgeoise
>Hillary did nothing wrong
>Trump did nothing wrong
>more taxes, less government
>more government, less taxes
>more government, more taxes
>less government, less taxes
And so on.
I consider leaving almost every week, but then I remember that almost everyone else I know involved in the hobby is pure autismal cancer of the worst sort, and I realise I don't have it so bad.
If the only reason anybody does anything is to gain xp, something is wrong with the game. You might as well be playing vidya at that point.
2e campaign last year I was DM .
PC chaotic good was a freed slave who was captured by the other PC's because there was a bounty on his head . Throughout the next 10 sessions they bond and treat him as a equal , but slave jokes still come up . During a rescue mission together they sneak into a lichs lair in a canyon with a hydra chained up outside .
They eventually kill the lich and free the citizens . But now they have to get out of the canyon with the hydra . The ex slave PC says he will teleport up to the top of the canyon and transport people one at a time . He takes the prettiest girl in the group , teleports up , tells her that he is going to leave and that she can come to . She refuses and asks him to save the others , he casts a spell at her legs and leaves her for dead . He uses his psionic communication ability to tell the hydra where the citizens / other PC's are . The ex slave then burns down the other PC's wagons , kills there horses and leaves .
He says at the end of this that he did it because he was constantly picked on for being a slave. The party wiped , and he was not invited to the next dark sun game
Getting backstabbed by someone at the final fight of the campaign for no fucking reason aside from "lol, that's what my chaotic neutral thief would do :^)".
I'll never forget, never forgive.
That seems like a GM problem friend. After a reasonable amount of time I think you just have to rule something as a GM and hold to it.
I'm sorry, I can't understand your third sentence.
My players love milestone leveling, so your claims are unfounded.
so, what i'm taking from this is that you can only gain a sense of accomplishment if you get to watch a number tick up, regardless of what's caused that number to tick up
BUT only if there's a good chance that number isn't actually going to do anything when it ticks up, and only if it varies from the numbers possessed by other people
is that right?
Seems like lots of people don't understand one of the core tenants of alignment: your actions determine your alignment, your alignment shouldn't really determine your actions in any radical way.
Also chaotic neutral =/= chaotic retarded
I had a chaotic retarded fighter instakill me mid-argument because he reasoned that his alignment justified an action surge after I was already unconcious.
If a player's reasoning for any action is "well my alignment is X and that's what someone with that alignment would do" they've missed the fucking point.