DM-player conflict; input appreciated

[gizmo33]

Having read the posts to date, I'll add:

1. Find a system (faith points) to reward Bob for playing a cleric, or grant abilities only after satisfactory play. Really, I can't figure out why the "Bob sells his celestial lion to a circus" scenario is such a problem. I have had such characters in my campaign, they're called "fallen paladins" and they make great raw material for death knights. Granted, some of the subtleties of really taking an interest in your faith would be hard to police - but alignment issues are pretty easy - all it takes is some will as a DM to enforce the rules.

2. Consider that a "total combat machine" is really a legitimate character type and so Bob is playing his character according to a "total immersion" style if you just would accept what his character really is - a combat machine. Now such a character is somewhat boring, I'll give you, but I would suggest looking to the other players for entertainment. Finally, if you're a DM, consider playing your NPCs - deities included - with the same total immersion style that you expect from your players. Stop fretting about the player acting insane and instead have your NPCs react as if the character were insane.

Bob: "I have rights."
NPC Tyrant: "Really? So then you must be a member of the nobility. Great, then tell me what your lineage is so that I may confiscate your property as you're being executed."

Ie - if the DM stays in character then it doesn't really matter if the player wants to learn the campaign culture or not. Granted - ideally you'd want the player to recognize that the Bill of Rights does not apply to your fantasy world, but even hard-headed players IME will eventually stop bringing it up once they're tired of NPCs laughing at them.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Don't judge me. I'm expressing frustration.

I'll judge the manner in which you express your frustration, since you've seen fit to air it in public.

Seriously, I game with friends. I can't imagine logging on to a website and finding someone I game with referring to me as a parasite in their ass.

 

[Thundering_Dragon]

In our view, clerics are not just "guys who cast divine spells." That's absurd to us. They are a chosen few, exalted individuals ordained by God(s) to prosectue holy wars, defend the faith, and live up to the same ideals that real-world Christian clergy, Islamic clerics, or Buddhist monks aspire to. It's not a role to treat lightly; we don't use the standard D&D gods, instead, we form our own cosmologies and homebrew religions that are more "true-to-life." This is how the majority of us, especially we three DMs, enjoy the game. We always warn people thinking of playing divine PCs that this is the standard they must role-play--they must play divine proxies and emissaries of their deities. Guys who just want to be self-buffing fighters have plenty of other character options (battle sorcerers, fighter/wizards, psychic warriors, etc...there are tons of other ways to play this role if that's all you want to do).

By doing that, you're making a set of abilities define a characters role in a game, not the other way around. Barbarians do not have to be wandering savages from the harsh northern lands or a wild nomad, they could simply be a street thug that grew up in an enviroment that didn't allow for much learning or culture, but did test them to their physical limits and beyond.

Rogues do not have to be a young orphan who joined the Thieves Guild just to survive, or a canny smuggler who looks out for no one but himself. They could in fact be a cultured son of a nobles family that has had extensive training in court intrigue, counter espionage, and protecting themselves from possible Assassins who may attempt to target them due to their stature and position.

These are just two examples of course, but the point is the character should define the class, not the other way around. Have you considered creating an archetype for Bobs characters that does not require devotion to a religious faith or philosophy, but simply allows the students of that discipline to draw upon the metaphysical forces of the multiverse to strengthen themselves?

Sure, he's a "Cleric" on the character sheet, but that doesn't mean that's what he is or has to be in the game world.

 

[ForceUser]

To gizmo:

I appreciate your perspective, friend, but unfortunately, such things have been tried with Bob and they always lead to arguments. When we say that he doesn't "get" story concerns, we mean it. In your first example, turning his paladin into a death knight is the same as killing his character in our games. We don't allow evil PCs. Thus, Bob would take it as an offense that we would handle his PC in such a way. He has a hard time separating "in-character" events from "out-of-character" events, and this leads to much frustration for everyone involved. He often assumes rulings unfavorable to his character are an act of vindictiveness on the part of the DM, when in fact it is simply the DM having his NPCs react appropriately to the situation.

