Have you ever played a character with no reason to be on an adventure?

Have you ever played a character with no reason to be on an adventure?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KTkORGr37hw
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

No, because it's stupid and makes things hard for the GM.

>there are rumors about a shadowy figure in the outskirts of town a-
>not interested, my char is just a farmer

>a fight is breaking out in the local tavern a-
>not interested, my char is a shoemaker and he avoids this fight

>the local militia guard captain announces they are in dire need of men to fight the goblin raiders a-
>my char is a baker, why would he go on this

>so uhh user, why is your char here with the paladin seeking to fulfill his oath, the wizard looking for immorality, and the ranger who loves the thrill of hunt?
>lol i dunno he's just chatoic neutral and does random things

Just don't. You're just being a shitty snowflake and demanding the DM give you attention and reason for you to go on an adventure. Don't do that shit. If you want to play the ordinary townsguy who became an adventurer because of circumstances that happened to him, then incorporate those circumstances in your character's backstory from the start.

>the local militia guard captain announces they are in dire need of men to fight the goblin raiders a-
>my char is a baker, why would he go on this
Why wouldn't said baker go to fight off goblin raiders that can easily hit his village. Does he wish to see his neighbor slaughtered by goblins? His wife? His children?

Shit, got OP instead of user. Sorry about that.

No, but I often play characters whose only reason to be on an adventure is a desire to be on an adventure, or because their friend is on the adventure, or because they're bored and want to try something different.

What do you mean no reason? How do you explain them going on adventures then? Or are you saying like did we play some kind of SIMS campaign?

>the wizard looking for immorality
Go on...

He'd rather let the militia handle it.

All the time. Often what they do is simply their job, not an adventure. When that's not the case, they are busy with their plans and goals (and vices).

In a game about going on adventures?
No, why the hell would I? I'm counting characters that have no intrinsic reason in his background and that get dragged into it as arranged with the GM beforehand into this.

OK, roll 1d20 + baking proficiency.

You make that - times twenty silver coins over the week. We'll now continue with the session with everyone else while your character sits back and bake for the entire time...

Nah. Even if it was as dumb as "I'm broke and need the money," they always have a reason.

Sometimes I realize my character has no reason to be on a particular journey. Usually because the GM gave no intention as to what he was planning and/or I failed to communicate with the rest of the group to come up with a good background reason we all work together.

What reason does one go on an adventure anyway. I always struggled with this motivation, why am I doing this. Not that it isn't exciting and fun, but I have a hard time making up a reason beside to adventure to continue adventuring. Maybe I'm just Kazuma.

I always tell my players that when they make a character, keep in mind that they are adventurers. Also dont make a character that will not get along with anyone, its just edgy and doesnt work at all. Have a reason, and be able to socialize even though your character is bad at it...

>play a PI
>even have own office/apartment
>finish most problems in city and end up having to travel to another city
>my character decides to stay behind, i've got my own business after all
>end of session pops up and inform dm of this
>my character never really fit in with the others,
>dm says i can't, that i have to leave with party
>session ends with me returning to my office/apartment seeing the entire building almost all burnt to the ground
>a glyph of the cult we were clearing out of town was left on a post with a note
>basically saying 'don't come after us'
>dm looks at me 'wel it looks like you have to get revenge on them
>didnt go to the next 2 sessions
>showed up with new character, dm was angry, made me level down to level 1 when we had previously left off at level 7
>dont go to anymore session

pic semi related

I actually adore characters who don't get along with others but are stuck doing the same job anyways. The best party I was ever in had everyone out for themselves at the beginning, trying to find ways to dick each other over without ruining their job, and even after they'd grown into actual companions they still spent so much time jabbing at each other.

I can tell you as both a player and GM that its a pain in the dick when nobody in the group has any character motivation.
I'm all for figuring out the details of my characters through role play but you need to start with a pretty good idea of where you want to take it.

Yes. Because the execs demanded younger characters to better market to our core demographic. Also because having a queen in your debt is better than dong mundane work on the street.
Basicly, money.

