PDA

View Full Version : How to role play a non violent character without angering the party



Talakeal
2009-11-12, 07:42 PM
I am going to start off with a couple of old gaming stories to illustrate my problem. If you don't want to read all of them feel free to skip to the end.

Normally I play a badass loner with an iron will and who doesn't take crap from anybody. This gets on the nerves of the other players as they see me as a bitch and a psychopath who will attack anyone without provocation. An example:

We are hired to retrieve a jewel for a man who says it is a family heirloom. Along the way we find that it is not actually an heirloom, but rather a powerful magic item of unknown use. We clear the dungeon, grab the gem, and return it to the man. While in the process questioning him about his true motives a man whom we have never met before bursts into the room with several armed guards and orders them to arrest our employer.
I draw my sword and point it at the stranger, moving between him and our employer and telling him not to go near him until we get some answers. He says that our employer is a criminal and he has come to arrest him. I am able to get out of him that he does not work for the local king or the town guard but answers to a "higher authority" about which he will say nothing. He then moves over to the table and takes the magical gem without a word of explanation and completely ignoring the fact that I had my sword pointed at him. To stop him I attack him with the flat of my sword, making it very clear that I am doing non lethal damage. At this point both the GM and the other player's explode at me for "attacking random NPCs and disrupting the plot". I of course felt I was fully justified, having no idea of the nature or motives of this character and having already warned him.

So, after several experiences like this I decided to play a much more passive and innocent character to break away from such stereotypes. I made a rogue who was chaotic good in alignment and was very young and inexperienced. She had been taken as a slave as a young child and had recently escaped and was trying to get home. I tried playing her as a real person instead of a hardened badass warrior. I tried to think my way out of combat, and when we were attacked I used stealth and performed ambushes rather than fighting head to head. The party considered me a worthless coward because of this, and the party fighter was constantly berating and threatening me, telling me I was a useless coward and was lucky he was permitting me to travel with them.
This had been going on for a few weeks when we come to a river. My character is deathly afraid of water, having been attacked by a small sea serpent when she was a child (I did not make that up on the spot, it had been in my back story from the beginning). The rest of the group wanted to swim, I refused and insisted we look for a place to cross. The party fighter refuses, picks me up, carries me to the top of a large rock, and tosses me into the middle of the river, where I am immediately attacked and almost killed by a pack of giant eels.
The fighter of course does not apologize or even comment on his behavior. I can't take this anymore, and have no chance of defending myself against the fighter who had more than double my strength and much better fighting skills. That night I decide to sneak attack him in his sleep while I am on watch, killing him instantly. In response the DM has an epic level wizard / cleric whom no one had ever heard of before instantly teleport into camp, cast true resurrection on the fighter and power word kill on me, drop a not so subtle adventure hook on the survivors and tell away. I am not allowed to roll a new character, and the group (who are all RL friends) refuse to invite me to a game for several years.

Another time I tried making a pure healer who was a dedicated pacifist. I buffed the party and healed them when they were hurt, everyone was fine. Then there came a round when no one was hurt or needed buffs, and so I passed on my action. I was asked why I didn't just attack, and I said I don't carry a weapon. I was immediately kicked out of the party and told to roll up a character that wasn't so useless.
One time in a different group I tried to make a non violent leadership / crowd control based bard. All went well until we were attacked by several swarms who are immune to all mind effects. I sat in the corner singing, and was told I need to make myself useful and attack while I sing. I told them that I do not carry a weapon as I believe physical violence beneath me. One player then told me he would find a way to force me to be useful, and moved himself into a position where all the monsters he had been fighting could no longer reach him or any other member of the party except me. As a response I charmed said character and told him to stand between me and the swarms, at which point the GM kicked me from the group for instigating player on player violence.
In a similar story I had a friend make an enchanter who didn't know any attack spells. He suicided his character on the second session because he couldn't stand all the crap he got for having no direct damage spells.

The problem is even worse when I try and play a paladin. I usually get into a situation where one of the players acts like Belkar and I am unable to talk him out of it, so I have to physically restrain him, at which point I am kicked from the party for being one of "those paladins". At the same end, I have fallen as a paladin for being "too merciful" by sparing the lives of some bandits who attacked us in the forest rather than executing them or leaving them to die of their wounds.


-------------

So gaming stories aside, it boils down to this. It seems that GM's and players alike expect you to play a bipolar character. Ordinarily you are kind and extremely passive, doing whatever the party members or NPCs tell you and never object to what they want to do. But, when combat starts, you need to become a blood crazed and completely remorseless (but cool headed and totally tactically aware) killing machine who will not stop until every enemy is dead.
How the hell am I supposed to make a character personality that fits with this model short of playing a brain washed slave / warrior like in Serenity or Unleashed?
Is this a problem in other groups, or do I just play with weird people? Or is the problem me?

Yukitsu
2009-11-12, 07:50 PM
Think the army. Normally nice normal people, but if you're fighting against them, they are exactly going to sit down and have a cup of tea with you. You just have to know when one is appropriate and when the other is.

Asbestos
2009-11-12, 08:11 PM
*stuff about how the people being played with, player and DM alike, are some of the worst sort of people to play with*

Yeah, not you. Also, these are RL friends? They be asses.

valadil
2009-11-12, 08:21 PM
Having to play someone who is comfortable with murder on a regular basis is one of those things that you just have to put up with to play in most dungeon crawling games. IMO the best thing to do is not think about it so much. Have roleplaying time and tactical combat time.

If you really want to play characters who act like people, try another system. While D&D is perfectly capable of serving up a realistic roleplaying experience, D&D ends up being played as tactical combat more often than not. I find it's easier to switch to another system than to convince a group to play D&D differently.

Tengu_temp
2009-11-12, 08:21 PM
I suggest leaving your current group and looking for one that doesn't consist of douchebags. It's obvious they'll go out of their way to conjure up some issues with your character, no matter what the concept or how well roleplayed.


Having to play someone who is comfortable with murder on a regular basis is one of those things that you just have to put up with to play in most dungeon crawling games. IMO the best thing to do is not think about it so much. Have roleplaying time and tactical combat time.

If you really want to play characters who act like people, try another system. While D&D is perfectly capable of serving up a realistic roleplaying experience, D&D ends up being played as tactical combat more often than not. I find it's easier to switch to another system than to convince a group to play D&D differently.

Murder? I disagree. Most of what good- and nicer neutral-aligned characters do is 100% morally fine. Intercepting an orc raiding party before it reaches a peaceful village is not murder, it's defending the weak.

TheOOB
2009-11-12, 08:21 PM
Just a quick note to start things off, D&D is a tactical combat game first and foremost, and rule one of combat is that people die. If your character has a problem with killing people, they wouldn't have become an adventurer, someone who's job description consists primary of killing things and taking their treasure.

That said, there is nothing wrong with trying to spare some of your opponents, as long as you are not risking the party by doing so. Pulling your blows in a fight, or refusing to attack is grounds for being kicked out of a the group. By not fighting properly you are a liability to the group. But if someone happens to survive an encounter, there is nothing wrong with not finishing them off.

In any case, reading over your stories, I've noticed two big problems. First is that your DM lets this crap happen. Among their duties, a DM is suppose to make sure that the party doesn't kill eachother(unless the campaign is suppose to be like that). The other problem is with your players. While you don't need to restrict peoples creativity, an iron fast rule of character creation should be "The characters must be able to work together as a group".

Sir Homeslice
2009-11-12, 08:23 PM
I suggest leaving your current group and looking for one that doesn't consist of douchebags.

This. Sweet Jesus on a platter, THIS. Your group is made of 100% douchebagium, an element only occuring in douchebags.

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-12, 08:26 PM
Some people don't realise that the roleplaying doesn't neccesarily stop when you roll for initiative.

A good way of getting around this is to have your character not believe in violence for violence's sake, but are willing to defend themselves.

And FTR, the way to settle these disputes is NOT PvP! :smallsigh:

Thurbane
2009-11-12, 08:29 PM
Yeah, not you. Also, these are RL friends? They be asses.
This! Have a word with the DM, explaining your concerns. If he refuses to listen, vote with your feet.

Nothing makes the game more un-fun than a DM (or fellow players) who want you to play their way, or no way at all. And if the DM backs this up with ridiculous deus-ex-machina like the second example you gave, you might as well not even be at the table.

Normally I try to be the voice of reason about disputes like this, but these guys sound like grade-A jerks. :smallmad:

Gamgee
2009-11-12, 08:32 PM
Some people don't realise that the roleplaying doesn't neccesarily stop when you roll for initiative.

A good way of getting around this is to have your character not believe in violence for violence's sake, but are willing to defend themselves.

And FTR, the way to settle these disputes is NOT PvP! :smallsigh:

I agree, and if I had been the Dm I would have probably rewarded such interesting characters. You have to be useful in a game of DnD. I do not see how those characters were being useless. Healing players and making yourself a heal tank is perfectly acceptable as long as your doing something. Being a sneaky rogue who didn't fight toe to toe, also useful just not as open about it.

Useless would be say.. sitting there and laughing as your party is killed.

Andras
2009-11-12, 08:38 PM
Not to sound like a broken record, but your problem seems to be that your group is a bunch of jerks. Their actions seem nowhere near justified given the circumstances.

The_JJ
2009-11-12, 08:44 PM
Normally I'm all for role play over roll play and searching for the right groups, but I also like opposing viewpoints. Just a quirk.

So I see where you're coming from. If you want to play a pacifist, this is fine, and your group shouldn't be angry. Some people might add 'so long as you contribute something else during fights' but that's crap. :smallcool:

But if you want to play a pacifist (justified) just because they looked down on your hardened badasses... well, that's trickier. See, if you play it wrong, they might see it as you being petulent, 'don't like my cool charactors, fine, I won't help you, ha' kinda thing. No matter how much actual help you give.

So it could be miscommunication. The fact that you told that first story is revealing. Go back and talk to them about it. Do not, no matter how true it may be or how many people on these boards repeat it, treat them like 'douchebags,' 'asses,' what have you. They might be thinking just the same thing. So go in honestly but, you know, understanding. That'd be your best option.