I don't know how you run your games, and I'm not judging you, but in our games, a paladin is a holy exemplar of the faith, and would not whore out his celestial axiomatic dire lion mount just to make a few gold pieces. But when the DM in that game, Hjorimir, pointed out how un-paladinlike such an action would be, Bob became defensive and angry, and a game-stopping argument ensued. I remember that day clearly. I shudder. There are many more examples of such arguments from over the years.

 

[ForceUser]

I'll judge the manner in which you express your frustration, since you've seen fit to air it in public.

Seriously, I game with friends. I can't imagine logging on to a website and finding someone I game with referring to me as a parasite in their ass.

Like I said, he's Hjorimir's friend, and I'm sick of him and his behavior. And I don't mince words.

 

[gizmo33]

In our view, clerics are not just "guys who cast divine spells." That's absurd to us. They are a chosen few, exalted individuals ordained by God(s) to prosectue holy wars, defend the faith, and live up to the same ideals that real-world Christian clergy, Islamic clerics, or Buddhist monks aspire to. It's not a role to treat lightly; we don't use the standard D&D gods, instead, we form our own cosmologies and homebrew religions that are more "true-to-life." This is how the majority of us, especially we three DMs, enjoy the game. We always warn people thinking of playing divine PCs that this is the standard they must role-play--they must play divine proxies and emissaries of their deities. Guys who just want to be self-buffing fighters have plenty of other character options (battle sorcerers, fighter/wizards, psychic warriors, etc...there are tons of other ways to play this role if that's all you want to do).

As I said then - play your deities accordingly. You're a DM, and you've got a deity NPC to play - and here he has a rogue cleric that isn't acting within the bounds of the faith. Why is this frustrating? Your deity says (cue Darth Vader voice): "Bob, I find you're lack of faith disturbing. You have failed me for the last time." There's no reason to prevent Bob from creating a cleric character, just have him deal with the consequences!

It's a great idea to use "real world" faiths as an example because real world faiths include TONS of examples of people failing to live up to their ideals and the consequences are varied and lead to plenty of role-playing opportunities. Of course reading too much of the religious history of humanity might cause you to re-examine your (IMO) idealistic conception of the cleric and religion to begin with. IMO there is nothing "true to life" about a game system that can't accomodate the Bob's of the world because I can guarrantee you that there have been plenty of "Bobs" at the highest levels of all religious heirarchies.

 

[IcyCool]

Like I said, he's Hjorimir's friend, and I'm sick of him and his behavior. And I don't mince words.

Keep in mind that we're on a Grandma-friendly board here. And some people are sensitive.

 

[ForceUser]

Sure, he's a "Cleric" on the character sheet, but that doesn't mean that's what he is or has to be in the game world.

I hear what you're saying, and even agree to an extent. But in our games, at the end of the day, cleric means "blessed with divine power and exalted purpose." We want the players of such PCs to be onboard with that concept. If they're not, they're welcome to play something else. We make this clear at the beginning of each campaign. It's not a secret.

 

[ForceUser]

Keep in mind that we're on a Grandma-friendly board here. And some people are sensitive.

Overly-sensitive. But, yes, you're right. I don't want my frustration with Bob to boil over into arguments with random board members. Thanks.

 

[ForceUser]

As I said then - play your deities accordingly. You're a DM, and you've got a deity NPC to play - and here he has a rogue cleric that isn't acting within the bounds of the faith. Why is this frustrating? Your deity says (cue Darth Vader voice): "Bob, I find you're lack of faith disturbing. You have failed me for the last time." There's no reason to prevent Bob from creating a cleric character, just have him deal with the consequences!

It's a great idea to use "real world" faiths as an example because real world faiths include TONS of examples of people failing to live up to their ideals and the consequences are varied and lead to plenty of role-playing opportunities. Of course reading too much of the religious history of humanity might cause you to re-examine your (IMO) idealistic conception of the cleric and religion to begin with. IMO there is nothing "true to life" about a game system that can't accomodate the Bob's of the world because I can guarrantee you that there have been plenty of "Bobs" at the highest levels of all religious heirarchies.

I hear what you're saying, man, and I agree in concept. The point I'm trying to make is this: if Bob played a "rogue cleric" and lost his powers, he would take personal offense, accuse the DM of being unfair, cause a big stink, and ruin the fun for everyone at the table. And then where would we be? :\