Considering the circumstances, FF XII did a pretty decent job at integrating Vaan and Penelo. Vaan's interactions with Basch prevent Ashe from going all total war on the empire and Penelo's relationship with Larsa fleshes out the empire a good deal.

Destroy evil
Find lost artifacts
The thrill of combat
To grow as a warrior
To make money
It's the road your god called you to walk
Make the world safer
Uncover lost knowledge
Have an excuse to kill
It's what your parents did
To see things that nobody else will ever have the chance to see
You are suicidal and looking for an honorable way to kill yourself

Usually it's a matter of being able to put yourself into the mindset of a person who can do impressive things, and looks to to put those skills to use. Anybody can swing a sword. Not anybody can fight three vampires at once.

No. However, there's a trope I really like which is "The character absolutely doesn't want to go on an adventure and has no reason to do so but is compelled to"
It's the treatment i give to the players who don't give their characters enough backstories. It's fun seeing someone -be it a nobody, a seasoned fighter, or a retired mage- reluctantly go on a journey. It's even better if he has to argue with his companions in misfortune.

She did get kidnapped and used as bait to lure out Balthier and the gang. Beyond that, considering she was in the know about the fucked up shit in the background can you honestly just say you'd go back to Rabanastre and pretend everything is A ok?

mundane dong work on the street is still honourable work.

>mundane dong work

Vaan being the viewpoint character made sense once you realized he was the shared sidekick of all three main characters.

Penelo, the sidekick's sidekick, was kinda confusing though.

She's good for my boner.

I usually just steal plot points from Barry Lyndon.

Given that the militia would normally be made up of able-bodied members of the community, the baker's refusal to serve could have IC consequences.
Eg.:those that don't take their turn serving have to pay more tax to help support those that do; they don't get any say on the village council/aren't considered adults; have to deal with a reputation for cowardice (insults, bullying, attempted extortion,etc.); loss of business ("don't shop there, they're not decent people"); suffer penalties to all social interactions with others from same place; etc.

No, but many of my fellow players and even some of my own players have done this countless times. They're almost as bad as the antisocial fuckwits that even more players seem to come up with that have no reason or willingness to be in an adventuring party.

I've made characters that were "forced" into adventuring, often following that very call thereafter, but that doesn't mean they had no reason to or weren't capable of becoming an adventurer.

Yeah this. That guy immediately stands out to me because he's got the most interesting motivation. If I were the GM, you can bet I'd incorporate that into the game.

Once, then I understood that I'm a deadweight to everyone and decided to reroll.

Not directly, no, but I did make a character who had no reason for sticking with the party, and didn't work for the campaign as such. Struggled a bit, ultimately let them leave and made a new character with more attachment.

Once DM'd a game where one of the four characters was an expert on agriculture and fuck all else (mediocre physical stats and no combat or survival skills) being escorted by the others to investigate a blight. Was pretty fun.

Penelo is Vaan's sort of big sister/ kind of has strange feelings for him. She basically wants to make sure his daydreaming about being a sky pirate doesn't get him put in jail or killed. There was a war, and they're in an occupied city. Vaan's parents died of plague and he's kind of reckless and needs someone to rein him in. She tags along with him on the adventure to look after him.

Kay but that guy has a reason to be there. You can be a total flunkie at combat but still be narratively important.

OP is talking about characters with zero relevant skills and no actual desire to be a member of the party.

Well that would be stupid

And yet it happens.

You think?

Few players are more insufferable than ones who have no interest in actually playing with the party. My most hated subspecies of this player is what I call the "bunker player". The guy who immediately ignores everything the party does, and designed his character to focus on independently acquiring money to fund his ultimate plan of building a bunker with full amenities to hide from the game in. These guys don't care about the plot, the other players, or the game itself. They just want to play an RPG version of those business tycoon games and will let out squeals of actual physical pain if their characters are ever injured. It's bizarre.

Counterpoint: having your own personal base is fun.

The trick is to eventually put wings on it and tow it along with the party.

Yeah but having your own personal base solely so you can hide from the game is boring and contributes nothing.

