Was I Right or Wrong

[Duboris]

So, I have this Lawfully Good Paladin in my game that goes out of his way to try and cheese as much stuff as possible, and any attempt at doing something to him I make, he'll open the nearby core rulebook, and tell me I "Can't do that" based on "Blah blah"

Now, I'm not a new DM. I've played plenty of games, and the majority of the time my PCs are very happy with my campaigns, even though I build them from scratch. So, in a final fit of very-well-kept frustration, I made it my business to finally explain to him my outlook on how Pathfinder should be played.

My almost-exact words were:

"The game is meant to be played by pretending I don't even exist. You're in this world, and everything that happens to you happens, unless I explicitly point out that you weren't affected. If I beat your armor class by 1, you get hit, and if I don't, you don't. I don't fudge rolls. If you walk into a trap that you couldn't sense and tell me that you never saw me roll your perception, then good, because it's a trap. You're not supposed to know its there until you see it.
The point I want to make is that at the end of the day on the game, I have been doing this for a very long time, and I'm not the most brutal DM, and I don't go out of my way to kill you. Can you die? Yes. Can you avoid it? Definately. Did that creature try to fear you, and succeed despite being immune to fear normally? Yes it did. Do I need to explain why? I'll do that later.
All I ask is that you accept what happens to you, and stop trying to go to great lengths to make me look like I don't know what I'm doing, because I asure you, I do."

I feel like I was right. You guys?

[Menteith]

Could you provide more detail about what occurred?

I agree with the sentiments that you're expressing, but if I was playing a Paladin (or any character with Fear Immunity) who was hit with a Fear effect I'd make sure the DM knew that it typically shouldn't affect me, so I can understand why they might be a bit confused or frustrated. Being affected by something they ostensibly have an immunity to might make a player think the DM hadn't considered their immunity (and so they spontaneously negated it) or that the DM is metagaming against them (because enemies who can penetrate specific immunities are typically rare). I'm not saying you did either of these things, but those would be two possible explanations that the player may have assumed. More information on exactly what happened would help me offer advice.

EDIT
I typically disagree with DM fiat unless it's absolutely necessary for the game to function. A good argument about it can be found here (http://travislerol.com/wordpress/?p=5), and I'd recommend anyone who wants to understand my viewpoint read it (it's short, I promise).

[Godskook]

Yes and no.

Yes, you're right, players should not be trying to have rules arguments with the DM. DM fiat exist for that very reason.

No, I personally disagree with violating certain immunities, like a Paladin's fear immunity. It generally ruins a player's sense of character when you violate something so core to his concept.

[LanSlyde]

So, I have this Lawfully Good Paladin in my game that goes out of his way to try and cheese as much stuff as possible, and any attempt at doing something to him I make, he'll open the nearby core rulebook, and tell me I "Can't do that" based on "Blah blah"

Now, I'm not a new DM. I've played plenty of games, and the majority of the time my PCs are very happy with my campaigns, even though I build them from scratch. So, in a final fit of very-well-kept frustration, I made it my business to finally explain to him my outlook on how Pathfinder should be played.

My almost-exact words were:

"The game is meant to be played by pretending I don't even exist. You're in this world, and everything that happens to you happens, unless I explicitly point out that you weren't affected. If I beat your armor class by 1, you get hit, and if I don't, you don't. I don't fudge rolls. If you walk into a trap that you couldn't sense and tell me that you never saw me roll your perception, then good, because it's a trap. You're not supposed to know its there until you see it.
The point I want to make is that at the end of the day on the game, I have been doing this for a very long time, and I'm not the most brutal DM, and I don't go out of my way to kill you. Can you die? Yes. Can you avoid it? Definately. Did that creature try to fear you, and succeed despite being immune to fear normally? Yes it did. Do I need to explain why? I'll do that later.
All I ask is that you accept what happens to you, and stop trying to go to great lengths to make me look like I don't know what I'm doing, because I asure you, I do."

I feel like I was right. You guys?

Very much so. That said, your the DM, therefore I direct you to my Sig. OR you could go online and find the exact quote.

[dascarletm]

I don't know what exactly was the cause of the argument, but that doesn't really matter.

Most of the time these arguments arise because the DM wants to tell a story and have certain things happen, and players want their characters to work a certain way.

If you fear a paladin you better when you describe it taking hold that it is something out of the ordinary otherwise the paladin will feel like one of his core abilities was stolen.

You also got to realize that when the character imagines his paladin he sees him as someone who is NEVER afraid. It is part of the character and he is given in game immunity. If you take it from him it better be story related and important. Imagine you take a wizards ability to cast spell. This can be done if it happens maybe once, and for a very plot specific reason for a short time. It might add to a campaign
but if it arbitrary, or if it seems arbitrary at the time, then you are doing a bad job.
A good rule of thumb is that if you take away something through DM fiat build up to it and make sure that the reason is apparent to the player.

[Mithril Leaf]

While it's entirely within your abilities as a DM to bypass rules like that, if I were the player, I'd be kind of pissed off. That being said, if you had a damn good reason for taking away my completely innate rules legal ability for a short period of time, it'd be okay. I do dislike it when I'm playing a different game than the DM is playing and he doesn't let me know.

I'll give an example I heard somewhere. Let's say that you decide to run an undead campaign. One player decided to play a turn undead optimized Cleric, as you do when it's an undead campaign. Now imagine that after the game started, you arbitrarily decide that turn undead doesn't work against any major undead the group faces even when the rules say it would. That's basically what you've done here although to a lesser extent.

Rule of Cool and all that, but I like to know what my character is able to do.

[Duboris]

While it's entirely within your abilities as a DM to bypass rules like that, if I were the player, I'd be kind of pissed off. That being said, if you had a damn good reason for taking away my completely innate rules legal ability for a short period of time, it'd be okay. I do dislike it when I'm playing a different game than the DM is playing and he doesn't let me know.

I'll give an example I heard somewhere. Let's say that you decide to run an undead campaign. One player decided to play a turn undead optimized Cleric, as you do when it's an undead campaign. Now imagine that after the game started, you arbitrarily decide that turn undead doesn't work against any major undead the group faces even when the rules say it would. That's basically what you've done here although to a lesser extent.

Rule of Cool and all that, but I like to know what my character is able to do.


I probably should have mentioned that an Anti-paladin was present.

This Anti-Paladin is, story wise, the main rival of the paladin himself, but much stronger, so every time they've fought he's lost out-right and *taunted* for being "So weak"

But this recent fight he was just downright humiliated in a full one on one duel as the surrounding players were fighting stained glass golems in an unholy church.

[Menteith]

While it's entirely within your abilities as a DM to bypass rules like that, if I were the player, I'd be kind of pissed off. That being said, if you had a damn good reason for taking away my completely innate rules legal ability for a short period of time, it'd be okay. I do dislike it when I'm playing a different game than the DM is playing and he doesn't let me know.

I'll give an example I heard somewhere. Let's say that you decide to run an undead campaign. One player decided to play a turn undead optimized Cleric, as you do when it's an undead campaign. Now imagine that after the game started, you arbitrarily decide that turn undead doesn't work against any major undead the group faces even when the rules say it would. That's basically what you've done here although to a lesser extent.

Rule of Cool and all that, but I like to know what my character is able to do.

It's entirely possible that this is justified in story - the Fear is coming from a Dread Witch or other source that can specifically bypass Fear immunity, the Fear effect is coming from an enemy which has been observing the PCs for an extended time and has created specific counters to their defenses, etc. That's why I'd like to get more detail about what actually happened.

I'd say that it's wrong for a DM to ignore what's on a PC's sheet purely because of DM fiat.

I'd say it's right for a DM to present an enemy who has an in-game reason for bypassing/ignoring a PC's ability.

EDIT
With more info, I'd say you're absolutely right. Anti-Paladins are completely able to negate Aura of Courage, it makes sense for it to happen in character & in game, and the player should have trusted you to run things above board.

[Duboris]

It's entirely possible that this is justified in story - the Fear is coming from a Dread Witch or other source that can specifically bypass Fear immunity, the Fear effect is coming from an enemy which has been observing the PCs for an extended time and has created specific counters to their defenses, etc. That's why I'd like to get more detail about what actually happened.

I'd say that it's wrong for a DM to ignore what's on a PC's sheet purely because of DM fiat.

I'd say it's right for a DM to present an enemy who has an in-game reason for bypassing/ignoring a PC's ability.


Aura of Cowardice (Su)
At 3rd level, an antipaladin radiates a palpably daunting aura that causes all enemies within 10 feet to take a –4 penalty on saving throws against fear effects. Creatures that are normally immune to fear lose that immunity while within 10 feet of an antipaladin with this ability. This ability functions only while the antipaladin remains conscious, not if he is unconscious or dead.

Which I explained in great detail after the game was over, and he still complained.

As a sort of "stipulation" I used for the sake of story, I changed "Creatures" to "anything" for the sake of showing just how powerful this anti-paladin is.

[Menteith]

Aura of Cowardice (Su)
At 3rd level, an antipaladin radiates a palpably daunting aura that causes all enemies within 10 feet to take a –4 penalty on saving throws against fear effects. Creatures that are normally immune to fear lose that immunity while within 10 feet of an antipaladin with this ability. This ability functions only while the antipaladin remains conscious, not if he is unconscious or dead.

Which I explained in great detail after the game was over, and he still complained.

You beat my ninja-edit by a minute :smallwink:. Yeah, you're totally in the right here. No question at all.

I actually had something similar happen to me earlier this month, when a Arcane Trickster couldn't believe that the Hobgoblins they were fighting had 5 Ranks in Balance (for the Massed Charge Teamwork Benefit) and was extremely annoyed they couldn't Sneak Attack them after a Grease.

[Knaight]

Which I explained in great detail after the game was over, and he still complained.

