Rant about my Party

[GMforPowergamers]

Don't want to derail this into an alignment debate, but...

Sorry, but any character with a "good" written on their sheet who is not in any way really mentally unstable would not even consider burning down buildings with innocents inside. Especially not if said person has above average intelligence (wizard) and therefore will 100% be able to think through the (letal) consequencs of his actions.

CN? Small maybe. But only if that person is a pyromaniac and/or hates kids.

once again I said more chaotic less good.

However, I think that once you get to the point where you even talk about alignment as 'should' you are in the danger zone of 'my character wont do that" and "I'm only playing my character

 

[Chaosmancer]

once again I said more chaotic less good.

However, I think that once you get to the point where you even talk about alignment as 'should' you are in the danger zone of 'my character wont do that" and "I'm only playing my character

See, I just see that saying my character wouldn't do that being called out as a problem again and again, but sometimes that is exactly the situation you find yourself in.


I make a Paladin of Devotion, it works fine for the most part, but then halfway through the campaign the party wants me to lie to a judge I befriended to get our informant out of jail. I tell them "my character won't do that" because lying to an authority figure like that completely goes against my character, am I really in the wrong? I'm not saying the Paladin goes and confesses our crimes to the Judge and helps hunt down the party for breaking the law, I'm just saying he is not going to lie to the judge, just like he has always never lied to the judge, because becoming a liar breaks with his oath and the basis of his character.


If I'm playing a follower of Waukeen who is the goddess of trade and economics, and the party wants to use illusion magic to purchase something we need, my character should object. His entire religion is based around the value of money and making sure the flow of trade works, using counterfeit coins is literally blasphemy against his goddess.


If saying "my character wouldn't do that" is always wrong and should be avoided, then the only way to do that is to make characters who never hold any sort of beliefs or codes at all. Unless you are going into a session zero and talking about every single moral question that could come up and agreeing on all holding the exact same set of beliefs. Neither one sounds exactly reasonable.

 

[Nagol]

See, I just see that saying my character wouldn't do that being called out as a problem again and again, but sometimes that is exactly the situation you find yourself in.


I make a Paladin of Devotion, it works fine for the most part, but then halfway through the campaign the party wants me to lie to a judge I befriended to get our informant out of jail. I tell them "my character won't do that" because lying to an authority figure like that completely goes against my character, am I really in the wrong? I'm not saying the Paladin goes and confesses our crimes to the Judge and helps hunt down the party for breaking the law, I'm just saying he is not going to lie to the judge, just like he has always never lied to the judge, because becoming a liar breaks with his oath and the basis of his character.


If I'm playing a follower of Waukeen who is the goddess of trade and economics, and the party wants to use illusion magic to purchase something we need, my character should object. His entire religion is based around the value of money and making sure the flow of trade works, using counterfeit coins is literally blasphemy against his goddess.


If saying "my character wouldn't do that" is always wrong and should be avoided, then the only way to do that is to make characters who never hold any sort of beliefs or codes at all. Unless you are going into a session zero and talking about every single moral question that could come up and agreeing on all holding the exact same set of beliefs. Neither one sounds exactly reasonable.

Are you wrong to play a character with consistency and values? No. It only becomes a problem when those values offer such conflict with the rest of the group that the session stalls and/or other characters become wholly stymied from their choice of action.

Feel free to say "My character wouldn't do that, but we can advance the situation by doing this instead". It's only when you can't add that second part that you've entered dangerous territory.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

See, I just see that saying my character wouldn't do that being called out as a problem again and again, but sometimes that is exactly the situation you find yourself in.


I make a Paladin of Devotion, it works fine for the most part, but then halfway through the campaign the party wants me to lie to a judge I befriended to get our informant out of jail. I tell them "my character won't do that" because lying to an authority figure like that completely goes against my character, am I really in the wrong? I'm not saying the Paladin goes and confesses our crimes to the Judge and helps hunt down the party for breaking the law, I'm just saying he is not going to lie to the judge, just like he has always never lied to the judge, because becoming a liar breaks with his oath and the basis of his character.


If I'm playing a follower of Waukeen who is the goddess of trade and economics, and the party wants to use illusion magic to purchase something we need, my character should object. His entire religion is based around the value of money and making sure the flow of trade works, using counterfeit coins is literally blasphemy against his goddess.