We had someone like this in my old group and the GM eventually just stopped inviting him because he contributed nothing as a player.

Broke: having a personal base so that you can hide from the party quests.
Woke: participating in the party quests so that you can afford your sweet personal base.

I played a character with every reason to get off the adventure, he just couldn't.

I always felt as though my last Eclipse Phase character was kind of just along for the ride. He was generally in it for the money, but it felt like a shit motivation :/

That's when you conscript them into the infantry and send them on a one way trip to the front-lines in old freight wagons

Yes, a few times, but that was in a setting with the idea that "Adventure" finds you.

I Do have an idea to play a Farmer NPC, who has no interest in "Adventure", but by god that lich fucked his farm and someone's gotta put a stop to it.

>Militia
>Grown man in village/town
>Not in said Militia.
Is tour PC also crippled?

That should be a shared thing with the rest of the party, though, not just one player's pet project.

Had a character that lost all reasons to adventure, so he retired and I rolled up a new character with a new reason and we continued the game. This doesn't need to be hard.

Yeah, well, I wasn't the party leader, I was the Disgraced Foreign Swordsman.

So when we finished the relevant arc, I naturally sank my newfound wealth into reestablishing my dojo and retired, because this was the in-character thing to do. And when I got called back into action for the Save-the-World followup, I moved the dojo onto an airship, because this was the fucking awesome thing to do.

I've played a character who didn't want to go on adventure, but keeps missing every chance to escape.
Eventually, it became a recurring joke that he'd be distracted or otherwise indisposed to every opportunity offered to get out.

youtube.com/watch?v=KTkORGr37hw

Do you not know what a militia is? Here's an example
>(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
Pic somewhat related.

No, but my player has every fucking time he makes a character. Then he comes crying to me that he has no reason to participate, even though I fucking told him that he keeps making characters with no reason to participate and that he needs to fix his bad habit.

The big problem is that I don't think he knows that people can be emotionally self-motivated to do things. You don't need a fucking backstory that co-aligns with your party members and the supposed main quest (I run sandbox games btw) of the game.

Well, yeah, people often have their own reasons for doing things, and that includes adventurers, if not doubly so. How autistic and/or intellectually stunted do you have to be to not understand that?

Like, I can actually understand some people thinking that a character with no concrete reason to go on an adventure, getting pulled into a life of such, might be an interesting premise when handled well and with the understanding that they shouldn't hold the party back with that sort of thought. However, making a character inherently incapable of getting involved with the party or being incapable of participating in their activities is really just quite stupid, even for inexperienced players.

>To make money

Big pitfall, because why would one need the money? That's the motivator!

Running from something is a fair motivation as well. Or perhaps there is some kind of mystery that compels one to find out what the answer is.

>BIG HUMAN BUNDA IN MY FACE

do you know what a militia is

Yes, but it only really works if they're being pulled into things unwillingly, and it can be a sort of comedic point that they don't want to be there.

I played a character in SoS who was a low-level functionary at the church, He had been a great swordfighter in training but had dropped it after wounding a sparring partner and become a monk. But, my character's brother (another player) kept roping him into these stupid political adventures where we'd end up fighting a bunch of elves one day or a bunch of niggers riding giant kiwis with rifles the next day.

Every adventure would end with everyone laughing and dividing up the loot, and then finally end with my guy going back to work and getting chewed out by the head of his monastery for going missing for a day. It was hilarious.

Basically it worked because I never made things harder for the party, I just made things funnier. It's like a sort of medieval One Punch Man, where sure sure you need to save the kingdom and all that, but ALSO you need to get back home in time to make the deadline on clerical work.

Sadly both of my characters have started like this. I've managed to salvage the first one with some plot, the second one is still a bit sketchy ,but my DM says he's got a bit to work with from me.

The main problem is that both campaigns started as "oneshots" so I didn't plan ahead, at least the second one isn't "Edgy Russian Assassin #69420"

>there are rumors about a shadowy figure in the outskirts of town a-
>not interested, my char is just a farmer

3 days after your village and farm are invaded by an undead force. Now it's fight or die.