It probably would have been better to explicitly (if vaguely) note that there are methods around fear immunity at the time it came out and that one of them was in play when the complaint first came up, but it's not as if it was a big deal. This particular complaint seems questionably valid. That said, I could see the recurring antagonist who always wins getting irritating quickly - some players are more okay with that than others, some GMs are better at handling them than others, it's an area with a lot of potential for things to go wrong.

[dascarletm]

seeing what happened it seems like you were pretty much right, however you should only do this to certain players.

Example: I had the arch villian, a recurring character, in a campaign sacrifice permenant ability drain to remove the eyes of one character.
Can you guess who I picked to have this happen to?
It wasn't the most tactically sound PC to blind.
It wasn't a random PC.
It was the PC that would accept that he was now blinded, and find it cool to get the effect removed. (he was playing a bard)
I know if I did it to a certain player he would of hated that campaign.
Since I did choose the bard correctly he still tells me it was one of his best campaigns. He said he loved that he was blinded and that he had to try and fix it.
Anyone else would of hated it.

Anyway, my point is leave players that whine when you take away stuff from them alone. Just ignore them. If they don't want interesting stuff to happen to them then noting interesting will happen to them. Let them just smash things and be boring.

[Duboris]

It probably would have been better to explicitly (if vaguely) note that there are methods around fear immunity at the time it came out and that one of them was in play when the complaint first came up, but it's not as if it was a big deal. This particular complaint seems questionably valid. That said, I could see the recurring antagonist who always wins getting irritating quickly - some players are more okay with that than others, some GMs are better at handling them than others, it's an area with a lot of potential for things to go wrong.

My exact role-play flavor text when this occured.

"You get off the ground, and you see Ramses sort of walk up out of nowhere as you recover from the forceful daze. There's something new, however. Something you haven't felt since your' training. Something that was beaten out of you in the paladin academy. You don't readily remember what it is, but it bites at you. You get up, shaking, and you draw your weapon, ready for a fight that, in the back of your head, you strongly believe you just might lose. You remember what this feeling is, and you can't believe it. It's fear."

Which then started the bitch fit.

[HunterOfJello]

Once you mentioned Antipalladin, I immediately checked out the Pathfinder website to find out if you were doing something that is legitimately within the rules or not. My opinion would be based on what I found out. Here's what I found:


Creatures that are normally immune to fear lose that immunity while within 10 feet of an antipaladin with this ability

That ability and that ruling were completely legit. I do, however, think that you probably pissed off your player by acting as if it was completely determined by DM fiat instead of being legitimate.

The player may have a problem with understanding the role of a DM in the game, but that's not even part of the conversation. All that needed to be said was, "I'm aware of the abilities of your character and the rules surrounding them. However, this guy just feared you anyway. If you think that's really worthy of note... hmm."

I used to have responses like that all the time. Now I can express it with just my eyes and my players know that I'm fully aware of the rules involved and weird **** is happening anyway. If they really press things, then I'll just turn to them, stare them straight in the eyes, and say, "maybe there's a reason for that". That's all that ever needs to be said, and it always gives an appropriate ending to the conversation. Did that guy stab you five times in the face while you're invisible? Well, that potion he drank a moment ago must have been See Invisiblity. Did you just get burnt half to death even though you're immune to fire? Well, something pretty darn scary and super dangerous just burned you.

Build up trust between players and yourself that you deal fairly within the rules and know what you're doing. Then when things seem to be going out of whack, they'll know to wisen up and keep their eyes open instead of just whining.

[Duboris]

"I'm aware of the abilities of your character and the rules surrounding them. However, this guy just feared you anyway. If you think that's really worthy of note... hmm."

Which I did. I also easily know what his class is capable of because he reminds me every time I so much as have a enemy in game breathe in his general direction.

It's not so much that we need to build trust, its just that he looks at the game as a way to piss in my cereal, from the judge of things.

[LordBlades]

Build up trust between players and yourself that you deal fairly within the rules and know what you're doing. Then when things seem to be going out of whack, they'll know to wisen up and keep their eyes open instead of just whining.

This.

If the players trust the DM and something they don't understand happens, they'll assume there's a good reason for it.

If the players don't trust the DM and something they don't understand happens, they'll assume it's just DM fiat for whatever random reason.

[Menteith]

People are reading what the OP's actually posting, right? You're aware that he spelled out that he was playing within the rules to the player in question? Regardless of how much a player does/does not trust a DM, flat out stating that everything is above board and showing them after the game that "Yes, I can do that" should be enough. I'm all for player/DM equality, but from what I've seen, Duboris is doing everything correctly, and the player is being an ass about it. This isn't about fiat, lack of player trust, or any other issue - Duboris created a villain who's perfectly capable of bypassing Aura of Courage, has reasons to do so, and has shown the player exactly how he's doing it.

[Deathkeeper]

I've complained about my GM about a lot of things. Killing our level 10 Cleric with a regular Circle of Death? Killing my sorc with the sonic damage of Storm Aura, which only does electricity damage ? Adding Combat Reflexes to clockwork enemies without increasing the CR? Randomly making enemy spells immune to counterspells?
All of these things warranted nothing more than "That was kind of a jerk move."
This, which uses an explicitly stated rule created to counter your class ability is not something to warrant a tirade.

[HunterOfJello]

People are reading what the OP's actually posting, right?

Yes we are.


You're aware that he spelled out that he was playing within the rules to the player in question?


No, I'm not aware of that, because that was not stated. What was stated was:

Did that creature try to fear you, and succeed despite being immune to fear normally? Yes it did. Do I need to explain why? I'll do that later.


This does not explicitly state that, fully within the ruleset, the ability of the enemy npc overcame the immunity to fear legitimately without DM fiat. This is not the DM's fault or problem in the slightest. It's the player's problem, although the player most likely interpreted as the DM making something up instead of working within the rules to have the situation occur. Hence, why I posted what I did in my last post.

Once duboris mentioned "antipaladin" i looked it up and posted it for clarification for everyone.

The posters here likely either thought it was DM fiat or that we lacked some information. It sounded like DM fiat and whenever a DM makes a speech about how DMs can do whatever they want, DM fiat is usually involved. Overall, the topic of the speech sounds like it has to do with a completely different scenario than the one presented. It also sounds like Duboris' problems are bigger than this single instance, which they most likely are.

[Menteith]

Aura of Cowardice (Su)
At 3rd level, an antipaladin radiates a palpably daunting aura that causes all enemies within 10 feet to take a –4 penalty on saving throws against fear effects. Creatures that are normally immune to fear lose that immunity while within 10 feet of an antipaladin with this ability. This ability functions only while the antipaladin remains conscious, not if he is unconscious or dead.

Which I explained in great detail after the game was over, and he still complained.

As a sort of "stipulation" I used for the sake of story, I changed "Creatures" to "anything" for the sake of showing just how powerful this anti-paladin is.

The whole "explained in great detail after the game was over, and he still complained" part of this is what I'm referring to.

[Duboris]

It also sounds like Duboris' problems are bigger than this single instance, which they most likely are.

And it's all wrapped up into one Chaotically evil person playing one Lawfully good paladin.

[HunterOfJello]

The whole "explained in great detail after the game was over, and he still complained" part of this is what I'm referring to.

Ah, I overlooked that post. That's quite a different problem altogether. That is a far far larger problem to deal with altogether. I would just call that a major sign of a problem player.

[Mithril Leaf]

If there was a confirmed ability to do it, that's totally fine. Make sure he knows what you're doing is totally within the rules. Also, it was something else that did the fear effect, not just having the antipaladin present, right?

[Medic!]

Absolutely nothing wrong with the way you played it out. I've been on both sides of the fence on issues like this, as a player I usually just go "Interesting..." and my mind goes into overdrive thinking up the whys and hows, but never doubting that it's either 1) legit by rules or 2) going to lead up to a Moment of Awesome and totally be worth it.

Anecdote (actually...just a wall of gross text):
The one time I really got pissed at my DM...well a few times because it happens about once per campaign...but anywho the most recent time: I was playing a Hellbred Crusader 8/Warblade 2 with great ability score rolls. In comes the DM's typical "Big bad warrior with a giant sword (fullblade) and shiny magic armor (read: lvl 15 Fighter). I toss an intimidate check with imperious command and a net 40-something bonus to intimidate, DM doesn't bother rolling and just says "He grins and laughs at you." We duke it out one on one, the fighter's opening move is to hilt-punch me 20 feet, grab my my ankle, swing me into a tree, etc etc. Then it's my turn and I get my spiked chain-on and proceed to absolutely dominate this guy, hands down. At the end of the day he had no special feats or abilities to justify the theatrical hulk beat-down, his ability scores were based on Elite Array, and no fear immunity what-so-ever. He just wasn't affected by Intimidation b/c "He's a badass." Well damnit I'm a badass too, and my badass is badderassed than your badass and I proved it. That's a gut-punch though, when I ran every tiny thing on my sheet by the DM only to have him completely ignore (not prepare for, but flat out ignore) something I spent a lot of effort building and used with restraint. Ugh. I don't know why I posted this story but I do like to complain from time to time.

[Duboris]

Ah, I overlooked that post. That's quite a different problem altogether. That is a far far larger problem to deal with altogether. I would just call that a major sign of a problem player.

And it has a fohawk.

[Duboris]

If you rolled an intimidate that high, I'd sooner say "He ****'s himself in fear so hard that he dies due to dehydration" before I pulled a "He's a badass" card.

That was bull****, but on this, I do my research. That just seems like lazy Dming.

[dascarletm]

People are reading what the OP's actually posting, right? You're aware that he spelled out that he was playing within the rules to the player in question? Regardless of how much a player does/does not trust a DM, flat out stating that everything is above board and showing them after the game that "Yes, I can do that" should be enough. I'm all for player/DM equality, but from what I've seen, Duboris is doing everything correctly, and the player is being an ass about it. This isn't about fiat, lack of player trust, or any other issue - Duboris created a villain who's perfectly capable of bypassing Aura of Courage, has reasons to do so, and has shown the player exactly how he's doing it.

