Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Double post.
Last edited:
Character Problem
- Thread starter Greenfield
- Start date
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Glad to hear that your new player isn't blatantly cheating-by-level-miscalculation. Hopefully he's just naive about the rules, and I'm looking forward to finding out how this all turns out!
Sorry, that got kind of ranty.
As an aside, I'm usually all about ignoring alignment restrictions. Most of them are BS. But when it comes to creating undead, I see it as fundamentally Evil. I don't like undead that are just "golems that happen to be made of corpse-flesh instead of stone." My idea of undead are corrupted monstrosities with mutilated souls; creating even a humble skeleton involves torturing and shackling a soul to its corpse against its will. So anyone who creates undead is pretty much evil by default.
Sorry, that got kind of ranty.
Greenfield
Adventurer
Well I spoke to the player tonight. He clarified that he was running a Dread Necromancer, not a True Necromancer.
He was under the impression that he could run a True Neutral and still be good with the Vow. He'd taken the Pure Soul feat in the mistaken belief that it protected him from any alignment consequence for casting spells with the Evil descriptor.
He insists that Vow of Poverty restricts magic but not masterwork, and thatI must have the 3.0 BOED. As far as I know, there's only the one edition, but he says that he'll bring his on Saturday. Mine says simple weapons, and never mentions armor at all. He thinks it's allowed, I'm not convinced.
He was under the impression that he could run a True Neutral and still be good with the Vow. He'd taken the Pure Soul feat in the mistaken belief that it protected him from any alignment consequence for casting spells with the Evil descriptor.
He insists that Vow of Poverty restricts magic but not masterwork, and thatI must have the 3.0 BOED. As far as I know, there's only the one edition, but he says that he'll bring his on Saturday. Mine says simple weapons, and never mentions armor at all. He thinks it's allowed, I'm not convinced.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Yea, he's flat wrong. There is no 3.0 BoED, the original book was 3.5.
Also, the Vow of Poverty is very strict. It's not a list of banned things the character can't have. The character is banned from owning anything EXCEPT the few things that are specifically allowed. So don't fall for a "oh, but it doesn't say I can't have masterwork items!" argument.
Take this from a guy who's both played and DMed a VoP character at one point.
Greenfield
Adventurer
I think our talk is going to be a long one.
He had his character cast True Seeing last week, as a way to spot the spirit of a dead man. As far as I know, True Seeingisn't on the Dread Necromancer's spell list.
He said that his last group had allowed Vow of Poverty for anyone of any non-evil alignment, so long as they avoided evil acts. He also seemed to think that the Pure Soul feat kept spells with the Evil descriptor from counting as Evil acts, that the feat protected the character from pretty much all alignment consequences. As I'm sure you're aware, it says no such thing. All it does is keep the character from acquiring Taint.
In our discussions of Vow of Poverty, I had my BOED in front of me and read the text to him over the phone. He swore that his PDF/book didn't say any of that. All his did was refer to the "Voluntary Poverty" section on page 29. After our call ended I dug in to see what he was talking about. On the table in the book that lists feats, the reference with the page number is there under the description for Vow of Poverty. Hard as it is to believe, I don't think he ever actually read the real feat text.
I don't think he's being willfully ignorant though. More of a blind spot.
Anyway, he'll be over for a game tomorrow, and he's said that he'll bring his PDF with him. I'll let him down as gently as I can.
He had his character cast True Seeing last week, as a way to spot the spirit of a dead man. As far as I know, True Seeingisn't on the Dread Necromancer's spell list.
He said that his last group had allowed Vow of Poverty for anyone of any non-evil alignment, so long as they avoided evil acts. He also seemed to think that the Pure Soul feat kept spells with the Evil descriptor from counting as Evil acts, that the feat protected the character from pretty much all alignment consequences. As I'm sure you're aware, it says no such thing. All it does is keep the character from acquiring Taint.
In our discussions of Vow of Poverty, I had my BOED in front of me and read the text to him over the phone. He swore that his PDF/book didn't say any of that. All his did was refer to the "Voluntary Poverty" section on page 29. After our call ended I dug in to see what he was talking about. On the table in the book that lists feats, the reference with the page number is there under the description for Vow of Poverty. Hard as it is to believe, I don't think he ever actually read the real feat text.
I don't think he's being willfully ignorant though. More of a blind spot.
Anyway, he'll be over for a game tomorrow, and he's said that he'll bring his PDF with him. I'll let him down as gently as I can.
Greenfield
Adventurer
I agree. His knowledge of rules seems to be extensive, but not intensive, if you know what I mean. That is, he knows about feats and classes and spells, without actually knowing the feats, classes and spells. And he seems a bit casual about the rules.
The other issue is that, while he wants to run this as a true neutral character, most of what the class is about is on the very very dark side. While the other players/DMs may or may not be comfortable with him, our characters are another story. They are by and large of Good alignment, and very few would willingly have any truck with a necromancer of any flavor.