>a fight is breaking out in the local tavern a-
>not interested, my char is a shoemaker and he avoids this fight

The militia captain enter the taver and stop the fight. He decide to arrest every folk in the tavern that night.

>the local militia guard captain announces they are in dire need of men to fight the goblin raiders a-
>my char is a baker, why would he go on this
>so uhh user, why is your char here with the paladin seeking to fulfill his oath, the wizard looking for immorality, and the ranger who loves the thrill of hunt?
>lol i dunno he's just chatoic neutral and does random things

Actually that could work.

All of those things are retarded. Kill yourself.

Because player ignoring threat around them and then facing the consequences is bad.

Have you ever played a campaign that is build around what players do and not your fantasy realm ?

Why are you talking about campaigns that are built around players while proposing railroading? Actually, I'll answer that one: because you're retarded.

Most characters I play these days yeah... but their tend to end up in situations they can't get out of because of some jerk all powerful controlling force.

I've had it where their reason to be adventuring is taken away and just makes the whole experience hollow.

Otherwise this is why we employ what is known as "The call to adventure" you disrupt a characters regular boring life and force them to make a stand, ala Luke Skywalker when his aunt and uncle are fucking murdered.

It's not hard to give someone a reason to adventure, I made a married Paladin go on an adventure because his wife was nagging him about getting a bigger house, adventure was the quickest way to get the money and meant he didn't have to hear her nagging for however long the adventure takes

Like the guy before you said, Penelo was the sidekick for Larsa, the fourth main character.

Well i play a rat catcher in a warhammer fantasy game. He doesn't really follow the party. He just knows wherever they go there are rats.
If you want his personality, he is kinda like the goblin slayer. But with Rats and skaven. I recently had the idea to pay an alchemist to make a bomb arsenic gas. To kill rats ( and skaven as we found some underground. My character infuriates a noble and an elve in our merry party because he maintains they are just " big rats."
Aside from that, he actually helps them on other things. He kinda like them. He just don't care for their objectives.

His dreams is to kill all rats. And skaven.
Especially with his new gas bomb.

Now if only the party itself was relevant to anything and not just a bunch of angry Dalmascan Nationalists killing the guy who freed all of humankind from oppression.

>>the wizard looking for immorality
>Go on...


Why you wouldnt look for imortality if its possibvle to be done?

>Do you not know what a militia is? Here's an example
maybe he is a anti gunner from usa

It's worth remembering that real humans make irrational decisions based on gut feeling or instinct all the time. Your character should have a goal they want to achieve, of course.

I think you misread that user

No, I'm not retarded.
I change my character to fit the narrative or ask the dm for a change in story if its not too much to ask.

>why would one need the money?
Hookers and blow.

>that pic

I feel obligated to point out that no matter how you choose to interpret the 2nd Amendment, it is undeniable that whatever it says about your right to possess and carry firearms, it says nothing about your right to buy, sell, or manufacture them.

Which is, personally, my solution, or at least part of it, necessitated by the gun culture that exists in and is pretty unique to the USA, to its own detriment.

Step 1: Fine, whoever currently has assault weapons can keep them and use them in whatever legal way they see fit as is their Constitutional right; we're never going to amend away the 2nd Amendment. But civilians buying, selling, or making them should be illegal.

Step 2: Government program to buy assault weapons from civilians at whatever would be a reasonable price for one (AR-15s usually range between $500-$700, for example). It is entirely voluntary (you are not required to sell your firearms by any means) and, obviously, an exception to the above law (i.e., we're not trying to pull a "gotcha!"). Purchased weapons are either given to the military or the police if they meet military or police standards and are needed by the military or police; or are destroyed.

Step 3 depends on how well step 2 goes, but it ranges anywhere from "expand the above buyback program to include all guns (participation is still entirely voluntary)" but take no further action; to pulling a full Australia and making the buyback program mandatory for anything more than a handgun or hunting rifle (this is my favored option); to an attempt to amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment.

Pursuit of happiness bitch.