Being a DM you can't always do what you CAN do to every player. This is mostly because I CAN be a complete ******* and ruin their fun, and be perfectly within the rules. I could have them face an enemy within their CR that the party they have is just not spec'd out for. I can never throw enemies of the dragon type even though the ranger spec'd to kill dragons.
All these things "I can do that." but they are **** moves, and the DM needs to be above that and knowledgable on who is okay with defeat, and who needs to win "all" the time.

[Menteith]

Being a DM you can't always do what you CAN do to every player. This is mostly because I CAN be a complete ******* and ruin their fun, and be perfectly within the rules. I could have them face an enemy within their CR that the party they have is just not spec'd out for. I can never throw enemies of the dragon type even though the ranger spec'd to kill dragons.
All these things "I can do that." but they are **** moves, and the DM needs to be above that and knowledgable on who is okay with defeat, and who needs to win "all" the time.

....so you're claiming that using an ability, exactly as it was intended to be used, on a character who seems to have an in-game reason for his actions, is unreasonable? Do you believe that what occurred was the DM being a jerk? I really want to be clear on your position here before I respond fully.

[DeusMortuusEst]

All these things "I can do that." but they are **** moves, and the DM needs to be above that and knowledgable on who is okay with defeat, and who needs to win "all" the time.

Or, perhaps some players needs to understand that you don't win all the time? Accidents happen, even the greatest warrior or wizard can fail. Nothing is guaranteed, that's why we have dice.

As long as the DM follows the same rules as the player's I see no problem with bypassing immunities or challenging players with things that might escape their biggest trick and force them to think and react on the fly. Now, I don't say that the DM should do it in every encounter, but it's the kind of thing that often makes a good battle great and a standard BBEG a memorable antagonist that you talk about for years.

At least that's how things are around the tables that I've been playing :smallsmile:

[dascarletm]

....so you're claiming that using an ability, exactly as it was intended to be used, on a character who seems to have an in-game reason for his actions, is unreasonable?
That was never put nor intended as an end all blanket statement. However, you CAN be a jerk (notice the word "can," as in not always but it is possible) while still following the rules as a DM. Some people are more secure than others. Example: I'm not going to pull a practical joke on a friend that makes fun of his/her weight if he/she is uncomfortable with his/her weight.



Do you believe that what occurred was the DM being a jerk? I really want to be clear on your position here before I respond fully.
The DM was not being a jerk from what I gather. It does not seem like that his intention was to make the player upset, but instead he seemed to aim to challenge him.
What I am saying is that some players are never the type to enjoy class abilities being taken away. I know plenty of people who would never have fun if his spell book was taken away as a wizard. It takes a certain story-driven player, and not hack-and-slasher.


Or, perhaps some players needs to understand that you don't win all the time? Accidents happen, even the greatest warrior or wizard can fail. Nothing is guaranteed, that's why we have dice.

As long as the DM follows the same rules as the player's I see no problem with bypassing immunities or challenging players with things that might escape their biggest trick and force them to think and react on the fly. Now, I don't say that the DM should do it in every encounter, but it's the kind of thing that often makes a good battle great and a standard BBEG a memorable antagonist that you talk about for years.

At least that's how things are around the tables that I've been playing :smallsmile:

Sadly they arn't my kids, and I'm not going to make the game awkward for other characters when the inevitable argument happens.

I agree with you, and that is my group as well.

I used to have a player who just wanted to deal big numbers of damage, didn't care about story, and didn't like personal set-backs.
That is when I learned to tailor different parts for different characters. Challenge the players that want to be challenged, and give a big meaty punching bag for the hack-and-slashers.


To be clear I think the OP should be right, but also should take note that the paladin's player doesn't deserve too much effort to give challenging encounters. He sounds like he'd like a swarm of lesser Demons instead.

EDIT: Notice the parenthesis around the word all, in, "..."all" the time..."

[Aharon]

So, what caused the Paladin's fear?

[Garwain]

As a player you have a duty to make the game as enjoyable as possible, and helping your DM a little is certainly just a matter of courtesy. If the DM forgot about a particular ability you have, gently point it out, so that the DM can choose what to do with the situation.

In any case, being the DM doesn't give you the rights to bend every single rule just because rule 0. That will create a sense of 'whatever' for the players. Basic rules as 'I have fear immunity' - 'No you don't' are too far off. But dnd has sufficient grey areas where the DM does get the final ruling. I guess that it's all a matter of understanding eachother and make the game enjoyable for all.

PS: the argument: I have been doing this a long time isn't valid in my book. For all I know, you might have been doing it wrong all that time....

[Zombimode]

As a sort of "stipulation" I used for the sake of story, I changed "Creatures" to "anything" for the sake of showing just how powerful this anti-paladin is.

You did not have changed anything, actually. "Creature", as a game term, refers to a specific type of objects. Player characters belong to this type. In other words: player characters ARE creatures.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Using an antipaladin's aura of cowardice to negate a Paladin's immunity to fear is fine, in a vacuum.

Repeatedly defeating, taunting, and even humiliating a particular player using an overpowered enemy is just plain bad GMing unless it's a very specific type of player. This is not that type of player - not by a long shot.

[DeusMortuusEst]

In any case, being the DM doesn't give you the rights to bend every single rule just because rule 0. That will create a sense of 'whatever' for the players. Basic rules as 'I have fear immunity' - 'No you don't' are too far off. But dnd has sufficient grey areas where the DM does get the final ruling. I guess that it's all a matter of understanding eachother and make the game enjoyable for all.

But now the DM was right and the player still whined, so this is kind of a moot point regarding the discussion.

[
PS: the argument: I have been doing this a long time isn't valid in my book. For all I know, you might have been doing it wrong all that time....

Then again, most people tend to learn from their mistakes, and over time they get better at what they do.

[Killer Angel]

In any case, being the DM doesn't give you the rights to bend every single rule just because rule 0. That will create a sense of 'whatever' for the players. Basic rules as 'I have fear immunity' - 'No you don't' are too far off.

Can you please tell me since when the use of Antipaladin's Aura of Cowardice, is "bending rules just because rule 0"? :smallconfused:

(unless i'm missing your reasoning, and you're speaking in general terms, with no references to the OP...)

[hoverfrog]

This was right and proper. The use of an arch enemy makes all the difference. I did a similar thing to my group once and had their arch enemy build up a group designed to target their weaknesses. Not because I'm mean but because the arch enemy was intelligent and was out to get them. They were smart enough to get away, buff up their weaknesses and get them back by attacking their opponents weaknesses in turn.

It seems that the player was reminding you of the rule about paladins being immune to fear. There's nothing wrong with that. We all forget things from time to time. It becomes a problem when the DM then says "I know, roll anyway" because the DM has taken that into account and knows something that the player doesn't. The player has to trust the DM here or the game just grinds to a halt and the player may as well not play.

[NichG]

Independent of the rules legality/etc/etc, the problem here is really that he's overanalyzing every single thing you do. Its fine for him to say 'I have an immunity to that' and ask for a clarification, because its possible you forgot one of his abilities (which you didn't, but its a reasonable thing for a player to do since the GM has a lot of stuff to remember without tracking each character's exact ability set too). But I feel it crosses the line if he's constantly trying to get you to explain the detailed mechanics of his enemies.

Depending on your table culture, you might be expected to have mechanics for each enemy that are totally by the book, but even then during the encounter is not the appropriate time to be going over them - only after that enemy has thoroughly left the campaign should that sort of thing be discussed. Otherwise it enables the player to metagame things that his character should not know and if nothing else it bogs the game down to do it mid-fight.

I'd probably start responding to his questions with 'I wonder...', and refuse to carry the discussion beyond that point. Thats not to say ignore what he asks - if he brings up something that you have legitimately overlooked or misconstrued, go ahead and admit to that and fix it, but if you know that what you're doing is legit for your table's social contract, I wouldn't budge or explain it. That said, this particular player's habit is one I really dislike, so I'd be averse to having such a player at my table and that may show somewhat in my suggestion.

[danzibr]

I guess it depends on how much taunting and whatnot went on. Sounds like a good bad guy to me though.

I'd say you're in the right. There's a player like this in a campaign I'm playing in right now (not running, thankfully), and... it'd be nice if said player changed.

I also agree with others who said the thing about trust. You said you don't fudge rolls and have played a lot so your players should trust that you know the rules and fight fairly, so to speak. I think it'd be alright for the player to be like, "Uhh, I'm immune to fear." And then (as you said) you say, "I know." Etc. etc.

[Garwain]

(unless i'm missing your reasoning, and you're speaking in general terms, with no references to the OP...)
This.

PS: Player whine too much as well. Expecting to win ALL the time. This is the part where they don't try to make enjoyable for the DM.

[Killer Angel]

This.

PS: Player whine too much as well. Expecting to win ALL the time. This is the part where they don't try to make enjoyable for the DM.

Then I agree. :smallwink:

[HunterOfJello]

You did not have changed anything, actually. "Creature", as a game term, refers to a specific type of objects. Player characters belong to this type. In other words: player characters ARE creatures.

Yup. Everything in D&D and Pathfinder falls within one of two categories: Creature or Object. Anything that doesn't move and is generally useless is an Object. Everything else is a Creature. PCs, NPCs, constructs, mindless undead, and all the monsters are all creatures. Pots, pans, and pancakes are objects. (Unless the pancake is sentient.)

[Deathkeeper]

(Unless the pancake is sentient.)

I think it's still an object. A delicious, intelligent object, but still an object.

[rakkoon]

A pancake wit the Anti-Palasin class? He has a right to be mad at the DM !

No really, I agree with the DM, next time just shoot 20 arrows at his head and let him be unafraid while he's turned into a pincushion.

[Godskook]

People are reading what the OP's actually posting, right? You're aware that he spelled out that he was playing within the rules to the player in question?

In general, it doesn't matter. It could have been Fiat, and the OP would've been mostly ok. The fact that it actually is RAW means that honestly, the OP should just point out that this player needs to find another game, since he blatantly won't trust OP to DM for him.

