Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4647396" data-attributes="member: 40961">Its not consistent for you to say that a DM should be able to ban tieflings because he hates them and a player playing a tiefling will force the DM to deal with tieflings, while also saying that the player should have the power to name his animal companion whatever he wants without DM interference.&nbsp; The DM has to deal with the animal companion as well.&nbsp;And if we're positing DMs who, I don't know, have allergic reactions to tieflings, why shouldn't we posit DMs who react similarly to Tweety?&nbsp;That... that kind of gets to my other point from the old thread, the one that was... less well received.&nbsp; I don't actually believe that some DMs will have their fun destroyed as much as they claim by player characters that they think are stupid.&nbsp; If you begin with the assumption that the player wants to play a character that, from the DM's perspective, is so incredibly stupid that the DM will be unable to enjoy the game, slowly detach himself, prepare less, and eventually lead to the total collapse of the game, then, well, its hard to say that the character should be allowed.&nbsp; &nbsp;But I mean, really?&nbsp; Seriously?&nbsp; This sounds like cooking the hypothetical.&nbsp; If my wife likes eating chili, but I hate the smell of chili so much that even having it cook in the same household as me will drive me into misery and depression and resentment eventually leading to emotional disconnection between her and myself and ultimately ending in divorce, then she'd be awfully selfish to make chili, wouldn't she?&nbsp; Sure, I really don't like chili, but that much?&nbsp; Maybe I'm just being dramatic?And its legitimate under my rubric as well.&nbsp; Would you think his decision legitimate if he made it because he passionately hates German people? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4647396, member: 40961"] Its not consistent for you to say that a DM should be able to ban tieflings because he hates them and a player playing a tiefling will force the DM to deal with tieflings, while also saying that the player should have the power to name his animal companion whatever he wants without DM interference. The DM has to deal with the animal companion as well. And if we're positing DMs who, I don't know, have allergic reactions to tieflings, why shouldn't we posit DMs who react similarly to Tweety? That... that kind of gets to my other point from the old thread, the one that was... less well received. I don't actually believe that some DMs will have their fun destroyed as much as they claim by player characters that they think are stupid. If you begin with the assumption that the player wants to play a character that, from the DM's perspective, is [I]so incredibly stupid[/I] that the DM will be unable to enjoy the game, slowly detach himself, prepare less, and eventually lead to the total collapse of the game, then, well, its hard to say that the character should be allowed. But I mean, really? Seriously? This sounds like cooking the hypothetical. If my wife likes eating chili, but I hate the smell of chili [I]so much[/I] that even having it cook in the same household as me will drive me into misery and depression and resentment eventually leading to emotional disconnection between her and myself and ultimately ending in divorce, then she'd be awfully selfish to make chili, wouldn't she? Sure, I really don't like chili, but that much? Maybe I'm just being dramatic? And its legitimate under my rubric as well. Would you think his decision legitimate if he made it because he passionately hates German people? :-) [/QUOTE]

Verification