Playing the crazed wizard of the party

[Felix]

Evil insane characters like almost all of the PCs seem to be can be fun for a while, but if they really are insane, there's no room for character development past, "This is the growing list of people I've killed, stuff I've looted, and crazy things I've said."

One-shot territory for me, Evil Insane alignment characters are. So much so that I had a hard time finishing the post talking about last saturday's session. I started thinking, "Ok, I get it: he's insane and the best evil wizard evar." Meh.

As for not understanding why a new PC would want to kill you: the last 10 minutes of his background consists of struggling to the shore after you killed everyone he knew and loved. Why do you think he might want to stop you? Frankly I would have rolled up a rogue/assassin and waited (perhaps sessions) to Coup de Gras Death Attack you. That sort of thing needs comeuppance.

But then, he's such a bad dude, he likely has immunity (everything) bracers to keep him from getting killed.

Meh.

 

[Sejs]

Frankly I would have rolled up a rogue/assassin and waited (perhaps sessions) to Coup de Gras Death Attack you. That sort of thing needs comeuppance.

And still does nothing to address the issue of why as your first act in a game are you, the player, hell bent on gunning down another PC?

But then, he's such a bad dude, he likely has immunity (everything) bracers to keep him from getting killed.

My, what a well-founded statement. What's with the ire, Felix?

 

[Nifft]

What's with the ire, Felix?

No doubt Felix has had a bad experience with an evil, insane wizard. They're like tequila in that respect.

But for those of us who have not had a bad experience, please keep up the updates!

-- N

 

[Felix]

And still does nothing to address the issue of why as your first act in a game are you, the player, hell bent on gunning down another PC?

No, but it makes sense for the character, which it sounded like the DM set up for him to be a survivor from the destruction. Either way, it was not a good idea for the DM to allow a paladin in this party, as werk said.

What a well founded response

I expect Warlord would have responded with reasons why no rogue/assassin could ever get the drop on him so I pre-empted him.

What's with the ire, Felix?

Likely it has something to do with Warlord's sound shouting down of werk's very reasonable reservations in posts 14 & 17.

That, and I find, "Look at all the Evil things I do without any consequences because I'm powerful" threads not to my liking. If you wonder why I continued to read the thread after not liking it, it's because I came here wondering how the other PCs would handle a loose cannon in the group only to find they've allowed his actions to continue. I found Warlord's tone regarding the new player's characters to be that of, "No, no. I can kill whom I want, but you can't do that to ME!" Perhaps it's how he wrote it, but I found his portrayal of his PCs interaction offensive. So I responded.

They're like tequila in that respect.

Tequila is a sipping liquor. Taken in small doses, it is very good. Too much and you'll never want it again.

Evil insane wizards are great BBEGs because you rarely have to deal with them head-on, anc can choose to avoid them. But to have one in the party? No thank you.

 

[Einan]

To add to the growing list of demands: Let's see a storyhour!

Einan

 

[Wolv0rine]

You've come into the thread with more than enough predecisions to completely block out pretty much everything. Good job.

No, but it makes sense for the character, which it sounded like the DM set up for him to be a survivor from the destruction. Either way, it was not a good idea for the DM to allow a paladin in this party, as werk said.

And so far everyone has agreed that bring in a Paladin was dumber than mud. This includes Ralts, and the DM who tried to talk the player out of making a paladin. But you were busy going "Meh" to catch that part, I guess.

I expect Warlord would have responded with reasons why no rogue/assassin could ever get the drop on him so I pre-empted him.

Well, so long as you're okay with holding up all sides of the conversation.

Likely it has something to do with Warlord's sound shouting down of werk's very reasonable reservations in posts 14 & 17.

So someone points out they used some creative writing in their description, then breaks it down into the nuts and bolts of how it happened, makes consessions for a (actually quite small number of) house rules, and he's a jackass? Really, I can't figure out how that reply managed to make you so randomly hostile.