Hat-Trick
2009-11-12, 08:44 PM
Talk to the DM out of game, when you're just hanging out or something, away from everyone else and talk to him, especially before playing a paladin. Ask him what the problem is, because none of your examples sound at all bad except the Coup de grace and Charming, but I definitely believe you were not the one to be blamed for that.

As for a character to build, a tripper. Set the enemy up to be put down by someone else. Never be afraid to kick them in the dangly bits either. Attack the enemy, just don't do it until they attack you, good rule of thumb.

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-12, 08:44 PM
The part about disrupting the plot made me laugh, there are players that LIKE being railroaded?

mikeejimbo
2009-11-12, 08:48 PM
One of our group had an enchanter once. I think he was berated for having no direct damage spells up until a certain level, whereby he began to slowly take over the world, charming one king at a time.

Also, one of my characters doesn't carry a melee weapon, only a holy symbol.

Lamech
2009-11-12, 08:48 PM
I am going to start off with a couple of old gaming stories to illustrate my problem. If you don't want to read all of them feel free to skip to the end.

Normally I play a badass loner with an iron will and who doesn't take crap from anybody. This gets on the nerves of the other players as they see me as a bitch and a psychopath who will attack anyone without provocation. An example:

We are hired to retrieve a jewel for a man who says it is a family heirloom. Along the way we find that it is not actually an heirloom, but rather a powerful magic item of unknown use. We clear the dungeon, grab the gem, and return it to the man. While in the process questioning him about his true motives a man whom we have never met before bursts into the room with several armed guards and orders them to arrest our employer.
I draw my sword and point it at the stranger, moving between him and our employer and telling him not to go near him until we get some answers. He says that our employer is a criminal and he has come to arrest him. I am able to get out of him that he does not work for the local king or the town guard but answers to a "higher authority" about which he will say nothing. He then moves over to the table and takes the magical gem without a word of explanation and completely ignoring the fact that I had my sword pointed at him. To stop him I attack him with the flat of my sword, making it very clear that I am doing non lethal damage. At this point both the GM and the other player's explode at me for "attacking random NPCs and disrupting the plot". I of course felt I was fully justified, having no idea of the nature or motives of this character and having already warned him.Hmm... lets see, a random guy working for a "higher power" who isn't the local rulers is generally a nut job, or some kind of criminal. Possibly an enemy of the state. So umm, yeah doing non-lethal damage was a pretty bi... wait, you were yelled at for attacking him? What?


So, after several experiences like this I decided to play a much more passive and innocent character to break away from such stereotypes. I made a rogue who was chaotic good in alignment and was very young and inexperienced. She had been taken as a slave as a young child and had recently escaped and was trying to get home. I tried playing her as a real person instead of a hardened badass warrior. I tried to think my way out of combat, and when we were attacked I used stealth and performed ambushes rather than fighting head to head. The party considered me a worthless coward because of this, and the party fighter was constantly berating and threatening me, telling me I was a useless coward and was lucky he was permitting me to travel with them. If you wanted to be stealthy you should have played a rogue. Wait... what the hell party.

This had been going on for a few weeks when we come to a river. My character is deathly afraid of water, having been attacked by a small sea serpent when she was a child (I did not make that up on the spot, it had been in my back story from the beginning). The rest of the group wanted to swim, I refused and insisted we look for a place to cross. The party fighter refuses, picks me up, carries me to the top of a large rock, and tosses me into the middle of the river, where I am immediately attacked and almost killed by a pack of giant eels.
The fighter of course does not apologize or even comment on his behavior. I can't take this anymore, and have no chance of defending myself against the fighter who had more than double my strength and much better fighting skills. That night I decide to sneak attack him in his sleep while I am on watch, killing him instantly.
Killing a party member who attacked you. And you forgot to bind his soul?



In response the DM has an epic level wizard / cleric whom no one had ever heard of before instantly teleport into camp, cast true resurrection on the fighter and power word kill on me, drop a not so subtle adventure hook on the survivors and tell away. I am not allowed to roll a new character, and the group (who are all RL friends) refuse to invite me to a game for several years. I think this group is probaly a bunch of jerks or just doesn't like you for whatever reason.



Another time I tried making a pure healer who was a dedicated pacifist. I buffed the party and healed them when they were hurt, everyone was fine. Then there came a round when no one was hurt or needed buffs, and so I passed on my action. I was asked why I didn't just attack, and I said I don't carry a weapon. I was immediately kicked out of the party and told to roll up a character that wasn't so useless.WTF? Again if your a buffer/healer total up how much your "buffs" have done. It can go quite high. Total up healing done. You probably pull your wieght and save their lives.


One time in a different group I tried to make a non violent leadership / crowd control based bard. All went well until we were attacked by several swarms who are immune to all mind effects. I sat in the corner singing, and was told I need to make myself useful and attack while I sing. I told them that I do not carry a weapon as I believe physical violence beneath me. One player then told me he would find a way to force me to be useful, and moved himself into a position where all the monsters he had been fighting could no longer reach him or any other member of the party except me. As a response I charmed said character and told him to stand between me and the swarms, at which point the GM kicked me from the group for instigating player on player violence.Yeah charming people is generally a bad move. Next time your playing a bard get one of those guides for abusing the hell out of dragonfire inspiration. If they complain about you being useless, talley up all the extra damage and the damage they did. Also make note of attacks that would have missed, if not for the moral bonus from normal inspire courage. (You can get both song effects if your clever.) They will never call you useless again. Unless they just don't like you.


In a similar story I had a friend make an enchanter who didn't know any attack spells. He suicided his character on the second session because he couldn't stand all the crap he got for having no direct damage spells.Have these people read the logic ninja guide? I mean really? Are they complaining about him overshadowing everyone?


The problem is even worse when I try and play a paladin. I usually get into a situation where one of the players acts like Belkar and I am unable to talk him out of it, so I have to physically restrain him, at which point I am kicked from the party for being one of "those paladins". At the same end, I have fallen as a paladin for being "too merciful" by sparing the lives of some bandits who attacked us in the forest rather than executing them or leaving them to die of their wounds.Try not to play a paladin in groups with Belkar's. And.. get a new DM, he should tell you ahead of time if he hates paladins. (Hint: NOT doing something can NOT be an act let alone an evil one.)




So gaming stories aside, it boils down to this. It seems that GM's and players alike expect you to play a bipolar character. Ordinarily you are kind and extremely passive, doing whatever the party members or NPCs tell you and never object to what they want to do. But, when combat starts, you need to become a blood crazed and completely remorseless (but cool headed and totally tactically aware) killing machine who will not stop until every enemy is dead.
How the hell am I supposed to make a character personality that fits with this model short of playing a brain washed slave / warrior like in Serenity or Unleashed?
Is this a problem in other groups, or do I just play with weird people? Or is the problem me?
Part of this is horrible groups. Part of this is your supposed to be a well trained fighter, so you are supposed to go into combat usally. But the pacifist stuff is usally frowned on. (Casters can pull it off. No one annoys the bard who doubles their accuracy and damage. Or the wizard with the mind controlled legions.) Of course the out of combat stuff like not wanting to go over water, granting mercy, attacking the nut-job... thats crappy groups.

Rasman
2009-11-12, 08:51 PM
the way I see it, you're playing with the wrong people

the best kind of group for you would be with a DM that says "play what you want to play"

I mean, my group is anything but ideal...we have 4 rogues and 0 healers for christ's sake

I would suggest roleplaying a Monk, Monks can be BAMF frontline "support" fighters and you choose if you're attacks are lethal or not, so though self-defense, you can protect yourself and subdue bandits, rather than just out right kill them

madtinker
2009-11-12, 08:55 PM
Don't know how much time you spent explaining how you thought of your characters/how much they talked to each other in game. But obviously, the other people (assuming friends) didn't really understand what kind of people you're playing, which you all should have discussed at the start. Resolve any issues before they become issues.

Stormageddon
2009-11-12, 08:58 PM
Why do you even want to play with these jerks? I would say talk to your DM but the DM seems pretty set against you. Just leave the party find a group that suits you better.


P.S. Like your characters probably steps ahead of your current group.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-12, 09:00 PM
Maybe you should roll up a Pun-Pun to prove to them that your pacifist characters and roleplaying were perfectly fine.

Give yourself

Immunity (Ex): The person who's playing Pun-Pun cannot be kicked from the game or attacked/killed. The game cannot be ended by the DM without sufficient reason as determined by the player who's playing Pun-Pun. Doing either will result in being sued X Millions dollars. Everyone has already signed this contract.

and

Pact (Ex): If the group decides to allow the person playing Pun-Pun to roll up a new character without unfair consequences, Pun-Pun loses immunity. Any unfair consequence, as determined by the person who was playing Pun-Pun, causes Pun-Pun to regain immunity.

and then revive everyone killed/removed. Sure you might not ever be invited back, but, hey, there's no reason you would to go back anyways.

lol

FoE
2009-11-12, 09:01 PM
In my old group, a "non-violent" character translates into someone who we don't have to give any treasure. What's he going to, scold us? :smalltongue:

I'm sorry, OP, but unlike these other fine folks, you don't get any sympathy from me. You certainly come off as sympathetic, but some things about your story just rub me the wrong way. The GM and your fellow party members got mad at you for attacking an NPC? Usually it's one side or the other, but not both.

And after getting chewed out for playing violent psycopaths, you went all the way to the other end of the spectrum and played a pacificist twit in a game centred around combat. That strikes me as though you were trying to build a character that was effectively a big "Go to hell!" to the other players who told you not to act like a raging psycho.

And then you get offended by the fighter tossing you in the river, so you break character and kill him in his sleep? And the DM drops a giant rock on you and no one else in the group objects? In my experience, that kind of curb-stomping only happens to someone who deserves it.

Concerning the whole bard incident, while that other player comes off as a bit of a d***, so do you, kinda. I mean, turnaround is fair play, but the whole "weapons are beneath me" is a pretty stupid position to take when your friends are getting stung to death by bees, or whatever.

Is this all the same group, or are you pulling from different gaming groups? 'Cuz if it's the latter, maybe you need to consider why all these different D&D players are antagonizing you. Maybe they're not the problem?