>whatever it says about your right to possess and carry firearms, it says nothing about your right to buy, sell, or manufacture them.
Horseshit. The right to "buy, sell, or manufacture" them is inherently part of the right to bear arms. Anyone who is not an utterly obtuse cunt can see that.

The 1st Amendment doesn't specifically say you have the right to make a printing press in order to distribute your speech...but it doesn't have to because that shit is fucking implied. The protections on freedom of religion doesn't specifically say you have the right to build churches...except of fucking course a law saying you can't build churches would be unconstitutional. The ability to manufacture and acquire arms is visibly an integral part of the RKBA.

Never forget that gun controllers are disingenuous cunts who will perform any mental gymnastics to treat the RKBA as different from any other civil liberty and, no matter how much they claim to want to "compromise," taking guns by force is always their end goal.

Sometimes it takes me a few sessions to really figure out what my character's motivation is. Particularly when the GM would rather introduce the reason of the adventure through the story rather than in a pre-game summary.

I had a particular minor crisis for the first five or six sessions of my current campaign because I could not, for the life of me, figure out why the hell my character was parading around with the other characters, because he had no real reason to do it than "he's a PC." But he was eventually gifted a talking necromantic bow, and finally motivation was beginning to set in. That, and the plot became a lot more obvious shortly after.

...how can we have a right to possess and carry firearms without a right to buy or manufacture them? Wouldn't this be a little like having the right to legal counsel but not being allowed to ask for a lawyer?

>I want a lawy-
>Too bad, there doesn't happen to be one here :^)
>But I have a right-
>Yeah, and if you had a lawyer with you, you'd have every right to his counsel, too bad you don't happen to have one with you right now :^)

>Particularly when the GM would rather introduce the reason of the adventure through the story rather than in a pre-game summary.
This can work great, really, just so long as the reason for adventure comes up, you know, before they start adventuring. Six sessions is absurd, what the hell happened for six whole sessions before the plot hook?

Once again, this is why session zero is important. Issues like character motivation would come up if there were a pre-game session dedicated to sorting out characters and setting and story.

Also, it is indeed a player's job to provide a character who would work well with the rest of the party. Being willing to actually travel and adventure with the party is a part of that.

But assault weapons aren't real, user. They're a bullshit term made up by liberal politicians to scare people. "Assault weapons" are just modern rifles with features stupid people think look scary, like pistol grips.

Attached: 13043860586.png (1225x569, 53K)

I'm exaggerating a bit, probably took more like two or three sessions.

That said, I don't really have a problem with the GM keeping the core conflict secret until it comes up in the game, as it makes plenty of narrative sense. But they also need to find a way that gets all characters to see a reason on why said conflict is important. In our case, it was the discovery of a drow kingdom using demonic powers as a way to attempt to conquer the home kingdom of most of the party.

I made the mistake of making my character too indifferent to most things at the time, but I've long since turned him around and straightened out his priorities.

Non-american but even as a gun grabber myself...pistols are really what people should be mostly focusing on. Pistols are pretty much the #1 weapon for crimes to be committed with, since they are concealable and light so you can easily carry them about, a valuable factor when you are working out what's available for crimes of passion or any crime that involves leaving your house and planning to ever come back. Assault Weapon is just a weird term for me.

Fair enough, certainly I've run plenty of games where the "real" plot wasn't revealed for some time. Hell, I'm currently running one that's been going on since May of last year and the players only just now found out what's actually going on. But on the other hand, they've always started with something else happening instead so that there's something to do and a plot thread to follow until the real plot is revealed. That, and my game started with every PC having to be connected to a mercenary company in some way, though not every PC was a soldier they all had a reason to be in general proximity to one another and go in the same direction.

Pistols are pretty much the #1 weapon for self-defense, too. And it's still forbidden by our laws, as well as being an obvious part of the RKBA.

Loose gun laws aren't just some weird 18th-century law or obtuse rule we all know is outdated but cling to anyway. The right to keep and bear arms is in America a basic essential civil liberty on the same order as the right to free speech and everything else. It's not something we can, or should, just pick and choose and cherrypick and ignore when convenient. Pistols are arms and they have lawful function. We shouldn't ban them, either.

