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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9844053" data-attributes="member: 6790260">You can decide not to take it seriously if you like. I know people to whom it has happened, and I know at least one GM who has specifically spoken about putting people in this position because he liked doing it to people. It really does happen!I have no problem with GMs-in-general. (I'd have to have a problem with myself if I did, and Hussar, who has been nothing but supportive, amongst others.) I have a problem with rules which create trap situations and then don't lift a finger to address those traps....especially when they clearly end up encouraging GMs to do crappy things at least some of the time. Because I've seen it encourage GMs to do crappy things some of the time. Thankfully, almost never at tables I'm personally playing.Ex-clerics. It's literally right there, in the book. You lose everything except proficiencies and skill points, IIRC. All your powers. Every single one.And guess who gets to decide whether your deity took your powers away?I had said that GMs were always able to remove levels and magic items--but that's a total other thing. I know for a fact you have heard of the "you were thrown in jail and all your items were taken away" story and how much players HATE that sort of thing most of the time. So don't act like this is some bizarro weird nobody-ever-does-this thing. It happens.I was--and am--talking about loss of divine powers. I won't respond to your statements about things I didn't actually say.And yes, of course I'm choosing to look at it in terms of potential abuse. That's what you have to do when you examine the design of something. You have to look for its points of failure. Or do you think we should design, say, our laws against fraud under the idea that nobody would ever abuse such laws?I am specifically looking at it from the most catastrophic perspective because that's when the rule is breaking down. You don't judge a rule by its best-use cases. You judge it by its worst-use cases, and you try to address and mitigate them as best you can. You won't be perfect. You won't prevent everything. But you'll prevent a lot just by putting in a modicum of effort.Yes, there is. The books explicitly give the GM direct permission to remove almost all class features of Clerics, Paladins, and a few other characters, for "Gods work in mysterious ways~" reasons. In other words, for any reason or no reason at all.No no no, you misunderstand. I absolutely 100% believe that the GM role comes with ENORMOUS responsibilities.I'm talking about what these specific rules do and say. And what they do and say is that the GM can functionally delete everything your divine character can actually do, without any limits. No advice. No explanations. No discussion. Just incredibly vague and often EXTREMELY unhelpful so-called "guidance" and single throwaway lines like, as you yourself quoted, "gross violation". Who decides what is a "gross violation"? The GM--exclusively. The player does not and cannot argue about that, because it's up to the GM.When the exact same person is both the dispenser of--let's be real here--punishment, and also the person who decides whether or not a behavior is worthy of punishment, what is that usually called in English? The phrase I'm familiar with is "judge, jury, and executioner".Nope, because again you think I care about fighting inherently butthole-y people. I don't. Well, only limitedly. When someone's a butthole and you can point to the rules where they've done so, it's much, MUCH, MUCH easier to call them out for their bad behavior. Orders of magnitude easier. Why do you think forums like ENWorld have a codified set of rules which includes things like "be civil"? Because when you have a codified rule that says what someone has done is wrong, it's much easier to deal with their behavior, whether or not they are acting in good faith.Will it stop buttholes? No. Nothing can. I've never said otherwise and even in the posts you're quoting I said as much. Instead, it gives players the ability to call out bad behavior FAR more easily, and to clearly articulate why that bad behavior is, in fact, bad. With jerk GMs, it smooths and accelerates the escape of players from said situation--doesn't mean they all will, but far more will, and that's worth seeking. Further, with the huge huge huge excluded middle here, where we recognize that most GMs are neither supervillains nor saints, but rather most GMs are mediocre, or of patchwork quality (amazing at A, dog poop at B, etc.), or deeply misinformed, or well-meaning but wrongheaded, or grossly misjudging the situation, etc. Rules that help players to address such situations are good and useful tools to have, not some insane tyrannical imposition on poor helpless GMs.And here we part ways. I won't engage with anyone who seriously uses the phrase "player entitlement". Sorry.We live in an age of GM entitlement and I'm tired of pretending we don't.</blockquote>

Verification