Yeah, your whole post just sends up alarm bells for me. Your opening post is slanted to make you out to be the victim, but I wonder if you're not a problem player who finally wore his group's patience a bit too thin.

But even if I'm completely wrong and you indeed play with a bunch of jerks, you still went about this entirely the wrong way, OP. You went from being a total jerkass to a waste of space. Neither of these extremes play well with others, particularly a group who doesn't seem to like you very much (if that hadn't been perfectly clear). If you insist on playing D&D, couldn't you find some kind of middle ground?

Tiktakkat
2009-11-12, 09:01 PM
Is this a problem in other groups, or do I just play with weird people? Or is the problem me?

From those stories, it seems the answer is both.

For the first story (the gem), it sounds like the DM forgot that gratuitous plot immunity almost always causes trouble, and you walked into it.

In the second (the rogue), it sounds like you played below useful, which led the other players to be excessively rude. That eventually led the player of the fighter to be a total jerk, to which you responded with PvP murder, and to which the DM responded with deus ex machina expulsion.

In the third (the cleric), it sounds like you forgot that doing nothing is rarely useful, and should have made some effort to at least make it appear you were prepared to contribute. Saying you were delaying in case someone got hurt and needed healing is pretty much the obvious action there. The response of the others was excessive in turn.

In the fourth (the bard), again you had a character underplaying, an excessive, though not completely outrageous response (if you refuse to fight, he refuses to play meatshield), and you defaulting yet again to PvP.

In the fifth (the enchanter), it sounds like the rest of the group was over-reacting, but it is difficult to say.

In the sixth (general paladin situations), it sounds like a continuing series of over-reactions all around, combined with groups that are generally inclined to not be open to paladins to begin with.

As for what to do, the general answer is: remember to always be useful.
The secondary answer is: consider the people you are playing with.

To start with the second, no matter what, if all they want are combat monster PCs, then that is what they want, and anything else will seem useless to them, even when they are hitting solely because of buffs you provide, not being hit solely because of battlefield control you provide, and not dying pathetically solely because of healing you provide.

The first is more difficult, but it includes a wide variety of things, among them having sufficient backup weapons when needed, having alternative weapons, such as tanglefoot bags and the like just in case, and being prepared to make some sort of direct effort, even if it is just providing a flanking bonus for some combat brute to make him feel good about your presence.

And of course there is what you should not do, which includes not turning to PvP even when other players feel like being excessively stupid.

Talakeal
2009-11-12, 09:08 PM
To be fair to me groups, these stories are told from my perspective, I am sure they wouldn't sound so one sided if they were the ones posting.
Most of these player's are not deep role-players. If I am not doing the most optimal thing in a combat round then I am wasting their time and not earning my share of XP / Treasure. Likewise in the first example, OOC they assumed that the guy was going to be the hook for the next adventure, and thus my attacking him just seemed to them to be derailing the plot train for the hell of it.

Finding a new group isn't really an option, as I said these are mostly RL friends and I am very shy when it comes to finding new friends.


Most, but not all of these problems occurred in D&D, and not all were in third edition. When I tried joining the fourth edition campaign of the same group I was told up front that the rules for fourth edition did not allow you to role-play and it was a purely tactical combat game. I played a few sessions, bored out of my mind, and ended up walking away from the game with a lot of hatred for fourth edition that is probably not fully justified.

Asbestos
2009-11-12, 09:09 PM
When I tried joining the fourth edition campaign of the same group I was told up front that the rules for fourth edition did not allow you to role-play and it was a purely tactical combat game. I played a few sessions, bored out of my mind, and ended up walking away from the game with a lot of hatred for fourth edition that is probably not fully justified.

*Head-desk*

Um... move? Is that an option?

Dimers
2009-11-12, 09:10 PM
I'd be furious over having your rogue kill my fighter in his sleep, or your bard charm my character and throw him into danger. I see that as passive-aggressive, not "non-violent". It's non-violent in comparison to the group's outright aggression, sure. But a coup-de-grace is violent, and so is inflicting damage on somebody via charm.

Maybe if you played with a group that didn't suck like a black hole, you wouldn't be put into situations like these and feel the need to lash out. Those other players had no respect for you or what you want out of the game. Getting into a group who want to play realistic roles would do you a world of good.

Hat-Trick
2009-11-12, 09:11 PM
You can always roleplay. No matter if you have a system devoted to combat, roleplaying (surprise surprise), puzzles, or no system what so ever, you can always roleplay. They just wanted to kill things (a form of roleplaying).

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-12, 09:15 PM
Most, but not all of these problems occurred in D&D, and not all were in third edition. When I tried joining the fourth edition campaign of the same group I was told up front that the rules for fourth edition did not allow you to role-play and it was a purely tactical combat game. I played a few sessions, bored out of my mind, and ended up walking away from the game with a lot of hatred for fourth edition that is probably not fully justified.

Um..what about skills?

Talakeal
2009-11-12, 09:17 PM
Skills were just a dice roll. For example: The guard will not let you into the keep carrying weapons. Roll diplomacy to see if you can convince him otherwise. Fail and he attacks. Succeed and skip to the fight inside of the keep.

Xenogears
2009-11-12, 09:21 PM
Skills were just a dice roll. For example: The guard will not let you into the keep carrying weapons. Roll diplomacy to see if you can convince him otherwise. Fail and he attacks. Succeed and skip to the fight inside of the keep.

If they are being that obvious about disliking role-playing then you really only have two options.

A: Stop Role-Playing and just start killing stuff. By your last post you don't seem to like this idea.

B: Stop playing DnD with them. You can still be RL friends and go play video games or whatever else you like but playing DnD with them just seems like a bad idea.

Rhiannon87
2009-11-12, 09:23 PM
Yeah, repeating what everyone else has mostly said... you're a roleplayer trapped in a group of hack-n-slashers who resent the hell out of you doing something that isn't directly related to make the thing die and move onto the next combat. Your responses in some places probably weren't the best-- stabbing the fighter, charming another guy, etc-- but I've been in situations where I've been so angry at a player that I've done stupid things in-character (or threatened to) to get revenge. Not good, but understandable. Their reaction of throwing you out of the group and being general jackasses is WAY overreacting, even with you killing another party member.

Seems like the GM and the players are all expecting one thing out of this game (tactical combat simulator) and you're looking for something else (narrative story roleplay). Those two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but if one side dominates and has no interest at all in the other... there's really not much that can be done. I'd suggest trying out some PbP games here, see if you can try to do some roleplaying, and... I dunno, hang around your local gaming stores and see if you can find a new group? I've only ever gotten into D&D groups via my friends, so I have no idea how to go about finding a brand-new group.

mikeejimbo
2009-11-12, 09:29 PM
When I tried joining the fourth edition campaign of the same group I was told up front that the rules for fourth edition did not allow you to role-play and it was a purely tactical combat game.

Whoa, and I thought I was bad at roleplaying. At least I try!

jamorris09
2009-11-12, 09:31 PM
The problem is that everyone thinks adventuring involves slaying a warring. But u could have an entire campaign without enemies, just dungeons and traps. That wouldn't be fun but within the rules it would be just fine. In fact my DM likes to throw things at us regularly that we can't kill. Just to show us we can't and shouldn't try to kill everything. And he makes us role play gathering supplies. Idk if every dm does this or not but I find it unnecessary but go with it because it's art of getting into ur character. Playing a character that is really weak, or useless, in certain situations can be fun cuz u have to think a lot more.

Talakeal
2009-11-12, 09:48 PM
I agree that I am not blameless. I could have discussed my character concept more thoroughly with the DM and other player's, and I was genuinly angry about the other player's attacking my character before the charm and the CDG incidents.

In the second case I agree that killing the fighter in his sleep was wrong and an escalation, but at that point it was either stop RPing entirely and become his puppet or leave the group. Remember he had traumatized and almost killed my character the day before after several weeks of verbal abuse. If I had known the GM would pull such a deus ex machina I probably I probably would have just made a new character.
The fighter's player was a jerk. In the previous campaign he had been involved in at least two arguments that escalated into PvP confrontations with other characters (I was not involved in the combats) and had at one point had his alignment forcibly changed to evil after I was disabled by a cursed item and his first action was to take all of my gold and magic items as a "fee" for transporting me to a cleric for a cure.

In the charm example I was pissed off OOC that he was using me as a meatshield and so I returned the favor in kind. The only differance is he used passive aggressive movement to do this, and declared he was doing so OOC, while I used active spells.
IC I was not playing a "good" character, I was an evil bard who was working toward the dirge prc which uses their song to bolster undead minions, and would not really have cared if the other guy, who I had been in a group with for all of five minutes and didn't even now his name.

Jayngfet
2009-11-12, 09:55 PM
My advice: Forget those *******s and game somewhere else. They seem to have something against actual RP or variation, since everything I've heard is either cliche or terrible.

If you can't get a new IRL group most forum games are your style. Dice rolls can be learned in five minutes and plothook can provide sheets.

JKTrickster
2009-11-12, 10:09 PM
I totally agree with Jayngfet. I acutally think PbP (while slow) is definetly more receptive for roleplaying purposes, even only because it looks so empty when you type "My char attacks and I roll". In fact, I only game online on DnD because it's so much easier to RP this way and not have to deal with those who don't like it as much.

But I don't think you have to neccessarily break with your group yet. They're your friends right? So definetly try talking with them; tell them how your character is going to be played and definetly WHY you're RPing in this certain way. If they really think it's stupid, then apologize and say you won't be joining their session anymore.

P.S. You may not want to play a Tripper based character. While "passive", the DM is more likely to get pissed (espicially if using the spiked chain). I wouldn't know, since you haven't described the DM much.

Also the fighter seems like a jerk. I recommend playing a Batman Wizard (or Planar Shepard Druid) just to show him how terribly useless he is :smallamused: (Of course I kid, I kid)

Sir Homeslice
2009-11-12, 10:11 PM
When I tried joining the fourth edition campaign of the same group I was told up front that the rules for fourth edition did not allow you to role-play and it was a purely tactical combat game. I played a few sessions, bored out of my mind, and ended up walking away from the game with a lot of hatred for fourth edition that is probably not fully justified.

