PCs using their abilities - a favor to the party?

[Kahuna Burger]

Not really enough info here to say decisively, but it almost seems like you are breaking your own Rule #2 by pre-deciding what role the cleric should play, maybe you should add an asterisk to it that says *except for clerics who will heal all whether they like it or not.

You're right - you don't have enough info to say. The issue is not a cleric (or anyone else) who doesn't heal, or doesn't heal in combat. (Though if a party member is bleeding out and any character with the ability to heal simply decides not to because they are going for the glory, that could be an issue for everyone.) The issue is exactly what I stated it as, a player who decides that they are going to try to get the rest of the group to kowtow to their PC, or acts in a non cooperative fashion but still expects their "place" in the party to be uncontested.

Yes, clerics who are built as healers, or provided wands should heal anyone in the group who needs it. If you want to run a non healing cleric, fine, though you should let the group know that during character creation. If you want to save healing for after the fight, fine as well, though if you misjudge someone's need (and ability to withdraw) and they get killed, there might be two new characters entering the group next session, depending on how the aftermath works out...

What I do not tolerate is a cleric (or any other character) saying "I won't help YOU, until you butter me up a little more and run your character this way...." If you have a concern about group cohesion, good, so do I. If you want the other characters to ask pretty please with sugar on top for you to play your role in the party, that's the problem, not what you define your role in the party as.

(I gotta say, if the problem is feeling like a bandaid, demanding piety is a pretty passive aggressive "solution". Just talk to the group OOC and there's 101 mechanical and RP solutions out there.)

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I guess what interests me about this thread is that some people are getting all upset about something that could possibly add to their game's role playing: conflict.

or it could possibly detract from their games. I've played with enough different attitudes to know which it does for me.

It's true that different playstyles are different.

If you have mature role players who understand...

If you're playing with immature players, then by all means, don't try the high risk, high reward approach of playing your cleric in this manner. Otherwise, have the CHARACTERS, not the PLAYERS, fight it out.

Ah yes, the "if you enjoy my playstyle you are mature and good roleplayers and if you don't you are immature..." I think we're done here.

 

[Driddle]

My PC portrayal in-game is very much the same as my personal attitude in life: I share my gifts when it's the right thing to do or if I want to do it -- they're mine to give. But the moment someone expresses *expectation* that I must do something is when I shut down or start talking about a job contract.

So when I'm playing a cleric, I'll happily heal anyone who needs it during an adventure. Just don't even think about ordering me to do it because it's my "role." Ask nicely. Let's treat each other with the respect of reasonable, intelligent people and everything will work out just fine.

I don't tell you what to do with your resources. If you want to cast certain spells on certain people at certain times, then learn the dang spells yourself.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I'd respect a player that made it clear that his Cleric thought about his religion all the time and considered, out of battle, whether to heal or not. In battle, I'd be telling the Cleric whatever he wanted to hear if it meant I didn't get killed.

And after that battle? Would the other player respect you and the others for saying "I'm afraid we can't continue to adventure together, we'll travel together to the next town to show there's no hard feelings, but then we're going to part ways"?

The reason for my rule number 2 is that too often I see the guy "playing his character" but wanting to stay in the group. Kicking a character from the party is pretty aggressive, so the rest of the group comes up with reasons to put up with it, or the DM railroads everyone together, and then you have one guy playing his character, and everyone else NOT playing their characters because they want to actually have adventures, not spend 3 sessions on a drama fest and work in a new character mid adventure.

If everyone in the group likes party conflict and says so up front, have at it. I have had more than enough of that over the years and lay down the groundrules from the beginning.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

My PC portrayal in-game is very much the same as my personal attitude in life: I share my gifts when it's the right thing to do or if I want to do it -- they're mine to give. But the moment someone expresses *expectation* that I must do something is when I shut down or start talking about a job contract.

So, your idea of an adventuring party is a bunch of people who happen to be in the same place at the same time and might give each other the "gifts" of cooperation at any given moment? Interesting. As far as I'm concerned, the decision to work together towards a common goal is a job contract for all intents and purposes, and once I've agreed to work with a group of people I don't consider upholding that agreement a gift.

How bout if I ask nicely for you to come to the ruins and bring back the MacGuffin with me explicitly because of the abilities you have that can help me with that goal? If you say no, then that's fine, but if you say yes, I'm going to assume that you will do your part just as I'll do mine.

 

[Midknightsun]

And after that battle? Would the other player respect you and the others for saying "I'm afraid we can't continue to adventure together, we'll travel together to the next town to show there's no hard feelings, but then we're going to part ways"?

And I would agree here. If my party had a cleric who was withholding healing for "roleplaying purposes", I would roleplay a good reason not to have that character in the group. Trust me, it wouldn't be hard.

I understand not wanting to blow every spell on any nick and scratch the party gets, or being treated like you owe everyone healing, I wouldn't want that either . . but lets face it, the way the game is designed makes magical healing an unfortunate necessity. Withholding purely because "you don't follow my god", or some such nonsense is purely a powerplay. Healing is a very powerful resource, and attempting to use it to control the party would get that cleric quickly replaced with an NPC healer or a wand in my groups. Thre are more than enough other classes with the ability to use wands to make the cleric's "pious" threats relatively empty.

