Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7818083" data-attributes="member: 6880599">Ya, "heads I win,  tails you lose for the paladin" I kind of feel like the Player is being judged for wanting to keep playing his character as stated by the OP:… This was not a character decision… this was a player decision to keep their character. On one hand that's meta gaming and on the other its very clear that the player believes the GM will kill his character. I am not against GMs making that clear but I have played under hostile GMs that would hunt my characters for the amusement of having power over me as a player. I am NOT saying this is a hostile situation, only that I understand the fear. This is a weird statement to me, because their are no murder hobo player actions here, the player is being defensive and the lowest adult dragon is CR13 meaning it can one shot the lvl 8 Player Character and the NPC in the same turn. …. without question. Bravery is fighting while your afraid, yes but its also keeping your cool in extreme danger. If the Paladin lets the dragon take the NPC then regroups with the plan to pursue the dragon when he has a chance to defeat it with the parties help, then he was brave to keep his cool and come up with a plan to defeat the dragon at a later date. On the other hand, if he just wiped he hands said, well glad I will never see that dragon again ran off never telling his party with no intent to stop the protect life from further actions of the dragon... then he is breaking the oath of ancients. If he intends to fight the dragon later and the party says "no way"... then he is still not breaking the oath but as a player not letting roleplay justify conflict at the table... which I try to consider as a player and try to get my players to consider when I GM.So before we judge the actions of the player I think its fair to look at the intent of the player and the GM... This murderhobo reference seems a bit anti player because its out of place but I can't say because I don't have any background.Again, this by the GMs admission seems to imply some GM frustration with the players character build. I have actually had a GM agree to a player choice to avoid debating it but then kill my character because they did not like choice at their table. Again, I am not saying that's what is happening here. However, I do feel like there is history before this impacting the desire to "punish the player" as the OP said. I think we have to consider if the problem is between the Player choosing to keep their character alive in order to keep playing it over roleplaying the class or if the this is a difference of play style between the player and GM in the meta that has come to conflict in the game. It could be either or both and I think as others have said, the first thing is for the GM to talk to the player. Punishing the player for wanting to keep playing their character is why I left a game myself. So if the GM does not want to lose the player but wants to put characters in no win situations, then the GM could have mentioned the possible consequence of not fighting before the player made their final call or if they GM really hates the character design then the should work that out IRL not in the game. At the same token, the player could recognize the divergence from the Oath of Ancients and completely except judgement as long as they can keep their oath since it was likely their goal to continue to be able to play that character. Changing them to an Oath Breaker as punishment would be the same as killing the character in that case since the GM is taking away how the player chose to play and making it the GMs choice.</blockquote>

Verification