That, and I find, "Look at all the Evil things I do without any consequences because I'm powerful" threads not to my liking. If you wonder why I continued to read the thread after not liking it, it's because I came here wondering how the other PCs would handle a loose cannon in the group only to find they've allowed his actions to continue. I found Warlord's tone regarding the new player's characters to be that of, "No, no. I can kill whom I want, but you can't do that to ME!" Perhaps it's how he wrote it, but I found his portrayal of his PCs interaction offensive. So I responded.

Again, had you paused in your "Meh"ing long enough you may have caught the part where the wizard in question isn't a loose cannon within the party he's in, and is obviously a consistent boon to the party and, regardless of his being a somewhat homicidal manicac, has gone to great lengths to protect and foster the colony he helped build. He didn't flash-fry the women and children, he blew the military and other brass that were supposed to be in charge of the colony away. The same NPCs who, according to their own records, considered the civillians brought to found the colony little more than building blocks and cattle to build their colony. The character and his party are busting arse and risking their lives rather forcefully to try to foster the colony and forge relations with the natives who are open to it. All in all they're pretty non-loose-cannon as far as evil characters go.

Tequila is a sipping liquor. Taken in small doses, it is very good. Too much and you'll never want it again.

Depends on the person. Personally I learned to drink tequilla shots from coke glasses, and that's the size of a tequilla shot to me. I tend to avoid it because I don't want to walk around drunk that often, but when I want to get drunk, I reach for the tequilla with a smile.

 

[FalcWP]

I really do not see any problem with what Warlord's character has done in this campaign.

Killing someone, in self defense, no less, is hardly a crime in a standard D&D campaign. I would *much* rather play with someone who is imaginative, creative, and a boon to the party than someone who deliberately makes PCs that don't fit with the rest of the party and attacks the other PCs. Regardless of any motivation - if your character has an overriding need to attack a PC in the party, then you need to make a new character. Interparty tension can be effective, interparty warfare shouldn't be allowed. And, at risk of sounding childish: the wizard was there first.

If it was another group, with a number of good characters who had worked together for a while, and then an evil PC wizard came in and attacked the paladin... who would fault the paladin for defending himself?

It seems that everybody else in the party was fine with the wizard. The DM, as well. And, yet, they should alter their characters personalities and tactics because a new player came in and was gunning for something different? I just dont' see how that works. The wizard may be something of a sick bastard for my tastes (I don't know that I could run someone like that), but he seems to fit the party well. Unlike a paladin.

 

[iwatt]

Nice job Ralts.

Seems Saduul takes Belkar's axiom to the logical conclusion:

"When in doubt, set something on fire."



As to the new player, seems he's adapted perfectly to the party with his monk. I'm not sure I would have given him a second chance after his repeated metagame* attempts against an existing PC. Kudos to you and your group for your tolerance.

* From Ralt's retelling of the events, it seem the player targeted the weakest PC to come attack.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Evil insane characters like almost all of the PCs seem to be can be fun for a while, but if they really are insane, there's no room for character development past, "This is the growing list of people I've killed, stuff I've looted, and crazy things I've said."

Wow, thanks for playing in our campaign for the last year, and watched some PC's manage to break free of insanity.

Thanks for fully understanding our underlying campaign concept.

One-shot territory for me, Evil Insane alignment characters are.

Who are you, Yoda?

So much so that I had a hard time finishing the post talking about last saturday's session. I started thinking, "Ok, I get it: he's insane and the best evil wizard evar." Meh.

Wow, I see you really get it.

If you were so bored, why bother replying. Oh, wait, you can't stand that someone's having fun and you don't like it.

I'll be sure to burn my gaming books out of remorse.

As for not understanding why a new PC would want to kill you: the last 10 minutes of his background consists of struggling to the shore after you killed everyone he knew and loved.

Yeah, I can see you read the whole thing, including who specifically was on those ships and why I waited as long as I did.

Why do you think he might want to stop you?