Now I have no problem with someone saying beforehand that their cleric is going to be more of a battlepriest, and healing won't be his top priority, as long as this is done before character creation. Nor do I have a problem with the scenario of a party member who violated some trust of the cleric or group at large with some sort of poor judgement call. That is, however, an understandable exception to the rule.

 

[Driddle]

So, your idea of an adventuring party is a bunch of people who happen to be in the same place at the same time and might give each other the "gifts" of cooperation at any given moment? Interesting. As far as I'm concerned, the decision to work together towards a common goal is a job contract for all intents and purposes, and once I've agreed to work with a group of people I don't consider upholding that agreement a gift.

How bout if I ask nicely for you to come to the ruins and bring back the MacGuffin with me explicitly because of the abilities you have that can help me with that goal? If you say no, then that's fine, but if you say yes, I'm going to assume that you will do your part just as I'll do mine.

Thanks for putting words into my mouth.

But to address your conclusion: Feel free to assume I'll do "my part." Assume away. I'll probably do what has to be done. Just don't tell me when and how I'm supposed to do it, like I'm your personal trained monkey or employee. ... I think you missed that point.

Good thing we don't play together, huh?

 

[Goobermunch]

or it could possibly detract from their games. I've played with enough different attitudes to know which it does for me.

It's true that different playstyles are different.

Ah yes, the "if you enjoy my playstyle you are mature and good roleplayers and if you don't you are immature..." I think we're done here.

If that's the case, we should have been done from day one, since the position you have consistently taken is that people who don't play clerics the way you think they should be played shouldn't be allowed to play at all.

You've decided how you think a cleric should be played, and people who don't do it your way get "A Little Chat (TM)." But the fact of the matter is that there are as many ways to play a cleric as there are people playing clerics. You may not like the way I play my cleric, but that doesn't mean that your way is the only way.

If I'm playing a lawful neutral cleric of the god of commerce, you can expect that I'm going to set up a rate table for healing. Not because I'm a jerk, but because it's immoral to provide value without compensation. Now, if we can agree on a suitably clear and detailed joint venture contract before we get started, I may be willing to provide my services to the group for a share of the returns on our venture. But it shouldn't be the expectation that I will.

No, actually, at least two people on this thread have commented on players who do this with clerics are problem players who find a way to be annoying with any character, and my opening post specificly asked IF it was a cleric thing or if people belonged to groups that were universally uncooperative.

AFAICT, the only people saying it's cleric only are the ones defending it as "not a problem".

Way to misread the thread. Just a few posts prior to your cleric only problem comment, you'll find Greylock's comment.

Oddly enough, speaking of fulfilling "party roles", I have played in games, some as recently as a year or so ago, where the party Barbarian with great-ax would refuse to go toe to toe with the bad guys, out of a Meta fear on the part of the player because he "only" had 14 HPs [at first level], leaving it up to the more roguish members of the party. Where the party Fighter [Paladin-type] would refuse to help my above mentioned Cleric when a manticore was dragging him off because he didn't agree with his un-Knightly take on life. When the Wizard wouldn't blast the approaching hoards with her best AoE spell because she was running low for the day. Where the party Rogue wouldn't touch traps because he was gunshy.

So why, for the love of all that is unholy, does every one feel compelled to pick on Clerics?

This, as I mentioned above in my previous post, is the SINGLE most un-fun aspect of playing a Cleric.

If you look, you'll also find Agamon's comment.

Bingo. People here are saying this is a Cleric Only problem. And maybe that's their experience, but it's not mine. Plenty of times I've seen PCs refuse to help each other because of in-game disagreements. Because of the hack'n'heal nature of D&D, the cleric's refusal to heal is maybe more obvious.

I've noticed that with the exact same players, they'll run a group of strangers and not work together much at all, but when they make a group of PCs from the same organization, disagreements are down and everyone's following the same game plan. I often insist that they make the latter type of group. While in-party disgruntlement has a place, it's a lot more fun when they get along.

Here, you see that at least one person has encountered this problem with Barbarians, Paladins, Wizards, and Rogues. It's not a cleric only problem, it's an issue that reaches all classes.

The only problem here is that you've decided that clerics need to be played your way, and if they're not, it's no fun for anyone else. In my experience, doing it the other way can also be loads of fun for people. Maybe my groups have a higher threshold for low-grade interparty friction than your groups.

But I'm happy to play with a broad variety of players and character types.

--G

 

[Kahuna Burger]

If that's the case, we should have been done from day one, since the position you have consistently taken is that people who don't play clerics the way you think they should be played shouldn't be allowed to play at all.

Way to misread the thread.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Thanks for putting words into my mouth.

Okay....

I think you missed that point.

Lot of that going around in this thread, I'd say...

Good thing we don't play together, huh?

Obviously we wouldn't for long.