[Duboris]

Right so, at this point, I'd like to point out what moment caused the argument in particular. He was "irritated" by the fact he thought he could be feared. What *really* got him was when something along this happened.

They had just finished the duel, and nothing bad had occured as far as killing went. The Anti-Paladin outright beat him, and his party had defeated the Glass Golems, which were worth quite a bit. So, while the force walls were still up and keeping his teammates out, he decided to, while he was pinned on the ground, to "Touch of Corruption" him, and apply the fear state with that, which the paladin failed.

So, while he was feared and on the ground, I basically taunted his loss because he was *helpless* at that point, doing little charismatic things along the lines of grabbing the pally by his chin, having him look at his friends who, quote, unquote "Were his captive audience of disappointed faces"

And after he said that, he propped him back down, and he looked up at him, and then received a boot to the face, putting him unconcious while the anti-paladin just walks out of the room laughing maniacaly, finishing saying "Normally I would have just outright killed you, but since you haven't outlived your usefulness, I'll let you be! When he comes to tell him I'm going to the tower, if he wants another flogging like the pitiful ingrate he is!"

Thus, giving away this "Master plan"

3 things popped up. "I can't be feared." "Anti Paladin should have killed me, it's because of his code" and "My allies should have been able to get through the force walls."

3 Retorts.

He can fear you. He removed your immunity with his aura, and then "Fearfully Touch of Corruptioned" you.

"You have yet to outlive your usefulness"

and "No, the Trap that set them off were made specifically with the duel in mind."

Mind you I worded the last 2 better for the sake of not revealing too much. I couldn't just say "THE MAGE HE'S IN CAHOOTS WITH IS STRONGER THAN HIM BWAHAHAHA" cause that'd be a horrible story-line ruiner.

More to the point, he doesn't seem to understand what I mean by "Master plan" because he's just under the impression the Anti Paladin is just that, an awkwardly placed Anti Paladin :U

What do?

[Alabenson]

3 things popped up. "I can't be feared." "Anti Paladin should have killed me, it's because of his code" and "My allies should have been able to get through the force walls."

Now, admittedly I'm not that familiar with the differences between Pathfinder and 3.5, so anyone feel free to correct me, but don't force walls, which I assume are essentially walls of force, require some fairly powerful and specific methods to bypass?

[Duboris]

Now, admittedly I'm not that familiar with the differences between Pathfinder and 3.5, so anyone feel free to correct me, but don't force walls, which I assume are essentially walls of force, require some fairly powerful and specific methods to bypass?

School evocation [force]; Level sorcerer/wizard 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (powdered quartz)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect wall whose area is up to one 10-ft. square/level
Duration 1 round /level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
A wall of force creates an invisible wall of pure force. The wall cannot move and is not easily destroyed. A wall of force is immune to dispel magic, although a mage's disjunction can still dispel it. A wall of force can be damaged by spells as normal, except for disintegrate, which automatically destroys it. It can be damaged by weapons and supernatural abilities, but a wall of force has hardness 30 and a number of hit points equal to 20 per caster level. Contact with a sphere of annihilation or rod of cancellation instantly destroys a wall of force.

Breath weapons and spells cannot pass through a wall of force in either direction, although dimension door, teleport, and similar effects can bypass the barrier. It blocks ethereal creatures as well as material ones (though ethereal creatures can usually circumvent the wall by going around it, through material floors and ceilings). Gaze attacks can operate through a wall of force.

The caster can form the wall into a flat, vertical plane whose area is up to one 10-foot square per level. The wall must be continuous and unbroken when formed. If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails.

Wall of force can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

They have no Wizard, Sorceror, or Cleric, or Druid. Magic has been a frequent problem for them, hence the reason I used it in this instance.

[Belril Duskwalk]

Thus, giving away this "Master plan"

3 things popped up. "I can't be feared." "Anti Paladin should have killed me, it's because of his code" and "My allies should have been able to get through the force walls."

3 Retorts.

He can fear you. He removed your immunity with his aura, and then "Fearfully Touch of Corruptioned" you.

"You have yet to outlive your usefulness"

and "No, the Trap that set them off were made specifically with the duel in mind."

Mind you I worded the last 2 better for the sake of not revealing too much. I couldn't just say "THE MAGE HE'S IN CAHOOTS WITH IS STRONGER THAN HIM BWAHAHAHA" cause that'd be a horrible story-line ruiner.

More to the point, he doesn't seem to understand what I mean by "Master plan" because he's just under the impression the Anti Paladin is just that, an awkwardly placed Anti Paladin :U

What do?

A couple thoughts occur. First, your paladin definitely doesn't get that he's being played. His reaction suggests that he thinks the Anti-paladin's objective is to kill him. Clearly that just isn't good enough for the Anti-Paladin.

Second, your paladin really doesn't like being humiliated. Perhaps more concerning, the player seems to be taking it somewhat personally that his paladin was humiliated.

As to handling this going ahead... I'm not sure. It would seem you've got a player on your hands that could become a rather large problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet this Paladin is unfamiliar with offering his foes a chance to surrender. It would seem he has an all or nothing approach to the game. This would suggesting that, to him, all combats are expected to end with one enemy bleeding out on the floor. Surrender isn't an option, leaving an enemy alive is unthinkable, no matter the circumstances. I could be completely wrong on this, but I have seen it on occasion. This sound like your paladin?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Am I the only one who's getting the signal that this guy really hates getting repeatedly humiliated by an overpowered enemy, so much that he's actually demanding his character die instead? Maybe his annoying play "deserves" this kind of treatment but it still seems like there's a lot of blame to go around. Players have to trust the DM, but you don't earn trust like this.

[Alienist]

What do?

Well, assuming that this being the internet, someone has already complained about the grammar ;-)

What to do? You have three basic choices:

(1) Boot the player for causing trouble.
(1a) 'Perma-ban' or
(1b) 'Time-out'

(2) Re-read the section in the DMG (maybe DMG 2?) about working with different styles of players. My guess is that your real beef (or meta-beef if you prefer) is that he has a different play-style from yours. The arguing and what-not is because he is playing the game as though it were a system of rules to be manipulated. Whereas you seem a lot more role-play and story-driven. He wants to play chess, you want to play theatre-sports.
(2a) you can try to change him, which probably isn't going to work (see: 7 Habits of Highly Effective People to understand why)
(2b) you can try to change yourself, and particularly your attitudes and the way that you choose to react to this player

(3) Just don't give him nice toys to play with. Someone recently pointed this out (I think in a different thread? The player they had whose character got blinded and they enjoyed the role-playing challenge, whereas other people in the same group would have pitched a huge tantrum over it). Your idea of a nice toy is to be an important part of the story, but he doesn't appreciate that. That's okay, some people just want to hack and slash and not do any 'real' character development.
(3a) don't make enemies specific to him.

-----

Personally, I like playing under-powered characters with rich backstories. But it annoys me when I pull one of these out (in a group of over-powered munchkins) and the DM takes one look at it and says "great! I have just the perfect idea for an arch-nemesis who is going to make your life miserable!". I'm like "WTFF dude, don't you realise I'm under-powered?" and the DM is like "ROFL-whatever dude".

Some people just don't believe that someone can have good system mastery and NOT use it for evil.

Personally, if I was the Paladin in this situation, and assuming I was operating under normal tier 4 (Paladin is tier 4 right?) and there were much higher tier players in the party, I'd be annoyed with the DM that he choose to curb-stomp me and humiliate me in front of the rest of the party.

I think a better way to create 'favoured villains' than to make them really obnoxious is to give them style and a get-away plan when everything goes badly wrong.

Shadowrun had an NPC called Bloodwing/Blackwing (depending on the writer) whose instructions were that he was supposed to be a tough fight, and then have a fool-proof escape plan when everything went pear-shaped. Now there was a villain that players loved to hate.

Players will love some NPCs (both good and bad) and hate others (again, both good and bad). It's not up to the DM to try to decide which is going to be which. Just roll (sic) with it.

[Aharon]

@GoodbyeSoberDay
No, I get the same vibe.

@Duboris
The pally did get his save against corrupting touch, right?
What levels are the pally and the anti-pally at?
Also, how did the wall of force trap work? Why was only the paladin trapped within? And how many walls did it conjure? => Walls was plural on purpose, I assume.

Also, the Pathfinder Wall of Force can indeed be passed by melee characters, if they deal enough damage.


I think the problem is that the Anti-Paladin somehow decided the Paladin is an arch-enemy that needs to be humiliated. Why did he choose him? Does he have any special relationship to him? Did the Paladin kill somebody close to him? Or is it just because he happens to be the direct anti-thesis, alignment-wise?

[Alienist]

I think the problem is that the Anti-Paladin somehow decided the Paladin is an arch-enemy that needs to be humiliated. Why did he choose him?

No, but that bit makes the most sense. Paladins and Anti-Paladins are naturally enemies, simply by virtue of what and who they are.

The whole humiliation thing is a standard movie-villain cliche, so that too 'makes sense' according to the cliches of the genre.

Tossing a much higher level NPC at the player (unless they asked for it, after all you don't pull Elminster's beard unless you want a taste of high-level magical ass-whuppin) ... that's a bit 'unfair'.

The fairness thing is a bit iffy though. In most campaigns the DM is supposed to make sure that the players only encounter evenly matched opponents, which is extremely odd and artificially 'unrealistic'.

[Andreaz]

Fiat all you want, but realize that there are some things that are simply "sacred" to the players. First and foremost is the character sheet.
If he went all the way to get immunity to fear, then he wants to be immune to fear. If his immunity to fear is not conditional, then he damn better be immune to fear no matter what you pit against him.

Rewarding him for it later doesn't help, the damage is already done. Telling him it's important doesn't help, his build was already ignored.

If you want to decide how something will happen, make sure two things happen: They don't notice and it doesn't go against their sheet. The rogue with +30 to perception WILL notice the trap. The paladin fighting the greatest ultimate abomination of the world will NOT be scared of it.


tl;dr: It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong, you poked a sacred cow and that's never fun during the game.