>no reason to be on an adventure?
I don't get this. It is so easy to come up with a reason.
>I am broke and want to make money
>I am board and want excitement
>I want to test my skill
>I want to develop my talents
>X killed my Y and I want revenge
>X tried to kill me so I will show X
>I want to prove I am worthy of X's romantic love
>I want to prove I am worthy of my family's titles
>My race/tribe/group hates that race/tribe/group so I want to kill them

>I am board and want excitement

Attached: 1421988733307.jpg (720x384, 60K)

I've been in the opposite situation where I played a character that had every reason to adventure, but the GM sidelined that to make everyone RP working a 9-5 job.

Oh god, I once got roped into playing a campaign with a bunch of my brother's hipster bandmates and friends and half the party was like this. Those guys spent the entire time constantly trying to subvert the DM, who later told me that not only was it taking two or three sessions to get through each session's planned materials but that he also had to substantially rewrite the campaign after almost every session. Oh, and almost all of them played carbon copies of existing characters (one of them insisted on being the fucking dog from Adventure Time, for fuck's sake) and then constantly complained that their level 1 characters weren't as strong as the ones they'd ripped off.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the mid-20s grown man who threw a tantrum because the DM wouldn't let him be literal Batman in a medieval setting.

Sadly, yeah, some DMs like to run their games as really boring video games. I think a lot of them never get the memo that games like D&D aren't actually fun in the way MMOs are, and so they just assume that players want to get into fights constantly.

That's a big part of why I started running more free-form games, the people that wanted to play those wanted to roleplay more than they wanted to "play D&D". Impromptu acting is hard to get into, but once everyone's comfortable with it, players who were previously talking about their bard modelled off of a flavor-of-the-week meme musician are making really nice characters and leading the table in interrogating people. Lack of adventuring motivation usually just means they aren't looking at the game right, and fixing that just requires you to work out what they need to entice them in.

Freeform really gets a bad rep, it's not all about teleporting behind each other for reasons that aren't personnel. It's just that the good groups are usually pretty insular so they're not overrun with those types. Those who 'get' freeform are inevitably wonderful roleplayers.

Wow look at these mental gymnastics. Are you trying out for the Special Olympics?

In my current campaign, our DM always has tons of encounters lined up that he never gets to showcase because we are just always dicking around, and I'm glad he lets us do this because we've had a LOT of good characterization throughout this. Granted, we are trying to make this a "long, perpetual campaign," but it's been a lot nicer than "WAH I HAVE ALL THESE GREAT ENCOUNTERS AND YOU DON'T WANT TO FIGHT THEM." We actually just picked up a character that is really great from a RP standpoint because he was the foil we needed for one our snootier posh type characters, since the other two party members (myself included) are kind of "whatever mane" and the other party member is technically a lacky to the snooty one.

If I wanted to play a dungeon crawler I'd just play video games or something. desu.

Yeah, it takes more skill to teach I think, but once you've got the expectations down, and the DM knows how to manage randomness in the game, it works out really well!

This is so pure and good I love it

Having banter between players is really important, can make even really weird systems really fun. I'm in a maidrpg group with really good banter between us and so it's actually fun, even if we are all roleplaying anime girls.

That was one of the things I liked about 5e D&D, they recognized that 4e put a lot of newer players in the mindset that it was a video game, and so a fair amount of the rulebooks talk up the roleplaying aspect. Party infighting became actually common, the game was a big drama between the group, the DM is encouraged like in writing to write in character's backstories, etc.