No gaming is better than bad gaming. Leave these people forever, they are irredeemably stupid. Try finding an online game that hopefully runs through IRC/MapTool. It'll be slow going but certainly better than these stooges.

Dimers
2009-11-12, 10:22 PM
No gaming is better than bad gaming. Leave these people forever, they are irredeemably stupid. Try finding an online game that hopefully runs through IRC/MapTool. It'll be slow going but certainly better than these stooges.

Talakeal: you've just opened up to hundreds of people about your appreciation of roleplaying, and you've acknowledged your mistakes. I don't think you'd have much trouble finding other compatible players for a PbP or PbE here. :smallcool:

ghashxx
2009-11-12, 10:40 PM
When stuck with a bunch of anti-role play guys, just play a wizard and throw the fighter into a force cage any time he's being a jerk. The beauty of non-deadly spells that you can dispel at any point in time is that you can punish people without killing them! And when you're obviously outclassing all the other guys then you can role play as much as you want. Also, there's an upgrade for weapons to make them deal non-lethal damage, a feat for it, and a metamagic thing for it.

Lvl45DM!
2009-11-12, 10:54 PM
Playing characters with no melee ability who stand around uselessly at any point in combat is bad
give your cleric a lasso :)

Aron Times
2009-11-12, 10:58 PM
Judging by your original post, you are a very disruptive player. You're the type who wants to play a noncombatant in an Exalted game, or a mortal in a Vampire game.

One of the core assumptions of D&D, regardless of edition, is that your character is an adventurer, a hero or villain who seeks out danger for fame and fortune. A pacifist wouldn't even be an adventurer in the first place.

Also, as I discussed in a previous thread about taking responsibility for your characters actions, you, the olayer, are 100% responsible for your characters actions. Saying that you had no choice but to make your character act like he did is not an excuse because ultimately, he is 100% under your control.

You basically attacked an NPC against the party's wishes and killed a couple of party members who were justifiably angry at your refusal to help in a life or death situation.

You chose to play a character whose personality clashes with that of the party, and you suffered the consequences. There are only two solutions - find another group that suits your playing style or change your playing style to work in harmony with the rest of the group.

JKTrickster
2009-11-12, 11:01 PM
Actually I'll probably regret saying this but...ghashx (and the others) may be onto something. If in the case where you find yourself unable/unwilling to leave the group...just play something broken. From the sounds of it, this group doesn't seem to have any real optimizers (just a bunch of hack-n-slashers). Show them what abuse REALLY means (just go Druid 20. I'm sure there's enough flavor in there for you and it'll make the fighter feel so utterly....overshadowed.)

You'll be able to RP since you're "competent" anyway and no other player would stop you.

Of course this may ruin your relationships...but I don't know why I would hang out with such people anyway.

Talakeal
2009-11-12, 11:31 PM
My problem isn't really about my group or leaving them. I DM 90% of the time anyway. My problems are as follows:

1: How do I play a character who is a pacifist without cheesing of the hack and slasherrs.

2: Because of a couple of instances where I attacked another player or a "non combat npc" I am now considered a problem player amongst my group. How can I dissuade them of this notion without letting them walk all over me?

In response to Joseph Silver, yes I can be a bit disruptive at times, especially when someone gets me frustrated, but keep in mind these stories are extreme events which occurred over a period of 10-15 years, they aren't just recent things. The only time I have ever actually killed a player was said

You say that a character is 100% under your control, which is true, but if you are acting on OOC knowledge or ignoring your motivation, you aren't really role-playing anymore. Every book on RPing or GMing I have ever read says that you should do everything in your power to avoid metagame thinking.
For example if confronted with a monster that has damage reduction which you cannot penetrate, but your character doesn't know that. Would you consider it a good or bad thing if you tried attacking it like you would a normal monster before learning of its immunity?
While I understand that keeping the party together in the long run is a better motivation that staying in character, it doesn't seem fair that I have to sit back and ignore my character entirely because the rest of the party wants to be psychopaths and steal from / kill / threaten / taunt / abuse my character or helpless NPCs.
To use an OOTS example, everyone hates Miko for having a stick up her ass and telling everyone what to do while they consider Roy a good guy for putting up with Belkar and to a lesser extent V and Haley.
Now imagine if Belkar actually decided to kill Elan or rape / murder / enslave some random townsfolk. If Haley was actually out stealing from orphanages and assassinating law enforcement officers. If Vaarsuvius was sacrificing virgins for arcane power. If Roy and Duurkon are fully aware of these activities, and do nothing to prevent it for the sake of "keeping the party together" would they still be considered heroes?
I personally would lose all respect for their characters if they did this. If I lose all respect for one of my PCs, what fun is playing said PC? So explain to me again who is making the game not fun for who?

Kylarra
2009-11-12, 11:35 PM
My problem isn't really about my group or leaving them. I DM 90% of the time anyway. My problems are as follows:

1: How do I play a character who is a pacifist without cheesing of the hack and slasherrs.
Play a batman wizard that debuffs and make heavy use of the readied action if you find yourself with them already debuffed and nothing to do.



Alternatively druid and just buff/heal and let your AC do the fighting for you.

Leon
2009-11-12, 11:50 PM
Most, but not all of these problems occurred in D&D, and not all were in third edition. When I tried joining the fourth edition campaign of the same group I was told up front that the rules for fourth edition did not allow you to role-play and it was a purely tactical combat game. I played a few sessions, bored out of my mind, and ended up walking away from the game with a lot of hatred for fourth edition that is probably not fully justified.

So they were playing 2nd Ed DDM which bears a remarkable similarity to 4e D&D?

A Beguiler with the array of Non-lethal Whelm spells could be a possibility for a pacifist type PC that still does something in the very narrow view of the rest of the party

Talakeal
2009-11-13, 12:05 AM
Second Edition DDM?

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-13, 12:11 AM
You could always play a druid, and RP your animal companion as extremely protective, to the point of disobeying your orders when you're being menaced.

You debuff the enemies and buff your allies. If your group complains, let yourself get menaced after a quick buff on your pet, and do your best to easily annihilate the opposition. By yourself. Then have your companion start getting a bit touchy with the rest of the group, mostly for intimidation factor.

Asbestos
2009-11-13, 12:12 AM
Second Edition DDM?

Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures. The D&D game that actually IS a table top skirmish game.

Kylarra
2009-11-13, 12:14 AM
You could always play a druid, and RP your animal companion as extremely protective, to the point of disobeying your orders when you're being menaced.

You debuff the enemies and buff your allies. If your group complains, let yourself get menaced after a quick buff on your pet, and do your best to easily annihilate the opposition. By yourself. Then have your companion start getting a bit touchy with the rest of the group, mostly for intimidation factor.
This sounds like fun.

elliott20
2009-11-13, 12:58 AM
answer: you can't. You clearly can't. based on your post, these guys don't have the faintest clue what it means to actually be useful, and reduce it all to just be able to dish out direct damage.

and these guys just dont' sound like very mature gamers to begin with. Go find a new group that's more in sync with you.

Random832
2009-11-13, 01:22 AM
For the incident with the bandits... maybe they (and the DM) don't know they're still supposed to get the XP if you leave your opponents alive?

Project_Mayhem
2009-11-13, 04:56 AM
Judging by your original post, you are a very disruptive player. You're the type who wants to play a noncombatant in an Exalted game, or a mortal in a Vampire game.


No No No No. Both of those ideas are entirely workable if you, you know, roleplay and stuff every now and again.

I agree that DnD runs on the assumption that your effective in a fight, but seriously dude, the two games you listed - Exalted allows support characters, and both Requiem and Masquerade allow for crossovers.

Thurbane
2009-11-13, 05:28 AM
Judging by your original post, you are a very disruptive player. You're the type who wants to play a noncombatant in an Exalted game, or a mortal in a Vampire game.

One of the core assumptions of D&D, regardless of edition, is that your character is an adventurer, a hero or villain who seeks out danger for fame and fortune. A pacifist wouldn't even be an adventurer in the first place.

Also, as I discussed in a previous thread about taking responsibility for your characters actions, you, the olayer, are 100% responsible for your characters actions. Saying that you had no choice but to make your character act like he did is not an excuse because ultimately, he is 100% under your control.

You basically attacked an NPC against the party's wishes and killed a couple of party members who were justifiably angry at your refusal to help in a life or death situation.

You chose to play a character whose personality clashes with that of the party, and you suffered the consequences. There are only two solutions - find another group that suits your playing style or change your playing style to work in harmony with the rest of the group.
...just, wow! Is that devil's advocate, or how you really feel? :smalleek:

Khanderas
2009-11-13, 05:47 AM
My impression of the OP, is that she is playing with a real bunch of jerks.
Naturally we only get one side of this, but still.


I'd be furious over having your rogue kill my fighter in his sleep, or your bard charm my character and throw him into danger. I see that as passive-aggressive, not "non-violent". It's non-violent in comparison to the group's outright aggression, sure. But a coup-de-grace is violent, and so is inflicting damage on somebody via charm.
And tossing her aqua-phobic character in the river, or manuvering so all bugs attack the nontank that isnt wielding a weapon is not ?
Yet strangely only the retaliation is punished. Its all fun and game unless she does it. Im reminded by Meg in Family Guy here.
(yet again though, only one version is presented).

MickJay
2009-11-13, 06:41 AM
Play a different character. You've mentioned examples of both your trigger-happy characters and pacifists, but why not play some moderate character? By now, you must know that what you're doing will provoke your group to negative reactions, and at this point (after 15 years?), it's difficult to call it something other than being passive-aggressive. If you want the problems to stop, you should either leave the group, or start playing more flexible characters, you're not going to change the preferred playstyle of the group by provoking them to be jerks.

Better yet, find a system that isn't D&D and either convince your group to try it, or find another group. D&D is one of the worst systems when it comes to deep roleplaying.

Roderick_BR
2009-11-13, 06:47 AM
Find a new party. Really. They suck. BADLY.
I mean, the hell? Damned if do, damned if don't?
-I attack him.
-you are disrupting the game!

-I don't attack him.
-you are useless!