If saying "my character wouldn't do that" is always wrong and should be avoided, then the only way to do that is to make characters who never hold any sort of beliefs or codes at all. Unless you are going into a session zero and talking about every single moral question that could come up and agreeing on all holding the exact same set of beliefs. Neither one sounds exactly reasonable.

Its not out right bad, or wrong...but its in the danger zone... again and again I have seen way more problems made because people use it as an excuse. You the player are 100% in control of how your character thinks, and justifies things. If you truly feel he can't work with his fellow PCs you should change to one that can...

 

[Chaosmancer]

Are you wrong to play a character with consistency and values? No. It only becomes a problem when those values offer such conflict with the rest of the group that the session stalls and/or other characters become wholly stymied from their choice of action.

Feel free to say "My character wouldn't do that, but we can advance the situation by doing this instead". It's only when you can't add that second part that you've entered dangerous territory.

Yeah, I’m not saying I never give secondary options, but when they respond with “No, we’re doing the first thing” and they refuse to change their minds, that puts us at an impasse. An impasse that needs to be resolved by my character breaking with their morals and values because the rest of the party doesn’t want to try an alternate path.

You can’t be a consistently moral character if you stop adhering to those values once people put a little pressure on you.

Its not out right bad, or wrong...but its in the danger zone... again and again I have seen way more problems made because people use it as an excuse. You the player are 100% in control of how your character thinks, and justifies things. If you truly feel he can't work with his fellow PCs you should change to one that can...

I suppose in the context of character vs party, but it rarely starts out that way. Far more often you end up with Character vs character, and then the party takes sides and that’s when it becomes clear you have the party siding against you.

But, again and again, I get this line of “You the player are 100% in control of how your character thinks, and justifies things” and it doesn’t answer the problem. How does a character who believes in mercy supposed to justify a murder of convenience? How does a character who last session tore into their squire for white lies, because we taking an oath against lying, supposed to justify lying to make life easier on himself?

Sure, they can do it, but that just makes their beliefs weak, they don’t truly stand by their principles, they set them down when the time comes that they are inconvenient for the party.

Or, you have your character walk, leave the table, and come back the next week with a lying murdering bastard, and all the work and effort you point into your previous character and their connection to the story just turns to dust and is never mentioned again.


I don’t know, that “You are your character, make it work” line is just particularly aggravating, because every time I raised objections in character and we ended up talking about it out of character that was the line I got from them. You should back down and twist your characters beliefs and outlook until they can justify whatever the party wants to do, because your character isn’t a real person with internal logic, they are a set of numbers on a piece of paper and you are the one in the driver’s seat. I’m a writer, that just doesn’t make sense to me. A character has an internal logic that can’t just be overwritten because it would be more convenient for it to not be there. That isn’t how characters work.

 

[S'mon]

I think if you have in good faith created an adventurer-type character deemed suitable by the GM, and your PC has differences with the rest of the party, that is ok. But players & GM need to accept that sometimes differences are irreconcilable and PCs may not be able to work together.

I guess as GM I'd get annoyed with a group of players who refused to consider alternate Good or Lawful courses of action, especially as these tend to be wiser courses of action than murderhobo stuff...
I guess I might point that out to the group, but I'm reluctant ever to force things.

 

[Lanefan]

Are you wrong to play a character with consistency and values? No. It only becomes a problem when those values offer such conflict with the rest of the group that the session stalls and/or other characters become wholly stymied from their choice of action.

So what?

If one character wants to do something that another does not, there's either going to be a) someone conceding their morals, be they good or bad, or their entire character; or b) a great big argument, sometimes involving spells and weapons.

I have no problem at all with option b - provided the players can keep it in character - if a session gets bogged down in party infighting it's no skin off my nose as DM, it's not like I'm running to a schedule. And as player, just let us fight.

Its not out right bad, or wrong...but its in the danger zone... again and again I have seen way more problems made because people use it as an excuse. You the player are 100% in control of how your character thinks, and justifies things. If you truly feel he can't work with his fellow PCs you should change to one that can...

Conceding the character is an option; and in the OP's case might even lead to his retired character becoming a foe to the party - he knows what they're like, and what they're capable of doing if not stopped!

I guess as GM I'd get annoyed with a group of players who refused to consider alternate Good or Lawful courses of action, especially as these tend to be wiser courses of action than murderhobo stuff...

Good and-or Lawful actions are wiser about as often as they aren't - in other words, it's somewhat random based on context and circumstance.