[TuggyNE]

Fiat all you want, but realize that there are some things that are simply "sacred" to the players. First and foremost is the character sheet.
If he went all the way to get immunity to fear, then he wants to be immune to fear. If his immunity to fear is not conditional, then he damn better be immune to fear no matter what you pit against him.

Rewarding him for it later doesn't help, the damage is already done. Telling him it's important doesn't help, his build was already ignored.

If you want to decide how something will happen, make sure two things happen: They don't notice and it doesn't go against their sheet. The rogue with +30 to perception WILL notice the trap. The paladin fighting the greatest ultimate abomination of the world will NOT be scared of it.

I believe this is something of a misunderstanding. No fiat was involved in bypassing the Paladin's fear immunity; a stock base class has that ability. It's unusual, but not that unknown, and it does not go against the character sheet, any more than an enemy with faerie fire and Detect Spirits goes against Greater Invisibility on a pixie's character sheet (3.5 Spirit Shaman; I actually experienced this).

I'd also note that it's perfectly possible to have e.g. a spell trap with Perception DC 34, and +30 may not notice it (although of course it's highly likely to). For that matter, this could be extended; almost any skill modifier can be beaten, if only by opposed checks.

If not for the player's strong reaction, I would also be a little puzzled at the assumption that anyone who plays a Paladin does so for the fear immunity, and seemingly clutches that immunity protectively to themselves whenever they feel threatened. However, that does seem to have been important to him. Still, bad things happen: pixies are revealed to enemy archers by a faint glow, paladins suffer brief moments of terror, barbarians get tripped, wizards can be grappled, and so on. 3.x has very few true absolutes, and learning counters (and counters to counters) is important.

[Andreaz]

I believe this is something of a misunderstanding[...]I didn't go into specifics, but yes. It's still going to get personal, and there are many other ways to beat the character without being its specific antithesis. It takes a long while before some players can even start trusting a DM with making them "lose", and what happened here did not help.

[laeZ1]

So, I have this Lawfully Good Paladin in my game that goes out of his way to try and cheese as much stuff as possible, and any attempt at doing something to him I make, he'll open the nearby core rulebook, and tell me I "Can't do that" based on "Blah blah"

Now, I'm not a new DM. I've played plenty of games, and the majority of the time my PCs are very happy with my campaigns, even though I build them from scratch. So, in a final fit of very-well-kept frustration, I made it my business to finally explain to him my outlook on how Pathfinder should be played.

My almost-exact words were:

"The game is meant to be played by pretending I don't even exist. You're in this world, and everything that happens to you happens, unless I explicitly point out that you weren't affected. If I beat your armor class by 1, you get hit, and if I don't, you don't. I don't fudge rolls. If you walk into a trap that you couldn't sense and tell me that you never saw me roll your perception, then good, because it's a trap. You're not supposed to know its there until you see it.
The point I want to make is that at the end of the day on the game, I have been doing this for a very long time, and I'm not the most brutal DM, and I don't go out of my way to kill you. Can you die? Yes. Can you avoid it? Definately. Did that creature try to fear you, and succeed despite being immune to fear normally? Yes it did. Do I need to explain why? I'll do that later.
All I ask is that you accept what happens to you, and stop trying to go to great lengths to make me look like I don't know what I'm doing, because I asure you, I do."

I feel like I was right. You guys?

I haven't read any of the responses, so my reply is strictly to the OP.

It sounds like he's got a different play style than you do. I think that's really the heart of the problem. I've DM'd for some time now (we're getting close to a year-and-a-half mark with my current game), and I've had a player like this. Ultimately, I had to cut him. He was taking away from the game more than he was putting in. There are other DMs out there that this particular player would probably do well with and enjoy playing with.

In short, I feel like you were right.

[laeZ1]

I think it's still an object. A delicious, intelligent object, but still an object.

If it has an int score of higher than 2, creatures are sentient, as per MM. (at least in 3.5)

If it has a wis score of 0, it is an object (and will also have a charisma score of 0).

Errgo, sentient pancakes are objects. Much like a really smart tree.

[MesiDoomstalker]

If it has an int score of higher than 2, creatures are sentient, as per MM. (at least in 3.5)

If it has a wis score of 0, it is an object (and will also have a charisma score of 0).

Errgo, sentient pancakes are objects. Much like a really smart tree.

Nitpicking: Objects lack mental ability scores, period. And that doesn't mean they are 0, it means they are non-abilities, which are a bit different. Also, if something has an Int score, it has a Wisdom and Charisma score as well. If either Wisdom or Charisma are non-abilities, its an object, which forcibly puts Int into non-ability score territory.

[Karoht]

I think it's all about the way this came across, because the DM more or less refused to explain it (at the time). He asked the player to trust him, and didn't explain, which is what the player got mad about. I'd still say DM was in the right, but didn't read his audience as well as possible.

Let me give you a bit of a flip on this scenario.
My DM put me in a single combat trial against an opponent. A similar situation occured, where the opponent was able to bipass pretty much all of my defenses. I tried to roll several different skill checks (over the course of several rounds) to see if my character could figure out what was wrong. Sadly, I rolled about 5 below the DC on pretty much all of them.
I chose to trust my DM and go with it.
And in the end the fight went just fine.
After the fight I finally succeeded on the knowledge check to know how he bipassed my defenses. So the DM tells me and opens the book to the page and hands it to me, to show me that he was on the up and up.

5 minutes later...
Me: "Um, dude, it totally doesn't work that way."
DM: "Whaaaa?"
And we both re-read it. Sure enough, it completely did not apply in the slightest to my character.
We shrugged and let it go.
Had I died as a result, and then read this rule? I would have been mad at the DM and rightly so.


Sometimes wanting to know is a rules check, not a bunch of meta-gaming, not a bunch of complaining. Sometimes. Othertimes, it can be exactly those things. I would still give a DM the benefit of the doubt, because I know that if a mistake is made we can resolve it. Sadly, I don't expect that level of trust from other players towards any DM, due to the rather high incidence of complaints regarding bad DM's either railroading/DM fiat/cheesing, or outright being jerks.

[Worira]

Yeah, I gotta say, I can see how having a villain that is exactly like your character but way more better and constantly beats up your character then says "hahaha I am way more better and you are a lame dumb poopface haha" might be... not ideal.

[Psyren]

@OP: All that drama could have been avoided by being cryptic rather than confrontational. "Don't worry, I remember your fear immunity. But trust me, you're afraid." Then he'd have known to clam up and see what you had in the pipeline. But the way you shut him down made it totally sound like fiat.

There is a sharp difference between

"There are ways around your fear immunity"
and
"If I say you're scared, then you're scared, deal with it."

What you said was much closer to the second than the first, and could put anyone's back up.

[Deathkeeper]

Nitpicking: Objects lack mental ability scores, period. And that doesn't mean they are 0, it means they are non-abilities, which are a bit different. Also, if something has an Int score, it has a Wisdom and Charisma score as well. If either Wisdom or Charisma are non-abilities, its an object, which forcibly puts Int into non-ability score territory.

Looked it up: 100% correct. Intelligent items are considered creatures (usually constructs.) My mistake.

[Mechanize]

Yeah, I gotta say, I can see how having a villain that is exactly like your character but way more better and constantly beats up your character then says "hahaha I am way more better and you are a lame dumb poopface haha" might be... not ideal.

No way! I disagree. What happened to D&D players in the last 15 years? lol.

I have recently come back from a long hiatus so am pretty new to the ways of 3.5, but back in the AD&D days our villains were freakin villains. They were hard core, mean, and gritty. Villains are supposed to be strong enough to instill a bit of fear into the PCs, making them wary and mindful of their tactics and approach in terms of killing him.

If the main antagonist couldn't wipe the floor with my face 1on1 then its too easy and not fun.

I am on the DM's side. Keep up the good work, bad players will be bad players.

[KnightOfV]

I am on the DM's side. Keep up the good work, bad players will be bad players.

Agreed, so much. If it were me as a player, I'd think to myself

-'Cool! This is going to be a really gritty game with tough villans!'

-'Whoa, the DM just set me up to be the main protagonist, made my character really important to the game world, and I am totally, in character going to work my butt off to get stronger, overcome my fear, hunt this blackguard, and smite the hell outta him!'


Characters should have reasons to care about stopping the villains. Big bad guys should be hyped up and not facerolled on the first encounter. Compliments to the DM for making this fight sound really dramatic, classic, and cool. I know players like that paladin though. They usually like the idea of roflstomping everything first try like some kind of 'power trip' and complain when anything goes against them. Personally I prefer a good story and strong adversity (that sometimes beats the heroes!)

[Red Rubber Band]

Answering your original question: You were in the right.

Granted I wasn't there, so the actual rolling out of the incident itself may have contributed to the player's hissy fit.

You did mention his 3 problems before, but is that really all of it? Each of his problems were easily answered and it still sounded like he had the cranks up. May very well be that there's something more to it. As several people have said before, it takes a certain type of player to be able to accept that they're going to get their ass handed to them every time they meet up against the currently main bad guy because he either negates or does better anything you can do. This player doesn't seem like that certain type.

There's definitely got to be an understanding between the players and the DM. A general knowledge of how they operate. If the DM always goes by rules, that's fine. If the DM throws out the book from time to time to make it more interesting, that's also fine. But a bit of prior warning can very much change attitudes and help with acceptance.