How can anyone play in a group like that? :smallannoyed:

And your DM should wear a railroad engineer hat.

katans
2009-11-13, 07:36 AM
Judging by your original post, you are a very disruptive player. You're the type who wants to play a noncombatant in an Exalted game, or a mortal in a Vampire game.


Which is absolutely fine if the DM says it will be fine. From T's story I can't recall the DM putting a veto on the character concept.



One of the core assumptions of D&D, regardless of edition, is that your character is an adventurer, a hero or villain who seeks out danger for fame and fortune. A pacifist wouldn't even be an adventurer in the first place.


There are other motivations for adventuring than seeking fortune.



Also, as I discussed in a previous thread about taking responsibility for your characters actions, you, the olayer, are 100% responsible for your characters actions. Saying that you had no choice but to make your character act like he did is not an excuse because ultimately, he is 100% under your control.

This is only a partial truth. Of course, you do control you character's actions and could have your LG diviner take lessons in greatsword combat and go disembowel an orphanage. But this is a ROLE playing game, which implies that you're accepting a certain number of patterns and restrictions on how to play the character, even if this could lead to conflicts because, after all, it is one of RPing's most interesting aspects. Sometimes, more often than not, "my character would NEVER act like that" is the right answer and the only sensible way to react. And let's be honest: Talakeal didn't describe minor conflicts there.



You basically attacked an NPC against the party's wishes and killed a couple of party members who were justifiably angry at your refusal to help in a life or death situation.


Attacking the NPC was not a wrong thing, according to T's description of the situation. Apparently, no other party member tried IN CHARACTER to prevent this act.

Bickering about OOC and not acting IC does not count, never, ever.



You chose to play a character whose personality clashes with that of the party, and you suffered the consequences. There are only two solutions - find another group that suits your playing style or change your playing style to work in harmony with the rest of the group.

Clashes within a party are not incompatible with roleplaying! I'd even consider them the cherry on the top. My current party consists of a NE wizard, a LN cleric, a CN rogue, a N ranger and a CG bard. Do you think our chars are BFF just because they happen to adventure together? The bard is scared to death of everyone else, the cleric is a self-righteous know-it-all who holds a heavy grudge against the ranger, who himself regularly puts the party into jeopardy and has too close a contact with the wrong deity, the rogue is an unreliable hedonist and the wizard a latent menace to everyone. And despite those IC incompatibilities, we're all having a great time.

Playing with no personal objectives, no conflict of interest, no diversity in the interpretation is not what I'd call roleplaying. If that's what you want, call it a board game, a strategic combat game, but not a role-playing game, and make sure everyone in your group is fine with it.

So... yeah, find another group, try online gaming, and so on.

taltamir
2009-11-13, 07:38 AM
To answer the original OP (without going over every single post since)
If you want to roleplay a non violent character... find a few other people who want to do the same, now roleplay...

If there is no violence you do not need:
1. a system
2. a character sheet
3. a class
4. dice.

I recommend you go for the full larp experience, then you get to wear cool costumes...
But joining a DnD (aka, lets kill sentients who look different then us and take their stuff... and get godlike powers from killing them via the mythical XP) and playing as completely "non-violent" (as in, never ever fight... not "oppose senseless violence"... that is just "good") strikes me as pointless... and (party) grief causing.

Speaking of larping (and I don't mean the kind where you hit each other with nerf, I mean non violent larping)... what kinds do you know of other than vampires?

Cyanic
2009-11-13, 08:29 AM
Just to toss another into this category, your group is a bunch of douches. I ran into similar problems once as a VOP chaosmage. One minute I am buffing and teleporting and such, next thing you know I had the DM on one side saying the buffing and tactical magic was making encounters too easy and the players saying I wasn't contributing just because I wasn't slinging fire or some-nonsense. Worst thing is they were doing this publicly at the table, AT THE SAME TIME.

So, I left, screw em both. I suggest you consider something similar.

taltamir
2009-11-13, 08:34 AM
Just to toss another into this category, your group is a bunch of douches. I ran into similar problems once as a VOP chaosmage. One minute I am buffing and teleporting and such, next thing you know I had the DM on one side saying the buffing and tactical magic was making encounters too easy and the players saying I wasn't contributing just because I wasn't slinging fire or some-nonsense. Worst thing is they were doing this publicly at the table, AT THE SAME TIME.

So, I left, screw em both. I suggest you consider something similar.

so wait. you were using effective non DD spells and they said it was "not contributing?". thats hilarious (and bad)...

Yea, if the group is being mean, leave them.

Ormagoden
2009-11-13, 01:33 PM
I don't actually agree with most of the statements here.

I do not view DnD as some tactical combat game.

Its a roleplaying game, combat takes a large stage in that roleplaying game.

DnD is not "first and foremost a tactical combat game" I just don't agree with that statement at all.

In anycase let me drop my opinion on the OP's matter at hand.

How long ago did all this occur? It isn't clear if it is with a separate group or the same group over a long period (or maybe i need to learn to read gooder)

There are TONS of non-violent spells in the game. Hold person, hold monster, facinate, color spray, prismatic orb, and all sorts of crazy stuff.

Stat de-buffs are a BIG non-violent way to solve a problem (as long as it isn't con) draining the hell out of one stat usually leaves the enemy helpless.

Non-violent characters and paladins sometimes fall under the same treatment from a group of players.

Sometimes players begin to resent the paladin because they can't take advantage of certain things or steal when he is around. Its the same thing with a pacifist. The party has to learn to get along with a paladin and a pacifist in much the same way, at the same time the paladin and the pacifist can't expect the entire group to follow the same moral compass.

Honestly, you need a new group, you need a group that is open to trying out new things and working together in new ways. Not a group that throws you in the god damned river when you don't want to do something. At the same time though, your character acted in an extreme. They could have simply walked away.

For example, If I was working with a bunch of guys in a forest near a river and they wanted to cross and I said I can't swim and I'm afraid of the water; then they chucked me in and forded the river. Initially I'd be quite mad, but I wouldn't kill the guy in his sleep. I'd just walk away and find a new group or job.

Dust
2009-11-13, 01:48 PM
Your group is made of 100% douchebagium, an element only occuring in douchebags.

To the OP: I don't buy the statements that call you a disruptive player. Rolling up a pure healer class and focusing on keeping your group in fighting form constantly is hardly the calling card of a problem player, even if for role-playing purposes they didn't bother to grab a staff, charge into melee and try do damage with their -2 attack roll.

Find a new group that appreciates you.

lsfreak
2009-11-13, 02:07 PM
You have two options, as I see it.

Leave as amiably as possible. "Seeing as how my characters meet violent deaths by your hands whenever I try to roleplay, it's obvious you guys don't want me around. No hard feelings." Since you said you DM 90% of the time, perhaps this will get them to reconsider, and if not you can try and find another group.

The other option is rollplaying to the extreme. Learn to optimize and optimize well. Play a batman (or mailman, since they seem to have no respect for anything but the number of dice you can roll) wizard and take out the entire opposing force before anyone else can even act. Slap the fighter on the back and say, "Gotta be faster if you want some action, old chum!" after one-shotting the BBEG mid-sentence. Continue chuckling to yourself when you are kicked out of the group.

As you said, you have to be a bipolar character, and they're not going to see it any other way, so there's no way for you to win. Either you leave on as good of terms as possible, or piss them off one last time.

As for your specific actions:
The gem this would have been what I would have done. You don't go charging past someone with their weapon drawn, that's just being a poor DM. That they got upset... tell them if they want to watch a story happen, watch a ****ing movie.

With the rogue, I would have made sure there was a mechanically-viable way of pulling it off (like having pounce and travel devotion). But your actions were perfectly acceptable in-character.

The cleric... they're idiots. Plain and simple. But passing on an action generally isn't the best idea, at least delay. Though you should always make sure you have *something* to do - a crossbow, nondamaging spells, something.

On the bard, you can't attack while singing I don't think, so I don't think you can even attack and sing at the same time (maybe I'm mistaken though, I don't play bards). I disagree with not carrying a weapon (unless maybe you're a VoPeace character trying to stop wars or the like, but not a typical adventurer by any stretch of the word). The fact that they blamed YOU for PvP when they went out of their way to try and get you killed... yea, I would have stormed out and not come back.

I wouldn't dream of playing a paladin with people like this. They're out to piss you off, throw in a character that has a code of conduct and you're just begging for problems.

Delwugor
2009-11-13, 02:16 PM
If I read the OP correctly these incidents where with more than one group. The other part I caught was at least 2 characters without weapons in combat situations, the infamous "non-violent" characters in combat. Then there is the PvP killing that was instigated. And finally the undertone I read is that these groups, GMs and players where reacting to instances, which does not really mean being douchebags.

To me that seems more like a problem with you playing and not the groups. I'm not suggesting you are being a douchebag but that you may be coming across as one to the other players.

I'm have been a huge role-player for years but I quickly learned to role-play my characters in *context* of the campaign and the expectations of the group. Otherwise I would just end up getting in the way of the other players and their gaming fun.

So I would suggest asking how can you role-play a "non-violent" character within the context of a group of D&D adventures. Some things I can suggest:
1. Never say "My character wouldn't do that" or act in that mode. Instead approach it as here is how my character would approach the problem. A character might be deathly afraid of water but that doesn't mean she can't ask for help or protection to get across the river. That is 100% in character without being disruptive to the other players and not refusing to so something in the group.
2. A non-violent character doesn't mean they won't defend themselves or others, or just stand there passively doing nothing while their companions are fighting. A character doesn't have to raise a weapon and attack to be effective in helping a group get through a combat.
3. Instigating a PvP is always bad unless it is explicitly allowed. Instead role-play it such that your character now plots the revenge, downfall and/or embarasement of the other character.
4. Ask your self are you role-playing your character within or despite the group and campaign. Is role-playing your character more important than


The part about disrupting the plot made me laugh, there are players that LIKE being railroaded?
Yes, there are! I just left a group because the GM was always railroading, the other players would briefly say something and then just go on playing like it was no big deal. :smallconfused:
I would agree the first case does seem like railroading to ensure the GM's plot.


I don't actually agree with most of the statements here.

I do not view DnD as some tactical combat game.

Its a roleplaying game, combat takes a large stage in that roleplaying game.