At the time, I figured he was out to prove that he could kill other PC's, since he insisted on bringing a Paladin into an evil party despite people telling him not to.

Let me guess, if the GM had flatly forbidden it, you would scream that he was being oppressed.

Frankly I would have rolled up a rogue/assassin and waited (perhaps sessions) to Coup de Gras Death Attack you. That sort of thing needs comeuppance.

Yeah, furthering the story and playing D&D the way I want to, instead of how you want me to, I deserve a comeuppance.

But then, he's such a bad dude, he likely has immunity (everything) bracers to keep him from getting killed.

Yup, you guessed it. Wow, you must be Nostradomus.

Meh.

And to you too, sir.

I expect Warlord would have responded with reasons why no rogue/assassin could ever get the drop on him so I pre-empted him.

Wow, you are Nostrodomus! Say, whose going to win the Superbowl?

Likely it has something to do with Warlord's sound shouting down of werk's very reasonable reservations in posts 14 & 17.

Ah, so you felt perfectly just in not reading the whole thread, OBVIOUSLY not reading the character motivations sheet posted, and just leaping telling me that I'm wrong, and you hate me.

Thanks for the constructive input.

That, and I find, "Look at all the Evil things I do without any consequences because I'm powerful" threads not to my liking. If you wonder why I continued to read the thread after not liking it, it's because I came here wondering how the other PCs would handle a loose cannon in the group only to find they've allowed his actions to continue. I found Warlord's tone regarding the new player's characters to be that of, "No, no. I can kill whom I want, but you can't do that to ME!" Perhaps it's how he wrote it, but I found his portrayal of his PCs interaction offensive. So I responded.

And keep responding.

In other words, you came in here on a high horse looking for a fight because you don't approve of how a group plays. You decided you are the arbiter of fun, the Sergeant Major of Gaming, and decided to descend from high atop the mountain to explain to me how you hate my portrayal of Saduul and think he should die.

You decided that were competant to make decisions about our gaming group, about what happened, and how things went. You decided that YOU are the ultimate judge, and commented on what you felt I was doing wrong, huh?

Well, here's my comment for you: Go piss in someone else's sandbox.

Evil insane wizards are great BBEGs because you rarely have to deal with them head-on, anc can choose to avoid them. But to have one in the party? No thank you.

Last time I checked, you weren't invited to the gaming group.

And you can see your way out of the thread. Nobody made you read it, or to post replies that basically consist of you being a braying Jackass.

I'm sorry you disapprove of the characters in the game, and frown upon the fact we are having fun.

I'm glad you read the GM's mind, and know how the campaign has gone, and I'm glad you sat in on it and saw I was just bullying the other player. Why, I hear I even disintigrated his Monk in an act of betrayal atop the pyramid.




Go play in another thread.

 

[Felix]

Wow, thanks for playing in our campaign for the last year, and watched some PC's manage to break free of insanity.

Thanks for fully understanding our underlying campaign concept.

Who are you, Yoda?

Wow, I see you really get it.

If you were so bored, why bother replying. Oh, wait, you can't stand that someone's having fun and you don't like it.

I'll be sure to burn my gaming books out of remorse.

Yeah, I can see you read the whole thing, including who specifically was on those ships and why I waited as long as I did.

Nothing but sarcasm.

At the time, I figured he was out to prove that he could kill other PC's, since he insisted on bringing a Paladin into an evil party despite people telling him not to.

Let me guess, if the GM had flatly forbidden it, you would scream that he was being oppressed.

You guess wrong. If it's an evil campaign that I was running, I would immediately make the Paladin an unplayable PC choice. If you did all suggest to him not to, good on you; the DM still should not have allowed it: as soon as the Paladin figures out you (if not other PCs as well) were Evil, he'll have to leave anyhow.

Yup, you guessed it. Wow, you must be Nostradomus.

Wow, you are Nostrodomus! Say, whose going to win the Superbowl?

More sarcasm.