Below is an experience I had with being shat on and getting over it. Slightly off track from what happened with the OP, but the message in essence is still the same.
I had a magic caster in a very low magic campaign. We were fighting against a really powerful enemy, not a BBEG but a Big Bad End-of-the-Arc Guy. Someone that the DM wanted us to remember (not hard considering the amount of times we had to bend over to this guy as he screwed us over). I was new at the game (even more so than I am now) and had recently discovered ability drains. So, I proceeded to attack this guys core ability stats (Str and Con). The DM, seeing what I was doing/about to do, decided "No" and pulled out a magic invulnerability potion. It was then and there decided that anyone in his position and higher within the clan would carry around one of these at all times. Now, note that this was in a very low magic campaign where you'd be lucky to see one magical item and where maybe 1% of people you came across had magical powers. Take into consideration that, by removing my ability to cast magic at this guy, I was effectively useless and more of a burden in combat (I was also playing a generally useless class and the generally redundant role of in combat healer). I took it to the chin and got on with it. It ended up being a memorable and very close battle where I had to think outside the box.

[Worira]

No way! I disagree. What happened to D&D players in the last 15 years? lol.

I have recently come back from a long hiatus so am pretty new to the ways of 3.5, but back in the AD&D days our villains were freakin villains. They were hard core, mean, and gritty. Villains are supposed to be strong enough to instill a bit of fear into the PCs, making them wary and mindful of their tactics and approach in terms of killing him.

If the main antagonist couldn't wipe the floor with my face 1on1 then its too easy and not fun.

I am on the DM's side. Keep up the good work, bad players will be bad players.

Sure, the main villain should, generally, be CAPABLE of beating any given PC in a one on one confrontation, in order to pose a credible threat to the party as a whole. That doesn't mean they should go out of their way to do so to one particular character, especially by being "just like you only better", and then going "haha look I'm just like you only better neener neener".

[NichG]

A good villain should be hated. It takes a sufficiently mature player to hate a character instead of the person portraying them. Thus, what makes for excellent villains and wonderful RP opportunities can create all sorts of problems. This doesn't mean we should shy away from trying to create excellent villains and wonderful RP opportunities - it means we should anticipate the possibility of problems and be willing to accept them, work through them, etc.

Edit: Yes, you can also have good villains that are pitied for being tragic, that are simply unfathomable, etc. My point is, getting players to make an emotional connection to an antagonist is a good thing, but you always run the risk that that connection will be made to the person portraying the antagonist instead (so when a villain is a jerk, the player takes away from it 'this DM is a jerk!' and so on).

[Deathkeeper]

Sure, the main villain should, generally, be CAPABLE of beating any given PC in a one on one confrontation, in order to pose a credible threat to the party as a whole. That doesn't mean they should go out of their way to do so to one particular character, especially by being "just like you only better", and then going "haha look I'm just like you only better neener neener".

Well in this case, it was a Paladin vs. an ANTIPaladin. He wasn't necessarily "better," it's a common enough CE player class that just happens to be made specifically to out-do paladins. And this one had boss stats. I mean, yeah, you could argue it's kind of mean to put one in the game when there's a paladin in the party, but that's why you have a PARTY, so that when you meet a guy who's made to outdo you you have your friend team up to beat him.

[ThiagoMartell]

So, yet again carebear players prove to be bad :smalltongue:

Yeah, DM was right.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

A good villain should be hated. It takes a sufficiently mature player to hate a character instead of the person portraying them. Thus, what makes for excellent villains and wonderful RP opportunities can create all sorts of problems. This doesn't mean we should shy away from trying to create excellent villains and wonderful RP opportunities - it means we should anticipate the possibility of problems and be willing to accept them, work through them, etc.

Edit: Yes, you can also have good villains that are pitied for being tragic, that are simply unfathomable, etc. My point is, getting players to make an emotional connection to an antagonist is a good thing, but you always run the risk that that connection will be made to the person portraying the antagonist instead (so when a villain is a jerk, the player takes away from it 'this DM is a jerk!' and so on).It's a lot easier for a player to hate a villain when it doesn't look like a vehicle of DM spite against the player. I'm not saying it is; I'm saying it looks like it from the player's perspective. He's not even giving the player the "heroic death" trope; just repeated failure and humiliation. Again, failure and humiliation can be part of the game, but it's IMO a rare player who enjoys having it done over and over with little chance of success, getting taunted every time.
Well in this case, it was a Paladin vs. an ANTIPaladin. He wasn't necessarily "better," it's a common enough CE player class that just happens to be made specifically to out-do paladins. And this one had boss stats. I mean, yeah, you could argue it's kind of mean to put one in the game when there's a paladin in the party, but that's why you have a PARTY, so that when you meet a guy who's made to outdo you you have your friend team up to beat him.It's not about putting a counter in. It's about singling out a particular player and beating him down over and over by the same guy with what appears to be no chance to win. Sure, the players aren't suppose to win every time, but they're not supposed to lose all but maybe once.
So, yet again carebear players prove to be bad :smalltongue:

Yeah, DM was right.Ad hominem? You hardly knew 'im!

[Aharon]

I agree with Goodbye, and I'm not yet convinced the DM actually did everything by the rules (see my questions above).

[Ravenica]

I agree with Goodbye, and I'm not yet convinced the DM actually did everything by the rules (see my questions above).
everyone ignored your question because it had been answered and legitimized before you posted

[Worira]

Well in this case, it was a Paladin vs. an ANTIPaladin. He wasn't necessarily "better," it's a common enough CE player class that just happens to be made specifically to out-do paladins. And this one had boss stats. I mean, yeah, you could argue it's kind of mean to put one in the game when there's a paladin in the party, but that's why you have a PARTY, so that when you meet a guy who's made to outdo you you have your friend team up to beat him.

"He's not better, he just has far better stats and is specifically designed to out-do you!"

And having your party aid you isn't really an option when the DM forces them to fight an entirely separate encounter while trapped behind a wall of force.

[Killer Angel]

Yeah, I gotta say, I can see how having a villain that is exactly like your character but way more better and constantly beats up your character then says "hahaha I am way more better and you are a lame dumb poopface haha" might be... not ideal.

I concede thare are many ways to support the concept, but it's the paladin's nemesis. And it will be 'til when it will be killed, with great satisfaction.

[Aharon]

everyone ignored your question because it had been answered and legitimized before you posted

Hi Ravenica, I can't seem to find those answers. I would be glad if you provided me with a link tho the post that contains them. For reference, here they are again:

The pally did get his save against corrupting touch, right?
What levels are the pally and the anti-pally at?
Also, how did the wall of force trap work? Why was only the paladin trapped within? And how many walls did it conjure? => Walls was plural on purpose, I assume.

[Red Rubber Band]

The pally did get his save against corrupting touch, right?
What levels are the pally and the anti-pally at?
Also, how did the wall of force trap work? Why was only the paladin trapped within? And how many walls did it conjure? => Walls was plural on purpose, I assume.

I do have to wonder why those questions are relevant. The last two at least.
I'm asking purely because I'm curious. I understand why the first one could be. (Although, from what's been reported the player had no qualms about it, so I'm going to assume the DM gave him the throw)


"He's not better, he just has far better stats and is specifically designed to out-do you!"

And having your party aid you isn't really an option when the DM forces them to fight an entirely separate encounter while trapped behind a wall of force.

He may not be specifically designed to out do the paladin. Not in a personal sense at least.
I don't know how other people run their campaigns, but the one I'm currently in has a majority of it's mid to high level NPC's created. So if I run afoul of one that is strictly better than my character, odds are I've just had bad luck and ran into the one type of person who, by virtue of class or attitude, hates me, or I've picked the wrong side to fight for.

As for no party aid, how many times has this happened? If every time you meet the Anti-Pally he somehow manages to get into a 1v1 against the party's Paladin, then there may yet be some use for the drawing board and going back to it as the player clearly isn't enjoying his character's role in the story unfolding. If, however, this is the first or maybe second time that it's happened (not including players splitting themselves from the party)... mix some concrete into his hot chocolate.

[Aharon]

@Red Rubber Band
The first one because I don't know wether your assumption is correct. If the DM didn't play by the rules to make this curbstomping happen, I wouldn't find that particularly fair - or wrong, if you will.

The third question aims in the same direction - if the DM used Fiat, created a situation that wouldn't have been possible within the rules, just to teach the player a lesson (see first post, he did the whole thing because he's annoyed by the player rules lawyering), that would haven't been very fair either.

The second question also helps me adjudicate the fairness of the scenario. Of course, the DM is by no means required to only use level appropriate encounters, but the guidelines in the DMG aren't particularly bad (i.e., EL+4 is a very hard encounter). The rest of the party had to deal with the golems, so it was a one on one. If the Anti-Pally is, more than 4 levels above the PC, I would find that unsporting.

Overall, if my suspicions are confirmed, I think the best solution would be an out of game discussion where the DM explains why he doesn't like rules lawyering - not humiliating the character, and by extension the player, in game. Yes, I know, mature players should be able to separate one from the other. But IME, if you have put a lot of work in creating a character, you do care and don't want the DM to randomly decide he's worthless.

[Killer Angel]

The pally did get his save against corrupting touch, right?


Apparently, yes.


while he was pinned on the ground, to "Touch of Corruption" him, and apply the fear state with that, which the paladin failed.

[Red Rubber Band]

@Red Rubber Band
<snip>

Thank you. I wasn't sure if there was something particular I was missing in the rules or class write ups.
My experience so far with D&D has been tailored to more of a "cinematic" approach, so my knowledge on rules is rather erratic and could very well be based on an incorrect experience.

[NichG]

Aharon, I think you somehow got the causality reversed here. The OP didn't say that he created this encounter because he was pissed at the player, he said he was pissed at the player because of how the player reacted to this encounter.

This is not a case of the DM saying 'this guy is irritating me, time to smack him down'. This is a case of the DM saying 'this NPC is going to be a nemesis, and is going to do stuff to piss the paladin off and might be a clue for what is going on behind the scenes to boot', and the player took it personally. This manifested as rules-lawyering, and we can hypothesize as to why it did so, but it seems like the entire thing was legit by the rules, and so I feel that's at best a red herring. Either way, following that event, the DM came here to ask how to handle the situation.

My feeling is that the player took the humiliation personally rather than as an in-character motivator, but didn't know a way to express his discontent at the situation directly (in many ways its easier to say 'you broke the rules!' than to say 'don't humiliate me!', because it feels like you have something more solid to stand on with a written, codified rule). It could just be that the player is really a stickler about rules and wouldn't mind if everything were legit, but the objection 'why didn't he kill me!' suggests to me that this isn't actually the problem.