DnD is not "first and foremost a tactical combat game" I just don't agree with that statement at all.
I agree 100%. In playing different D&D versions only once have I not been able to role-play, and that was because of 1 single person ... in 25 years.

ghashxx
2009-11-13, 02:54 PM
There's been a lot said since I last posted, but I just want to impress upon everyone that it's totally possible to be pacifist with the use of non-lethal damage by either using the feat, using a weapon with the quality, or using metamagic to make your spells non-lethal.

Ormagoden
2009-11-13, 02:55 PM
1. Never say "My character wouldn't do that" or act in that mode. Instead approach it as here is how my character would approach the problem. A character might be deathly afraid of water but that doesn't mean she can't ask for help or protection to get across the river. That is 100% in character without being disruptive to the other players and not refusing to so something in the group.
2. A non-violent character doesn't mean they won't defend themselves or others, or just stand there passively doing nothing while their companions are fighting. A character doesn't have to raise a weapon and attack to be effective in helping a group get through a combat.
3. Instigating a PvP is always bad unless it is explicitly allowed. Instead role-play it such that your character now plots the revenge, downfall and/or embarasement of the other character.
4. Ask your self are you role-playing your character within or despite the group and campaign. Is role-playing your character more important than


All solid advice right here.
Remember "but I'm just staying in role" isn't really an excuse for making someone else at the table completely miserable.
Respect other players and they respect you, but ditch you're group man its obvious they don't want you around, why prolong the pain?

Fluffles
2009-11-13, 02:56 PM
Have him feint every time he sees blood. That way he'll be unconscious every time your party fights. No problem then :smallamused:

Zincorium
2009-11-13, 03:08 PM
An analogy:

To me, Roleplaying resembles curry sauce and combat mechanics rice. You can have just the sauce on it's own, or just the rice on it's own, and both work, even though it's nice to mix them. Some people can't get enough curry and like it extremely spicy. Others like milder or smaller amounts of it.

You are offered plain rice, which is what everybody else seems to want. You either take all of the rice, or refuse to take any rice, and then put lots of curry onto everyone else's plates, even after they refuse to eat it once.

I can't fault the group for not liking your characters. You seem to steadfastly avoid the middle ground when it comes to killing/not killing, do not pick up on any hints or cues they're giving, and seem absolutely sure that you are playing the game right during all of this.

You mentioned that your rogue hated water and said your backstory said so. Do you seriously mean to tell me that your character trait of hating water, which is mind numbingly boring to the other players, justifies taking more than five seconds to cross a river? Really? The fact that the eels attacked you was bad DMing, but killing the fighter in his sleep, without at least making a cursory attempt to work it out in character, and without at least allowing him a chance to apologize, was just plain terrible gamesmanship, and as a DM I would tell you that either it never happened or you can leave the table.

How to play a non-violent character?

First, find a group where this is apparently okay, ask whether it's okay, then contribute to the success of the group without being a loner, disruptive, or useless.

Don't fit square pegs into round holes.

Delwugor
2009-11-13, 03:24 PM
Curry? That's not spicy. I like my rice with habanero peppers. Actually forget the curry and rice, I'm happy with the habanero alone. :smallbiggrin:

Otherwise I have to agree with you and Lostfang.
Well I should agree with Lostfang since he was agreeing with me. :smallwink:

AtwasAwamps
2009-11-13, 03:32 PM
For those of you saying that playing a “pacifist” character in DnD, RAW disagrees. Gogo Vow of Peace!

Anyways, there’s a lot that could be said here, but this is the obvious one:

You’re considered a problem player by your group. They have a certain style of game they like to play. It’s not the one you enjoy.

Not to be a meanie about it, but you don’t fit in. I don’t think you really are a problem player, but I think you need to realize that unless you shift your entire paradigm, you will be one to these guys.

I don’t think much of what you did was wrong. You’re playing a character and you play them to the hilt. You don’t use OOC to screw with people and frankly I think taking vengeance on the fighter was pretty much the way to go. Killing him, maybe not. Something vicious and lasting would have been better, a way of saying “Don’t mess” but that’s water under the bridge.

I feel that the longer you stay with these folks, the more of these problems are going to crop up. If you don’t wanna play their way, well, you’re the minority, and you’re never going to flip them to your vision. I’d strongly suggest taking a look at various online options that help you find groups and take advantage of them.

Vizzerdrix
2009-11-13, 03:39 PM
To address the question in the title: Use nets, saps and bolas along with tanglefoot bags and caltrops for combat. Take up a support/ battle field control roll with a strong lean towards buffing as well. Or just build a Diplomancer and make everything your friend.

BlackSheep
2009-11-13, 03:51 PM
How old are the people in this group, just out of curiosity?

Person_Man
2009-11-13, 04:10 PM
Sounds like you're playing with a bunch of children. Which makes sense if you happen to be 13. Or maybe 18, if they've chugged too much Mountain Dew, or Redbull, or whatever kids are drinking today. (Suddenly, I feel the urge to tell someone to get off my lawn).

Anyway, your experiences are actually pretty common ones for young and/or inexperienced. I suggest that you take a turn at DMing. If you play sane NPCs that react realistically to the PCs actions without railroading or other crazyness as you've described it, they should pick up on it, eventually.

Sipex
2009-11-13, 04:35 PM
Yeah, seems like your problem is your group not your style so the answer is simply: Get a better group and then respectfully tell your old group to shove it in the least bridge burning way possible.

tbarrie
2009-11-13, 04:50 PM
There's been a lot said since I last posted, but I just want to impress upon everyone that it's totally possible to be pacifist with the use of non-lethal damage by either using the feat, using a weapon with the quality, or using metamagic to make your spells non-lethal.

Only under a rather idiosyncratic definition of "pacifist".

taltamir
2009-11-13, 05:44 PM
I think we disagree on the term "non violent"


There are TONS of non-violent spells in the game. Hold person, hold monster, facinate, color spray, prismatic orb, and all sorts of crazy stuff.

Those are all violent spells... first, the prismatic line can outright kill you, and does direct damage.
The hold line does nothing at all except make you coup de graceable...

And if you go around combat casting CC you are contributing more to the death of your enemies than you do by casting fireball. Hold person so that the fighter can slit his throat is not any less violent than a fireball to the face.

Its like how clerics use maces as a TRICK to bypass their oath not to draw blood... (since it doesn't cut the skin, but causes internal organ damage, no blood is drawn)

BillyJimBoBob
2009-11-13, 05:51 PM
Murder? I disagree. Most of what good- and nicer neutral-aligned characters do is 100% morally fine. Intercepting an orc raiding party before it reaches a peaceful village is not murder, it's defending the weak.Only if your group white-washes what to do with any survivors, women, and children...

To the OP: You've had a lot of seriously jerkass groups. RL friends who kick you out for reacting well within character? That was no "random NPC" you attacked, it was an NPC who was robbing the NPC who was your employer out of the object your entire group had just adventured to return to him. Attacking your character for role playing a phobia of swimming? Booting your pacifist heal-bot for not carrying a weapon? SNL "really" skit coming on here...

Starbuck_II
2009-11-13, 05:54 PM
Only under a rather idiosyncratic definition of "pacifist".

What: Paladins Smite with Pacifictic Justice! Pacifist Stab!

ghashxx
2009-11-14, 12:33 AM
I think we disagree on the term "non violent"



Those are all violent spells... first, the prismatic line can outright kill you, and does direct damage.
The hold line does nothing at all except make you coup de graceable...

And if you go around combat casting CC you are contributing more to the death of your enemies than you do by casting fireball. Hold person so that the fighter can slit his throat is not any less violent than a fireball to the face.

Its like how clerics use maces as a TRICK to bypass their oath not to draw blood... (since it doesn't cut the skin, but causes internal organ damage, no blood is drawn)

Oh wow, so when you say that you want to be non-violent you mean you want to only cast spells against opponents that won't give your team any tactical advantage leading to your opponents deaths? I'm kind of at a loss for words...well almost at a loss of words. Anything you do, whether buffing allies or casting fireball or holding an opponent, leads to your enemies dying. When you give a fighter +4 strength you've just made yourself a part of the killing of another person. The only thing I can think of for a pacifist, as it seems you define one, would be to teleport all enemies directly into jail cells.

Thurbane
2009-11-14, 12:41 AM
The only thing I can think of for a pacifist, as it seems you define one, would be to teleport all enemies directly into jail cells.
But what if they get shanked in the shower block? :smalltongue:

taltamir
2009-11-14, 01:26 AM
Oh wow, so when you say that you want to be non-violent you mean you want to only cast spells against opponents that won't give your team any tactical advantage leading to your opponents deaths? I'm kind of at a loss for words...well almost at a loss of words. Anything you do, whether buffing allies or casting fireball or holding an opponent, leads to your enemies dying. When you give a fighter +4 strength you've just made yourself a part of the killing of another person. The only thing I can think of for a pacifist, as it seems you define one, would be to teleport all enemies directly into jail cells.

or... not play DnD... hence my suggestion to do some larping.

Mixing pacifism with a war based game makes no sense.
PS. teleport is limited to WILLING targets.

Are you actually saying that you consider casting hold person on someone so that the warrior can lop off his head "pacifism"?

Karsh
2009-11-14, 01:41 AM
I played a character kind of like this once. He was a Seeker Cleric in Dragonlance during the War of the Lance and had the True Neutral equivalent of the Blue Crystal Staff. He started out as Neutral Good and didn't believe in killing people. It became something of a running joke. He would go around doing nonlethal damage while the scythe fighter was cutting random barroom brawlers in half, and would shout "Stop killing people!"

It became an interesting bit of character development as he shifted more and more to True Neutral, culminating in him coup de gracing an unconscious necromancer that had attacked the party with his morningstar.

But yeah, doesn't sound like you're at fault there.

Just never play a Vow of Peace character unless everyone is doing something similar. Your party will hate you.

Thurbane
2009-11-14, 01:47 AM
or... not play DnD... hence my suggestion to do some larping.

Mixing pacifism with a war based game makes no sense.
PS. teleport is limited to WILLING targets.