Ah, so you felt perfectly just in not reading the whole thread, OBVIOUSLY not reading the character motivations sheet posted, and just leaping telling me that I'm wrong, and you hate me.

Were I to tell you that you are wrong and I hate you, I certainly wouldn't use these boards to do it. The problem I had with your post was your off-handedness with which you dispatched the new player's PC (not that you shouldn't defend yourself) and proceeded to cry, "Calmuny!" You didn't understand why he would attack, but his reasons for attacking were obvious and fairly understandable.

When werk responded with the mild reservations about your game that he had, you responded with sarcasm similar to that which I've quoted above. Perhaps I've earned it, but certainly werk did not. That is what I found response worthy: why did werk rouse your ire?

And keep responding.

Land of the free, what what?

In other words, you came in here on a high horse looking for a fight because you don't approve of how a group plays.

I wouldn't enjoy it, no. I might apprise foiks of that, but I'm not going to stop you either. That makes me the "Sergeant Major of Gaming" and the "Arbiter of Fun"?

decided to descend from high atop the mountain to explain to me how you hate my portrayal of Saduul and think he should die.

I live in Virginia. We only have hills, and not real mountains. Or you were being sarcastic again.

And in a Good game, yes. Saduul should be brought to bear for the murder of 1000 people. Were I to try to do that in-game as the new player did, then instead of rolling up a paladin I would create a rogue/assassin. I can then be Evil, fit in, and work towards your death (in the same way you had worked towards the death of that assassin's employer and generals). I submit that this style of Evil character would fit right in with your group.

You decided that were competant to make decisions about our gaming group, about what happened, and how things went. You decided that YOU are the ultimate judge, and commented on what you felt I was doing wrong, huh?

What you did at your session was not wrong, just something I don't enjoy. What you said to the new player might have been wrong, and if you resort to sarcasm in speech as quickly as you do online, I wouldn't be suprised if the new player tried twice more because of that.

So, no. I have not decided I am the Ultimate Judge. Or the Sergeant Major. Or the Arbiter. Please cease the exaggerated sarcasm.

Well, here's my comment for you: Go piss in someone else's sandbox.

Now, that's not nice.

Last time I checked, you weren't invited to the gaming group.

And you can see your way out of the thread. Nobody made you read it, or to post replies that basically consist of you being a braying Jackass.

This is not nice either. It is also a direct insult, which I have never directed at you. I might dislike your gaming style and your portrayal of the events, but I am permitted to both maintain and post those opinions.

What I would not be permitted to do on these boards is call someone a "braying Jackass"; that wouldn't be nice.

I'm sorry you disapprove of the characters in the game,

I don't like your style of play, no, but then neither do I like cafe-lattes. Doesn't mean I'll stop others from drinking them.

But when you get on the case of somebody who posts that there might have been a few oddities in what you did, then I'll cry foul.

and frown upon the fact we are having fun.

This whole bit started with werk's suggestion that fun is good, but only as long as everyone is having fun. And it sure didn't sound as if the new player was. If he's decided your group is worth sticking with, good for him. Have fun. But to create three characters specifically to kill a PC, that sounds like someone who isn't enjoying himself.

As long as you're not having fun at other's expense, game on. I suspect you might have for that first session.

I'm glad you read the GM's mind, and know how the campaign has gone, and I'm glad you sat in on it and saw I was just bullying the other player. Why, I hear I even disintigrated his Monk in an act of betrayal atop the pyramid.

Sarcasm.

Go play in another thread.

I'm sorry Warlord, but I think there are some problems, not with the way you game, but with the rapidity with which you lash out with sarcasm at folks who disargee with you.

Furthermore, this last bit of yours is somewhat awkward for me to respond to: you cannot tell me what to do, but then, I really don't care to continue a conversation with you; unfortunately, not saying something would seem like I slunk off because you told me so. So shall we say that I'll not bother you again if you return the favor by not being as sarcastic in the future?