[Aharon]

@NichG

The very first sentence of the OP was this:


So, I have this Lawfully Good Paladin in my game that goes out of his way to try and cheese as much stuff as possible, [...]

I assumed that the DM was irritated by this behavior earlier, as he also says


So, in a final fit of very-well-kept frustration, I made it my business to finally explain to him my outlook on how Pathfinder should be played.

So this seems to have been going on for some time already, and this was the last straw.


All I ask is that you accept what happens to you, and stop trying to go to great lengths to make me look like I don't know what I'm doing, because I asure you, I do."


This made me think in the same direction - the DM takes the rules lawyering of the player personal. The player may indeed try to go to great lengths to make the DM look like he doesn't know what he's doing, but it's also possible that he merely corrects the DM about the rules.

Given that the DM doesn't seem to take the player's arguments seriously:


[...]and any attempt at doing something to him I make, he'll open the nearby core rulebook, and tell me I "Can't do that" based on "Blah blah"

we can't be sure wether the rules complaints of the player were actually valid or not. That's why I tried to find more about the exact rules situation.

[Zubrowka74]

@OP : Seriously, the story, the Anti-paladin character, the setup, everything looks very nicely done. The way you described the fear as being something he hadn't felt since paladin academy, this is how it should be done. And the player thanks you by capping all over the floor ? Is he spoiled rotten or just plain disconnected from reality ?

[NichG]

@NichG

The very first sentence of the OP was this:

...

I assumed that the DM was irritated by this behavior earlier, as he also says

...

So this seems to have been going on for some time already, and this was the last straw.


None of this says 'I made the anti-paladin because I was pissed at the player'. You can guess at the DM's motivations for that, but no where does he say that that is why he did it, and its unfair to him to take that for granted as being the reason (and to make arguments in which it is stated as something explicitly true or given rather than as something you suspect or whatever).

[Mechanize]

I agree with Goodbye, and I'm not yet convinced the DM actually did everything by the rules (see my questions above).

Who cares about the rules, they are guidelines... even the books says they are just guidelines. How is that for a rule?

I'd love it if a villain singled me out... it means my character was in the main spot light. The DM has final say over all rules and what happens in his world. I thought it was well role played, and if there was a rules discrepency, it was still within fair guidelines.

Like I said, you have your self a whiney player. I'd just get rid of him lol.

[Sir_Chivalry]

For what it's worth, I think everyone at the table needs to get over themselves.

It was a well done nemesis, the player should be happy to have one.

The OP, however, has a poor attitude when it comes to dealing with problem players. Passive aggressive tactics aren't the way to do it. If he's a problem, don't let him come to dnd, it's a game and you all are players. You wouldn't watch a movie with a guy who's going to make it a bad experience, would you?

If I was the player of this Paladin, I'd simply want to know where the Wall of Force came from. That would be my only quibble. If it wasn't explained, I'd then assume a trap or some such and move on. I am rarely a player though, so as a DM if I wanted two guys to fight with no interference, I'd use the geography of the combat area to my advantage and call the character out. Then again, my players are generally good with roleplaying, as I've weeded out the bad ones as mentioned above.

In short, answer to thread question: Right, but you've still got problems

[Aharon]

@NichG
Huh? I take nothing at all for granted. I see a scenario that isn't described in detail, and ask questions.

I mean, he came here asking us for our opinions. I can't tell him my opinion if I don't know exactly what's going on. That's all. If he tells me that my assumption is totally wrong and I misunderstood his post, more power to him. He didn't communicate very clearly - others got the same first same impression I did.

I just know that I, personally, wouldn't like the described scenario to happen to my character, especially this gloatingly. If it happened to the whole group, I would be ok with it, but singling out my character would rub me of as unfair, especially if it happens repeatedly.

@"I made the Anti-Paladin because I was pissed at the player


This Anti-Paladin is, story wise, the main rival of the paladin himself, but much stronger, so every time they've fought he's lost out-right and *taunted* for being "So weak"

Sounds like justification for "I'm pissed off, I'm gonna make a nemesis" to me.


And it's all wrapped up into one Chaotically evil person playing one Lawfully good paladin.
also makes it seem to me that he has a problem with the player and lets his decisions when DMing be influenced by that.


@Mechanize
If I want a rules-light game, I play Minimus or one of the other games with little to no rules. DnD is very rules heavy, and when playing it, I go in expecting the DM honors the rules.
Also, @being singled out, I wonder if you still love it when the same thing repeats every time you meet that villain. Maybe, after all, some people are gluttons for punishment :smallwink:

[Mechanize]

@NichG
@Mechanize
If I want a rules-light game, I play Minimus or one of the other games with little to no rules. DnD is very rules heavy, and when playing it, I go in expecting the DM honors the rules.
Also, @being singled out, I wonder if you still love it when the same thing repeats every time you meet that villain. Maybe, after all, some people are gluttons for punishment :smallwink:

There is a huge difference between light rules, and making minor tweaks for flavor.

Not to mention... the creators of D&D specifically say in their books that the rules are not set in stone. When the creators of the rules tell you that the rules can be bent, what more do you want?

People just want rules heavy games so they can run the game their way and have more power than the DM. If a rule says you can totally break and ruin your DM's game, well its in the book right? BS. D&D is a group game, and thus a team game. Unless every player AND the DM agree to go that specific route, you compromise and play what the group wants to play. If you want to run a game, be a DM, not a player.

This player is the odd man out in his group.

[Psyren]

I'm inclined to agree with Aharon. The DM was right by the rules but there is a lot more friction in this group than there needs to be, and what sound like attitude problems on both sides. And the fact that the DM is exclusively telling his side of the story and still coming across that way is telling to me.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'd love it if a villain singled me out... it means my character was in the main spot light. [...]

Like I said, you have your self a whiney player. I'd just get rid of him lol.Okay, some people like any kind of attention they can get. Great. Not everyone is like that, and this guy obviously isn't. He might be a whiner, but that doesn't make him one.
People just want rules heavy games so they can run the game their way and have more power than the DM. If a rule says you can totally break and ruin your DM's game, well its in the book right? BS.I prefer playing rules heavy games. Does that mean I want to run the game my way and have more power than the DM? I like certain expectations being set about how things interact with each other. That doesn't mean I'm breaking the game. It doesn't mean I'm taking over the game. It just means that I know how my character, the one thing I actually do run in the game, interacts with the rest of the world.

[beforemath]

I'm inclined to agree with Aharon, too. While a (one) curb-stomp battle can set up a villain (although not my favorite way to do so, I must admit), a consistent string of curb-stomp battles or one taken to far makes you wonder why you didn't just roll up a Commoner with Skill Focus (Grovelling).



It seems to like the situation was designed to make the player not have any fun. When your abilities are countered and the result of what happens to you isn't dependent on what you do, it doesn't exactly make you get involved with the story.

[Red Rubber Band]

Huh? I take nothing at all for granted. I see a scenario that isn't described in detail, and ask questions.

You've taken a few things for granted in your post.



Sounds like justification for "I'm pissed off, I'm gonna make a nemesis" to me.

As it was said, story wise the the two characters are rivals. My assumption when reading that is not that the DM made this guy cause he was pissed at the player, but because it fit with the story or with the DM's (assumed) belief that each character needs a mountain to overcome.
This is, again, assuming that the Anti-Paladin hadn't been made prior to the campaign/people choosing their characters and that once the classes were chosen the DM was like, "Wow, that works nicely, they can be rivals."
It's also assuming that the player himself didn't create the Anti-Paladin himself in his backstory.
For the record, I will say that odds are the DM did make the character based on the player's reaction to him being feared.



also makes it seem to me that he has a problem with the player and lets his decisions when DMing be influenced by that

Again, an assumption.
What decision I did see be influenced by the DM's "problem with the player" was the decision to confront him about what the DM thought was an issue that needed to be raised and resolved.

Reading over it, does the DM have a problem with the player? Yes.
Is it justified? I believe so.
Has it effected the way he DM's? I haven't seen any evidence of it, because what some people have been seeing as "targeting the player", I see as "storyline that befits the characters". I mean, taking it too far? Isn't he supposed to be a villain?

I think the answer to whether or not the DM's been hating on him is to ask what the intent was when the Anti-Paladin was created. And what the intent has been each time they've fought (maybe a brief outline of how the battle went down too).

[Mechanize]

I like certain expectations being set about how things interact with each other.

Really? and that is fun? You can't even get that in real life. You don't know how well your "diplomacy check" is going to stack up against your boss in real life, and you want to adhere heavily to the rules in a fantasy world? A world where even in the book, almost anything can happen.

If you severely limit your DM to everything by the book, (again even the BOOK says you dont have to do this... I keep mentioning it because everyone keeps ignoring it) then those of you who know the rules and the monsters and the books like the back of your hand are missing out on any new surprises.

Again, I am not advocating completely dumping the rules, especially without prior warning so the players know what type of game the DM is running. But give the guy some freedom here to get creative. I'm talking about the massive grey area between no rules and strict rules. Narrowing down the complexities of intelligent life to 9 alignments, some classes/prestige classes and a strict set of rules is a great set of guidelines but it does not encompass all of the possiblities. Thus, if you want people to be creative, you allow a tiny bit of bending of the rules, and have fun with it as long as it is within fair boundaries.

Maybe in the end it comes down to nothing more than just playing with like minded players. I think getting players to fill out a brief survey on their play style and what they want from the game prior to having them join your group can help alleviate most issues like this.