Are you actually saying that you consider casting hold person on someone so that the warrior can lop off his head "pacifism"?
There is plenty of room in D&D to play a non-violent/pacifist character (heck, there is an Apostle of Peace PrC) - it just seems that everyone has their own interpretation of what exactly "non-violent" means. If you take it to mean "never do anything that could directly or indirectly lead to the harm of another creature" then yes, that is a very tough ask in D&D. If, however, you mean dealing non-lethal damage and using incapacitating spells and effects that don't inflict damage or harm, as well as buffing and healing your allies, then it is perfectly doable.

Sillycomic
2009-11-14, 02:12 AM
How to role play nonviolence...

I think you got it mostly right with your bard. Buffing, debuffing and battlefield control are all excellent ways to fight in combat, without actually dealing damage.

I would say the only thing you were missing was to take it one step further. Some people have already suggested the next level of nonviolence... the almost attacks. Trips, disarms, grapples, all of these non magical attacks that hurt the baddies without dealing direct damage.

When I played a cleric for Pathfinder, my GM showed me an awesome feat. It allowed me to cast all of my heal checks as if they were maximized. The only problem? I had to heal 1000 points of damage in order to get it. Well, that shouldn't be too hard, right? I mean, clerics heal all the time.

Ahh, but there's the kicker. If I deal any direct damage to a monster, any monster, even evil zombies while they are eating children, it counts as double against my score for this feat. So... it is a HARD feat to get.

I had to find a way for my character to be as helpful as possible without ever dealing direct damage to anything. This meant I had to make the other characters shine.

The biggest thing was to give the bonuses. Aid another, you only have to hit an AC of 10. A first level wizard with a masterwork dagger will do that over half the time. It gives a +2 bonus to whatever idiot feels like you need to do more in the game.

Funny story, I played that cleric in a weekly campaing for over 4 months and I only attacked a monster twice in that game. Both times it was a BBEG that either tried to run away or just took down one of my friends. Both times I confirmed critical hits. I thought it was hilarious.

Move in for flanking bonuses! I played a wizard... and when we finally reached the BBEG, a ranger drow, I was completely out of spells. I was pretty much useless. Finally, the barbarian woke up and I saw a chance to help.

I moved right before the Barbarian did, took a double move and got on the other side of the drow. I couldn't touch his AC... it was beyond my puny wizard dagger abilities, but I didn't need to. I just looked at the GM, smiled and said, "Hi... I'm the flanking bonus."

Barbarian charged and destroyed him.

So, in one round you can move in to flank for the rogue so she gets her sneak attack... along with her +2, and then Aid another with the Monk who is going to use his flurry of blows and needs all the help he can get. You are destroying this monster, and not dealing a single point of damage yourself.


Simple things that require weapons and attacks, but don't deal with direct damage. I think that is non violent enough for your role playing standards, and yet helpful enough for any jock hack n slash fighter you might find in your group.

Set
2009-11-14, 11:46 AM
When I played a cleric for Pathfinder, my GM showed me an awesome feat. It allowed me to cast all of my heal checks as if they were maximized. The only problem? I had to heal 1000 points of damage in order to get it. Well, that shouldn't be too hard, right? I mean, clerics heal all the time.

Ahh, but there's the kicker. If I deal any direct damage to a monster, any monster, even evil zombies while they are eating children, it counts as double against my score for this feat. So... it is a HARD feat to get.

Most do-able with a Cleric of Calistria (free whip proficiency) specialized in trip/disarm type maneuvers. When fighting stuff you can't inconvenience in that way, strick to doing the flank bonus thing you mentioned below, or use the Aid Other action (there are some Traits and feats that make you even better at Aiding Other, as well, in various Paizo books). Lots of heals and buffs, and tanglefoot bags and whip-trips and disarms for the melee rounds.

I had to find a way for my character to be as helpful as possible without ever dealing direct damage to anything. This meant I had to make the other characters shine.

As for the OP, that's just incompatibility. The OP wants to play one game, the other players want to play another game. I'm not going to blame one side or the other, because *neither* side is choosing to bend. Both sides end up killing each other's characters, in the original story, which means nobody is covered in glory, here.

Random832
2009-11-14, 11:48 AM
so wait. you were using effective non DD spells and they said it was "not contributing?". thats hilarious (and bad)...

Get them to say IC that you're not contributing. Spend the next few encounters helping the enemies instead of them, to teach them a lesson.

taltamir
2009-11-14, 11:54 AM
There is plenty of room in D&D to play a non-violent/pacifist character (heck, there is an Apostle of Peace PrC) - it just seems that everyone has their own interpretation of what exactly "non-violent" means. If you take it to mean "never do anything that could directly or indirectly lead to the harm of another creature" then yes, that is a very tough ask in D&D. If, however, you mean dealing non-lethal damage and using incapacitating spells and effects that don't inflict damage or harm, as well as buffing and healing your allies, then it is perfectly doable.

just because WOTC made a class for it doesn't mean it isn't retarded...
EX: The succubus paladin.


Get them to say IC that you're not contributing. Spend the next few encounters helping the enemies instead of them, to teach them a lesson.

owned! yes, that sounds like a good idea.
Or better yet... have the DM run two mock battles, one where you are on their side, one where you are on the other... have them not be "real" fights... aka, not plot canon.

Cubey
2009-11-14, 12:39 PM
Only if your group white-washes what to do with any survivors, women, and children...

Raiding party - fun for the whole (orc) family! Bring your kids, bring your elderly! Let's all kill hummies together!

On a serious note, I don't see any moral problems in this situation. If there are wounded or prisoners, killing them is not as nice as letting them go or shipping them off for a trial or something, but it's still a good thing to do. They were trying to kill innocents and you prevented it. Gender makes no difference. Age, maybe - but unlike the first few humorous sentences, I don't see an army of orc kids joining a raiding party.

kamikasei
2009-11-14, 01:04 PM
I think the main problem here is a lack of communication.

If I'm reading the OP correctly, these problems occurred with different groups over a long stretch of time, right?

I don't think it's that you are a bad player, or that your groups are idiots, but that you play with different goals and assumptions than most others around you and neither you nor they have much skill at heading off or defusing the resulting tensions. Given this, the best approach is probably for you to learn how to do so and apply the skill as needed, rather than hope for all other potential players in the area to change. After all, defusing tension is a valuable skill in its own right.

The number one piece of advice I would give you is to learn to metagame. That is, if the tide of the game seems to be carrying your character in a direction that will fundamentally contradict her personality and goals, say so out of character and see if you can make the others aware of the problem and willing to compromise. If you know your character is likely to get on the other players' nerves, talk to them about it before the game and work out how you can all keep from worsening one another's play experience.

For example, in the first example, could you not have said out of character "guys, we have no reason whatsoever to trust this guy - why are you happy to just let him dictate our actions to us? DM, can you not give us some justification here that my character would accept?". If the entire rest of the table just doesn't care about the guy's trustworthiness and wants to take the hook and roll with it, then you're not accomplishing anything worthwhile by behaving strictly in character.

In the second example, if the group was being seriously annoyed by your character, it might have been a good idea to talk to them out of character - "guys, this is what my character's like. Can you not cut her some slack? She contributes (I'm assuming she did), she just has some quirks. I think if you lay off for a bit and stopped calling her useless all the time, you'd find she's a useful party member. If whatever she's doing that annoys you is so bad, I can try to change it. If necessary I'll roll up a new character. But please stop just putting her down in the game - that means none of us are having any fun."

For the fighter to do what he did was obnoxious, yeah. But when it comes to a point like that, PvP is not the answer - that's when you talk to the player and say "man, what the hell?" Responding with in-character violence just means that the game can pretty much not go forward with both of you still in it.

For the "pacifist" characters, I have to agree with others that they were probably coming off as petulance to the group. That, and in fact in D&D you are dragging the party down if you spend an action doing nothing - actions are valuable and if it's seriously important to your character that she not carry a weapon then you should give serious thought to how you can contribute via alternate means on every round.

Combat is a huge part of D&D and if your party is going to be in combat yet you won't use a weapon or throw around offensive spells with reasonable efficiency then it's on you to come up with other ways to be useful. If your pacifist character boils down to "does half as much in combat as she could" then it's going to be very difficult to avoid angering your teammates.

In short, it sounds like your groups are fairly hack-and-slashy and don't want you to make roleplaying choices that severely hobble your ability to contribute in combat, but at the same time that you need to work on your ability to negotiate compromises with them. If they have their position and you have yours and you stick at yours with no attempt to meet them halfway, then your fun is incompatible with theirs and it's yours that will quite naturally be sacrificed.

Of course, it may be that you'll find they're unwilling to compromise or incapable of understanding the benefits your characters might be able to provide. In that case you'll want to look elsewhere for groups more compatible with your interests - but even in those groups friction will inevitably arise at some point, so you might as well work on tackling it with the groups you already know first.

Wulfram
2009-11-14, 01:08 PM
So pacifists are...

People who beat people into submission, but refrain from killing them?

People who hold people down so others can kill them?

People who sing songs to inspire people while they're killing people?

People who use magic to make people better at killing other people?

People who use magic to make people easier to kill?

Emmerask
2009-11-14, 01:31 PM
Maybe you should roll up a Pun-Pun to prove to them that your pacifist characters and roleplaying were perfectly fine.


hehe that was my first idea too create pun pun destroy the world and leave the game :smallbiggrin:

But seriously it doesn´t seem to me as if they really want another player at their table or perhaps just someone they can boss around and doesn´t show any initiative at all they want a dmpc in short.

I would have asked the "higher power" npcs aswell who they are for whom they work etc and without good answers I wouldn´t have given them the gem aswell and your other characters seemed to be nicely roleplayed.

My advise would be to look for a new group to play with (and I don´t think you will have a problem finding one (if there are other groups in your area))
The only way to not anger your current group seems to be if you play a completly faceless pc who does what he is told and otherwise shuts up and pretends to be not there, and not because you played a non violent character...


I think the main problem here is a lack of communication.

If I'm reading the OP correctly, these problems occurred with different groups over a long stretch of time, right?

Hmm I thought it was one group and he tried to play with them with different characters but I could be wrong of course :smallsmile:

Talakeal
2009-11-14, 05:46 PM
I agree pretty much with Kamikasel that talking could probably solve the problems, it's just when people (on both sides) are being stubborn it is easier said than done.