Lan-"you might not like my usual approach as a player, which often largely consists of 'when in doubt, kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out'"-efan

 

[S'mon]

Good and-or Lawful actions are wiser about as often as they aren't - in other words, it's somewhat random based on context and circumstance.

Leaving aside Ned/Rob Stark levels of Lawful Stupid, I don't find that to be the case at all.

 

[Nagol]

So what?

If one character wants to do something that another does not, there's either going to be a) someone conceding their morals, be they good or bad, or their entire character; or b) a great big argument, sometimes involving spells and weapons.

That can be fun.. and it does advance the situation.

I'm talking about more about things like (and these are all from my table or the forums)

• DM: "Let's get started! You all meet in the bar and.." Player:"My character wouldn't go there"
• Player B: "What do you mean Player A is an elf? I won't travel with an elf; it's in my backstory"
• Player A: "I'm not entering the crypt. I know it's our target but I have a pathological fear of the undead. I thought I would be able to force myself in when I agreed to come, but it is too much. I'm staying outside."
• (Most players): "It's agreed then, we explore the area on the other side of the portal for one day and then continue home." Player A: "No! I've changed my mind. I'm leaving. Since I'm the only one who can get out of here, I suggest anyone who doesn't want to be marooned come with me."

I have no problem at all with option b - provided the players can keep it in character - if a session gets bogged down in party infighting it's no skin off my nose as DM, it's not like I'm running to a schedule. And as player, just let us fight.
Conceding the character is an option; and in the OP's case might even lead to his retired character becoming a foe to the party - he knows what they're like, and what they're capable of doing if not stopped!
Good and-or Lawful actions are wiser about as often as they aren't - in other words, it's somewhat random based on context and circumstance.

Lan-"you might not like my usual approach as a player, which often largely consists of 'when in doubt, kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out'"-efan

I have little problem with infighting either. Actual infighting tends to advance situations quickly. The real killer is when the group refuses to infight despite reasons to do so and the game becomes completely stalled and/or the party is ripped in half with half going to help A and half not.

 

[Nagol]

Yeah, I’m not saying I never give secondary options, but when they respond with “No, we’re doing the first thing” and they refuse to change their minds, that puts us at an impasse. An impasse that needs to be resolved by my character breaking with their morals and values because the rest of the party doesn’t want to try an alternate path.

You can’t be a consistently moral character if you stop adhering to those values once people put a little pressure on you.

Right. So that's the time to dump the character. Much like a PC that offends the party's sensibilities, the PC with strong objections to party direction should either leave or be forced out. Hopefully, you can reprise the character in the future with a group more suited to its values.

I suppose in the context of character vs party, but it rarely starts out that way. Far more often you end up with Character vs character, and then the party takes sides and that’s when it becomes clear you have the party siding against you.

But, again and again, I get this line of “You the player are 100% in control of how your character thinks, and justifies things” and it doesn’t answer the problem. How does a character who believes in mercy supposed to justify a murder of convenience? How does a character who last session tore into their squire for white lies, because we taking an oath against lying, supposed to justify lying to make life easier on himself?

Sure, they can do it, but that just makes their beliefs weak, they don’t truly stand by their principles, they set them down when the time comes that they are inconvenient for the party.

Or, you have your character walk, leave the table, and come back the next week with a lying murdering bastard, and all the work and effort you point into your previous character and their connection to the story just turns to dust and is never mentioned again.


I don’t know, that “You are your character, make it work” line is just particularly aggravating, because every time I raised objections in character and we ended up talking about it out of character that was the line I got from them. You should back down and twist your characters beliefs and outlook until they can justify whatever the party wants to do, because your character isn’t a real person with internal logic, they are a set of numbers on a piece of paper and you are the one in the driver’s seat. I’m a writer, that just doesn’t make sense to me. A character has an internal logic that can’t just be overwritten because it would be more convenient for it to not be there. That isn’t how characters work.

You decide the original psyche of the character. You, as player, take actions in-game based on those decisions and input from the game world. However, you, as player, also have a responsibility to keep the game moving in a way that affords the other players having fun. How are you going to do that? It could be the original psyche gets redefined. It could be the character gracefully exits the group at the next port of call. Depending on the group social contract, it could be the character takes a principled stand and kills them, gets mowed down, or abandoned.

It can suck when you really want to play X, but the group can't tolerate it. If the group is running murder-hobos then bringing in a character with strong values can only lead to table drama. Look around the table, identify one or two players that you think would enjoy a game with X in it and either run it or find a DM who will.