I played a Healer once who seriously had no reason to be an adventurer.
>Character name: Unfor Tunate
>Race: Human
>Class: Healer Lv6 (3.5 miniatures handbook)
>STR 15
>DEX 13
>CON 14
>INT 11
>WIS 19
>CHA 15
>AC: 13
>Average Die roll: 4
>He was originally made to be an NPC to be heal bitch to the party.
>quest is to go and investigate a ruined building of some sorts (details foggy)
>party encounters skeletons
>Unfor is the only one with a bludgeoning weapon (Morningstar)
>Party consists of Unfor, a retarded samurai, an unlucky fighter, and a... I want to say moron fighter
>Unfor is the only reason they managed to beat the skeletons in a timely fashion
>Proceed further into the ruins
>Unfor is hit by almost every trap, living up to his name
>Spends more than half his spells on himself
>Some how they complete the quest (probably a lot of forgetten fudging of the rules on my part)


>almost 6 months later in another campaign
>New party and i'm no longer the DM
>Party consists of a Ranger, a Fighter, a Paladin, and an alchemist of some sorts
>I'm playing ranger
>Ranger and Fighter but heads a lot
>End up fighting some sort of dragon at level 2
>Alchemist throws a bunch of potions together and feeds it to fighter
>fighter turns into a dragon, kinda explodes which was actually teleporting and reverting back to normal

remembering how much i hated this now, especially having a LOLrandom DM

>Fighter appears in Sigil
>meets loli drow and Unfor
>trouble with guards in sigil
>Unfor goes to pay guards to deal with situation
>ended up dumping out a bag of sunrods (20 or 30) and blinding guard and semi blinding loli drow
>go on shitty adventure through sigil
>end up on a spelljammer ship
>told to get back with have to jump overboard into a portal
>Unfor immediately leaps over the side because DM was terrible at conveying how far away portal is
>DM says that if unfor can roll a DC 25 concentration check he can reach the portal in time

>Unfor finally gets a skill check roll that is higher than 6
>Nat20
>for the first time in his life, he was able to focus 100% on something
>LOLrandom DM sees opportunity to turn this characters success into a failure
>Unfor focused so intensely that he got to the portal too early
>did not arrive where the other two were
>appeared in the artic with only leather armor for warmth
>Decides to fuck this shit i'm out and casts Create Water to freeze self
>DM retcons to being face raped by a polar bear and drowning for Polar Bear Spunk

Even in death this character ended up being completely incompetent and unable to defy his name. This character should never have been an adventurer and had no reason to do so other than a series of unfortunate events forcing him to. If i ever play another 3.5 game i may try remaking this character and hopefully have a better dm

>Anyone who is not an utterly obtuse cunt can see that.

I don't deny that you can choose to interpret it that way, if you want, but the point is that a strict reading of the Constitution does not prevent a complete ban on the sale or manufacture of assault rifles unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

>taking guns by force is always their end goal

"Mental gymnastics" is looking at America's murder rate - comparable to that of some African or Eastern European third-world shitholes - and then trying to convince yourself that, no, it has nothing to do with the ease at which Americans can acquire firearms.

In Japan in 2014 there were just six gun deaths. In America in the same year there were 33,599. Japan is a standout example of low rates of firearm-related murders, but all Western European countries have far lower gun murder rates.

You can't even blame black people anymore, though I'm sure you're eager to. That kid in Florida a few weeks ago killed 17 people. He killed nearly three times as many people as died in ALL OF JAPAN from guns in 2016. One person.

I honestly don't know where you get the balls to summon up some kind of moral outrage at the idea of taking guns away from people. No doubt you're going to want to go to "protect democracy" or "defend against the gubbmit" or something next. Except that Australia, Britain, Ireland, France, Spain, Germany, and so on, all have far stricter gun laws, and far less gun violence, and none of them are on the verge of collapsing into anarchist shitholes or transforming into Fascist police states - not matter what Breitbart would have you believe.

You're just an idiot.

>...how can we have a right to possess and carry firearms without a right to buy or manufacture them?

It's not unprecedented: in most states it's illegal for minors to BUY cigarettes, but one smoking a cigarette is perfectly legal. Nevada is the only exception, and even that is recent (2013).

Same basic principle.

Even the most stringent protection of free speech does not give someone the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, user, that's been agreed upon and acknowledged for more than a century. Likewise, no protection of religion will allow someone to commit flagrant animal cruelty or human sacrifice. The press is not allowed to print outright lies stated as truth, and assembly is only permitted when it is peaceable.

There are sane restrictions on the 1st amendment; why should there not be sane restrictions on the 2nd?