I am also very shy in real life, however when I am in character I feel much more confident. If I break character I quickly lose my confidence and the ability to talk. I also have trouble controlling my character, as I react differently to situations when I am in character then when I am out of character, and have trouble planning ahead. Maybe I need to just pull out of the game completely when I am getting mad ic, but to many steps will break my immersion and ruin the fun of the game so I have to do it sparingly.
That may sound slightly crazy (it does to me), but I am not sure if it is that unusual. Stephen King has said numerous times that good authors only have a vague idea of how characters will react to a good to a given situation until they are actually writing it down as they will take on a life of their own.

I also called up the GM of the campaign to ask his opinion on the matter. He said that he feels that role-play and combat are too completely different games. You do not start combat during role-play, you do not role-play during combat, and you certainly don't take what happens in one into the others. If this is the way the rest of the players feel as well (the GM assumed it was) then perhaps I really don't fit with that group.

Thurbane
2009-11-14, 05:48 PM
So pacifists are...

People who beat people into submission, but refrain from killing them?

People who hold people down so others can kill them?

People who sing songs to inspire people while they're killing people?

People who use magic to make people better at killing other people?

People who use magic to make people easier to kill?
Or they are...

People who incapacitate evil creatures so that they do not kill innocent beings incapable of defending themselves.

People who heal and protect their allies.

People who only use violence as a last resort to defend the innocent and preserve the rights of innocent beings.

Talakeal
2009-11-14, 05:58 PM
The incident with me attacking the NPC, my bard, and my rogue getting thrown into the river, and a few of the paladin stories were with my usual group, different GMs each time though. I almost always GM for this group, and have few major problems when doing so (although some day I will probably start another thread asking for help about those I do), but it seems whenever I PC it never works out.

The story with my priest occurred way back when I was first learning the game. Our science teacher had decided to teach a bunch of his students who were interested in gaming and fantasy to play dungeons and dragons at lunch time, and it grew so popular that it split into two parties.
I was in what I consider the B group. The party had less epic storylines, always devolving into hack and slash, and engaging in combat or theft with other party members. The DM said we were the most "chaotic" party he had ever seen. I tried to get in on the "A" game and was allowed an audition. Trying to break away from "chaotic neutral" hack and slash I made the pure healing cleric with a lot of back-story and role-playing potential. However, when combat started and I spent a round not acting because I didn't have a weapon and no one needed heals or buffs, I was told that I would need to make a "more optimized character" to fit in with the group. I was asked to leave until I had one.
The next character was by far the best I have ever rolled 3 18s including an 18/99 for exceptional strength, a 16, a 17, and 14, and was deemed "too optimized", and I was told it didn't have enough back story to allow.

taltamir
2009-11-14, 06:10 PM
So pacifists are...

People who beat people into submission, but refrain from killing them?

People who hold people down so others can kill them?

People who sing songs to inspire people while they're killing people?

People who use magic to make people better at killing other people?

People who use magic to make people easier to kill?

that basically seems to be the consensus.


Or they are...

People who incapacitate evil creatures so that they do not kill innocent beings incapable of defending themselves.

People who heal and protect their allies.

People who only use violence as a last resort to defend the innocent and preserve the rights of innocent beings.

Thats not a pacifist, thats your typical LG character/party. The healing part you can even do if evil or neutral. (healing is essential if you want to survive)

You are also skirting the subject instead of addressing the issue, each and every one of those things he said pacifists are was actually suggest by someone in this thread as a way to roleplay a pacifist.

Thurbane
2009-11-14, 06:18 PM
Even within that example, it is still feasible to take a pacifist character in D&D and contribute to a party. If you stick to healing and protecting your allies with spells, and using divinations or skills to overcome obstacles and avoid danger, you can play a pacifist in D&D. No doubt, you won't be contributing as much during combat as other characters, but at the very least, you could delay actions to heal injured party members, or even use the Aid Another action to boost your allies AC.

taltamir
2009-11-14, 06:21 PM
thurbane... which still means you think a pacifist is:


So pacifists are...

People who beat people into submission, but refrain from killing them?

People who hold people down so others can kill them?

People who sing songs to inspire people while they're killing people?

People who use magic to make people better at killing other people?

People who use magic to make people easier to kill?

Because healing your party members, buffing them, and debuffing enemies, all fall into the above categories.

By that argument, my favorite type of PC (a batman wizard) is a pacifist (whoops, never noticed), since I never take anything that can do direct damage or kill before level 10 (and many games don't last that long). And I don't like to use a bow.

And yes, you are right about this type of character being very playable... in fact it will contribute more to slaying your enemies (assuming there is noone else who can fill that role) much more than stabbing them with a sword. The argument is whether or not that is really a pacifist, not whether or not that type of character contributes.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-14, 06:41 PM
As far as advice on characters goes, I will give some advice;
You should avoid extremes. Neither should you go for hard-boiled ball-buster, who takes no crap and snaps at anyone who crosses him, nor a pacafist who refuses for whatever reason to contribute when lives are on the line. (Admittedly, both *can* be done, but by the sounds of it, you tend to come across badly when trying to do so?)

So, here's two concepts you might want to try building a few characters around in future games -

1 - Team Player. The Character makes friends well, and genuinely cares for his team members, whatever their quirks or hideous disfigurments. He will put his life on the line for them, as well as make sure he contributes in battle to what they are good at. For example, a fighter who always makes sure the rogue gets to flank.

2 - Pragmatist. They use their common sense, and try to follow the most practical and sensible course of action. This could mean planning for all manner of eventualities, or simply in keeping a cool head and making sure you can point out the least bad option in any sticky situation.

Basically, make sure you are contributing to the style that is desired, take an interest in the other pc's, and try not to go too over-the-top with character ideas. Think through the likely consequences of your characters personality.




OH, and secondly, yeah. It sounds like you've been kicked from a lot of groups if I follow the post at all. The most likely scenario is that, RL friends or otherwise, you can be a little annoying perhaps? You can deal with that, though, simply by trying to be more aware of what you are actually saying and doing.
Most likely, whether that's the case or not, though, the groups are also very much at fault, because theirs a lot of passive aggressive stuff going on even in those few examples. Everyone shoulders some of the blame here, I think. :)
I'd suggest keeping an eye out for gaming groups that match your style better, above all.


[edit] Also, from reading a few of these later posts, at least some of these examples are from when you were relatively young, and you may even be on the whipper-snapper side of things now? Yeah, if you're playing with a lot of younger sorts, there's more likely to be silly behaviour and general nonsense like you have described.
You may just have to hang in there for a few years and grit your teeth. Failing that, maybe there are some groups around more like my own, (Which has a much larger range of ages involved, kind of gives a nice relaxed and drama-free enviroment compared to a load of rowdy teenagers. :smallwink: )

Thurbane
2009-11-14, 10:56 PM
Because healing your party members, buffing them, and debuffing enemies, all fall into the above categories.
I never mentioned debuffing enemies, or interacting with them at all, except for an Aid Another check to boost an allies AC. I can't see how interposing yourself between an attacker and an ally goes against the beliefs of a pacifist.

By that argument, my favorite type of PC (a batman wizard) is a pacifist (whoops, never noticed), since I never take anything that can do direct damage or kill before level 10 (and many games don't last that long). And I don't like to use a bow.
Again, I never mention interactive with or casting spells at enemies at all in my last post.

And yes, you are right about this type of character being very playable... in fact it will contribute more to slaying your enemies (assuming there is noone else who can fill that role) much more than stabbing them with a sword. The argument is whether or not that is really a pacifist, not whether or not that type of character contributes.
I guess we're quibbling between the distinction in definition between pacifism and non-violence. I admit my definition of pacifism may not be ironclad.

But the original debate (not necessarily my replies to your posts) is most definitely about whether the OP's character could contribute or not...

PaladinBoy
2009-11-15, 12:15 AM
I am also very shy in real life, however when I am in character I feel much more confident. If I break character I quickly lose my confidence and the ability to talk. I also have trouble controlling my character, as I react differently to situations when I am in character then when I am out of character, and have trouble planning ahead. Maybe I need to just pull out of the game completely when I am getting mad ic, but to many steps will break my immersion and ruin the fun of the game so I have to do it sparingly.
That may sound slightly crazy (it does to me), but I am not sure if it is that unusual. Stephen King has said numerous times that good authors only have a vague idea of how characters will react to a good to a given situation until they are actually writing it down as they will take on a life of their own.

I can relate to this; I remember some of my character's personalities turning out much different from how I first envisioned them, simply because I repeatedly acted in a different manner than I intended to. Still, with me it was more saying harsher things than I would have thought necessary, or acting slightly more reckless than I thought I might. Something like killing another PC, as in your rogue story... seems a little unlikely that such troubles controlling your character will do that all by itself. If I were you, I'd try and hold off on the intra-party conflict... at least with weapons.


I also called up the GM of the campaign to ask his opinion on the matter. He said that he feels that role-play and combat are too completely different games. You do not start combat during role-play, you do not role-play during combat, and you certainly don't take what happens in one into the others. If this is the way the rest of the players feel as well (the GM assumed it was) then perhaps I really don't fit with that group.

... Well, I disagree with your GM (and I think it's a pity; some of my favorite stories were created in fight scenes) but changing that opinion is just about impossible. You can still play with that group, even if everyone shares that opinion, but you may not have as much fun as you could have with a different group.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-15, 01:47 AM
So gaming stories aside, it boils down to this. It seems that GM's and players alike expect you to play a bipolar character. Ordinarily you are kind and extremely passive, doing whatever the party members or NPCs tell you and never object to what they want to do. But, when combat starts, you need to become a blood crazed and completely remorseless (but cool headed and totally tactically aware) killing machine who will not stop until every enemy is dead.
How the hell am I supposed to make a character personality that fits with this model short of playing a brain washed slave / warrior like in Serenity or Unleashed?
Is this a problem in other groups, or do I just play with weird people? Or is the problem me?

The key is to manage expectations. For example, play a kender. After that, you'll have the "at least it's not the kender" factor going for you.