So there are two layers of challenge for him to bring that character into the party.
Now I may be blowing things completely out of proportion here. I've played with the guy one time. If everyone's willing to bend a bit I'm sure it will all work out.
The other issue is that, while he wants to run this as a true neutral character, most of what the class is about is on the very very dark side. While the other players/DMs may or may not be comfortable with him, our characters are another story. They are by and large of Good alignment, and very few would willingly have any truck with a necromancer of any flavor.
So there are two layers of challenge for him to bring that character into the party.
Now I may be blowing things completely out of proportion here. I've played with the guy one time. If everyone's willing to bend a bit I'm sure it will all work out.
Greenfield
Adventurer
Odd. I replied earlier, and it vanished...
I see this as a two layered challenge. We need to both educate and accomodate the player, and our characters have to be able to get along with his.
As a player/DM/ his rules knowledge seems extensive, but not intensive. That is, he knows about rules, feats, classes and spells, but doesn't know the details of the rules, feats, classes and spells. I don't think it's malicious or dishonest, I think it's just him being a bit casual.
As a character, he's going to have to play a half-undead necromancer, trying to be true neutral, in a group of predominantly good characters. I pointed out to him that at some point the party would notice that he doesn't eat normal food, or would catch him drinking blood. He couldn't masquerade forever.
As for the book keeping... Well, that's up to the individual DMs. I'm okay with it myself. I plan to let him keep his own counsel on that, and then spot check just often enough to keep him honest. I don't think he'll willfully cheat, but he might be, shall we say, "mistake prone".
The thing I don't want is to become his rules-adversary. We all have to rein ourselves in in a game like ours, even as we keep an eye on each other. I tend to "explore" the rules a bit, and need to keep a lid on my own rules abuses. I'm hardly in a position to play sheriff on him, and really don't want the job. I'm sort of responsible though since I'm hosting the game at my home, and I'm the one who invited him and his girlfriend in.
Over all, I think a bit of flexibility on everyone's part will go a long way.
I see this as a two layered challenge. We need to both educate and accomodate the player, and our characters have to be able to get along with his.
As a player/DM/ his rules knowledge seems extensive, but not intensive. That is, he knows about rules, feats, classes and spells, but doesn't know the details of the rules, feats, classes and spells. I don't think it's malicious or dishonest, I think it's just him being a bit casual.
As a character, he's going to have to play a half-undead necromancer, trying to be true neutral, in a group of predominantly good characters. I pointed out to him that at some point the party would notice that he doesn't eat normal food, or would catch him drinking blood. He couldn't masquerade forever.
As for the book keeping... Well, that's up to the individual DMs. I'm okay with it myself. I plan to let him keep his own counsel on that, and then spot check just often enough to keep him honest. I don't think he'll willfully cheat, but he might be, shall we say, "mistake prone".
The thing I don't want is to become his rules-adversary. We all have to rein ourselves in in a game like ours, even as we keep an eye on each other. I tend to "explore" the rules a bit, and need to keep a lid on my own rules abuses. I'm hardly in a position to play sheriff on him, and really don't want the job. I'm sort of responsible though since I'm hosting the game at my home, and I'm the one who invited him and his girlfriend in.
Over all, I think a bit of flexibility on everyone's part will go a long way.
RUMBLETiGER
Adventurer
I'd like to recommend this thread to others in future as statements come up along the lines of, "OMGWTFBBQ my new player is a jerk/nazi/alien/cheater and I'm going to jump on him and kick him out of my house right away, from a second story window!"
It's funny how well calm, reasoned thinking and dialogue can circumvent relational and game drama. Cheers to you!
It's funny how well calm, reasoned thinking and dialogue can circumvent relational and game drama. Cheers to you!
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
I agree. Maybe this guy really is just incredibly "rules blind"...in which case he should probably be playing a simpler class, until he learns the ropes. If he's absolutely fixed on playing a caster, it shouldn't be a prep caster or any kind of theme that requires a lot of tracking.
For what it's worth, this isn't a horrible idea. VoP should have been presented as an option for players who don't want to deal with D&D's Diablo-loot minigame, not as a feat with alignment baggage. There's really no harm in tweaking VoP to be a character option open to everyone. (And while you're at it, you can fix what few VoP abuses do exist -- such as the VoP druid.)
Well this depends on what undead are in your group. Are they abominations resulting from soul-torture that are malicious toward life by their very twisted nature? Or are they golems that just happen to be made of corpse-flesh? (I.e., walking toasters) If the first is true, he probably shouldn't even be allowed to play an undead-controlling necro in a group of predominantly Good characters because it probably won't end well for anyone. If the second is true, making and creating undead isn't Evil; just distasteful. At worst, he'd be guilty of grave-robbing -- but maybe he bought those corpses from their living relatives, or maybe they're the corpses of executed criminals. Nothing inherently Evil.