[Knaight]

Really? and that is fun? You can't even get that in real life. You don't know how well your "diplomacy check" is going to stack up against your boss in real life, and you want to adhere heavily to the rules in a fantasy world? A world where even in the book, almost anything can happen.
You can get that in real life just fine. You're mostly dealing in approximate probabilities, which is also how the game works. Expectations about how things work are normal - see, the mere existence of routines that work on them. For instance, a normal day for numerous people.
1) Wake up, with the alarm going off exactly when expected.
2) Cook breakfast and eat. Notice how the interaction between stove, cookware, and food pretty much went as expected, because people know how those things work.
3) Go to work/school/whatever. Observe how traffic patterns can generally be guessed with decent knowledge, in the forms of probabilities and expected time ranges.
4) Do work/school/whatever. The tools needed to do so probably work about as expected, the patterns of tasks/classes/whatever work as expected, and you're fine.
5) Go elsewhere. This basically mirrors step 3.
6) Do various stuff, contingent on being able to predict consequences for said stuff, on account of how reality contains a huge amount of predictable things that operate according to understood principles, and in ways that produce observable patterns that expectations can then be drawn from.
7) Go to sleep, with the full expectation that things will continue as they have. Odds are good they will.

In short: Your portrayal of rules heavy games is absurd, claiming that the weight of rules and the power distribution between GM and players are directly correlated is hilarious (See: Fiasco, a rules light game which doesn't even have a GM), and you're making absurd claims about reality that I am forced to conclude are due to not bothering to think them through prior to stating them. I say this as someone who vastly favors rules light games, which are specifically designed to be heavily tweaked.


If you severely limit your DM to everything by the book, (again even the BOOK says you dont have to do this... I keep mentioning it because everyone keeps ignoring it) then those of you who know the rules and the monsters and the books like the back of your hand are missing out on any new surprises.
I must have missed the part where knowing the rules and the monsters meant you knew the entire game. There are also settings, characters, political and religious factions, interactions between all of these things, and even the matter of rules/classes/monsters interacting. The game isn't so shallow that knowing all of this doesn't detract anything from it. If the GM is so inept that they are dependent on being able to change the rules on a whim for surprises, that would be their problem.

[Duboris]

Alright, seeing as how I let this go for a bit, here's the whole past *and* moment of when he's done this.

First Encounter with Anti Paladin Ramses. P for Paladin. AP for Anti-Paladin.

P meets AP

Anti-Paladin is Paladins previous "Mentor" of sorts. Paladin turned evil basically gave his "The world's bigger than you think" speech.

P = Level 3 Paladin
AP = Level 5 Paladin - Victor of fight

Second Encounter: P met AP again with a necromancer that was raising dead to basically make an army. This time instead of a 1 on 1 fight, the paladin and his group fought the AP and his N friend.

P = Level 5 Paladin, 2 Level 5 Rogues, 1 5 Warlock, 1 5 Barbarian, 1 5 Ranger
AP = Level 8 Paladin Level 5 Necromancer (Wizard with Necromancy Spells)

Paladin group won this time, but didn't exactly do much to AP. They killed the Necromancer and he simply said "You've merely delayed the inevitable. Not yours in particular, of course, but someone else's"

Now for the most recent event.

The player party walked into the room, and they were, of course, greeted by the AP and 2 low-level wizards. They were also met by 2 stained glass golems. The Paladin never said he wanted a 1 on 1, but as he walked forward to get in range to throw a javelin at him, which I expected he would, the walls of force formed behind him, to his left, and his right, which made an elongated room. As soon as this happened, the Anti-Paladin dodged the javelin and jumped down to his level.
At this point in time the group had split up to take care of the wizards, which was a good idea, save for the fact that the paladin was sealed off from both other groups. This meant that 1 Barbarian, Rogue, and Ranger had to fight a wizard and a stain-glass golem, while the other rogue and warlock did as well.
While this was happening the AP (Level 10) fought the P (Level 8) which he lost to, of course, but saved himself from dieing via stabilizing.

I had originally told the paladin vaguely that he could be feared through colorful words, but he didn't flip **** until I Touch of Corruptioned him, which, because of a very low roll (A 3) he failed to resist, resulting in him running backwards and trying to get out of the area, all the while the AP was laughing, saying things along the lines of "I thought I taught you better than to turn your back on an opponent! Let alone not to piss yourself in fear! Haha!" This both provoked an attack of opportunity as he ran away, and resulted in a next-round charge attack.

Needless to say, while everyone was doing rather well against the golems and wizards, the paladin was getting led around on his nose in the middle.

All in all it was a good, very-well story driven session, but the guy was so irritated with the fact that he was feared, and beaten so badly by a guy only 2 levels above him that he didn't enjoy it, which is reasonable.

In hindsight, the idea was still good, as they have to fight him again, all at once, next time, but he'll be level 12 with Kyton's (Cr 5) around him while they're all level 9, which is honestly a reasonable fight for them at that point.


The whole purpose for the creation of Ramses, the Anti-Paladin was as a mountain for the paladin to overcome. Of course he's a re-occuring villain, but the whole purpose for him originally was to be the paladin's main antagonists, as well as a very charismatic, truly evil villain that was seduced by the "Greater Evil" they've all been chasing after, and have very few clues about.

The rogues even have an antagonist for them, but the only thing he does is keep making them lose sleep by coming in and stealing their things. He even recently made off with their Instant Fortress, and all they did was say "We're going to find him. And we're going to get it back."

[Starbuck_II]

all the while the AP was laughing, saying things along the lines of "I thought I taught you better than to turn your back on an opponent! Let alone not to piss yourself in fear! Haha!" This both provoked an attack of opportunity as he ran away, and resulted in a next-round charge attack.

All in all it was a good, very-well story driven session, but the guy was so irritated with the fact that he was feared, and beaten so badly by a guy only 2 levels above him that he didn't enjoy it, which is reasonable.


Yeah, kicking a man while he is down sucks. I do wonder... since he is immune to fear, wouldn't the fear effect turn off once he was 10 feet away from the Anti-Paladin?
Should he stay feared?

[dascarletm]

Yeah, kicking a man while he is down sucks. I do wonder... since he is immune to fear, wouldn't the fear effect turn off once he was 10 feet away from the Anti-Paladin?
Should he stay feared?

Not knowing the exact rules on it I'd assume the fear washes away once he gets out of the aura. But that is just what I'd say

[Duboris]

Not knowing the exact rules on it I'd assume the fear washes away once he gets out of the aura. But that is just what I'd say

It did, but at that point he was already bleeding out.

Mind you, this "Death Closet" wasn't that big, and the paladin had taken ranks in step up, step up and follow, etc. He was actually made with the thought in mind of "He won't be afraid as soon as he runs" so I simply made it to where whenever the fear effects kicked in, the attempt to flee would result in attack of opportunities, and a useless attempt to flee.

[Mechanize]

You're mostly dealing in approximate probabilities, which is also how the game works. Expectations about how things work are normal.

Sure, approximate probabilities, like his immunity to fear working just about every time exept vs this cool unique anti paladin villain.

Just like your alarm clock works 99% of the time, oh, until the DM turns off your power. :P

[only1doug]

Sure, approximate probabilities, like his immunity to fear working just about every time exept vs this cool unique anti paladin villain.

Just like your alarm clock works 99% of the time, oh, until the DM turns off your power. :P

I think you mean "this bog standard, straight out of the rulebook, antipaladin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/alternate-classes/antipaladin)" . Although that kind of makes your answer nonsense, so maybe (like the player) you just didn't get the memo about fear immunity being cancelled.

[Aharon]

@Duboris
Thanks for elaborating, that sounds fairer than your original description. I think what you did was ok, but not all players like that style, obviously - I think I wouldn't have protested as vehemently as your player did, but I don't enjoy being on the receiving end of a curbstomp, either :smallsmile:

[Mechanize]

I think you mean "this bog standard, straight out of the rulebook, antipaladin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/alternate-classes/antipaladin)" . Although that kind of makes your answer nonsense, so maybe (like the player) you just didn't get the memo about fear immunity being cancelled.

I got the memo bro, I was makinging the comparison based off the players perspective. If there is something out there that bends the rules a bit, and you are a player, go with it ffs. Have some fun and stop whining about rules.

[Duboris]

I got the memo bro, I was makinging the comparison based off the players perspective. If there is something out there that bends the rules a bit, and you are a player, go with it ffs. Have some fun and stop whining about rules.

Man Crush Achieved. I want you in a campaign -_-

Regardless, in the newer campaign (because the other one sunk better than a paper titanic) this same person is playing a cleric.

Anything I should be worried about for that, cause he's gonna be chaotic neutral with a chaotic evil deity (Whom we've renamed to Loki, because he wanted the Madness and Trickery domains, which I was cool with.)

[beforemath]

I think you mean "this bog standard, straight out of the rulebook, antipaladin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/alternate-classes/antipaladin)" . Although that kind of makes your answer nonsense, so maybe (like the player) you just didn't get the memo about fear immunity being cancelled.

I think we get that. The Antipaladin cancelled the Paladin's ability. The encounter was designed specifically so that the Antipaladin would counter the Paladin's ability. The question isn't whether it's in the power of the DM to create an encounter such as this (he could have made the big bad a flying Antipaladin ooze with an antimagic field who is immune to piercing damage if he wanted to), the question is *should* he have made an encounter to specifically counter the Paladin's abilities.


It looks like the consensus (with a few objectors) is, "Yes, having my player's abilities being cancelled to the point of helplessness is fun."

The objectors said, "That sort of thing annoys players and encourages power-gaming and is generally not fun."

[Knaight]

Sure, approximate probabilities, like his immunity to fear working just about every time exept vs this cool unique anti paladin villain.

Just like your alarm clock works 99% of the time, oh, until the DM turns off your power. :P

Exactly (though in the second case battery powered alarm clocks avoid that particular problem nicely). I'd agree that the case given is a matter of approximate possibilities and entirely kosher, if not necessarily explained as well as it could have been. Your post, however, was criticizing the very idea of following the mechanics at all and stating that approximate probabilities don't exist in real life and as such shouldn't in a game, which is flawed on a number of points.

More directly on topic, I'd also note that there are ways to handle ability countering extremely poorly and to be obnoxious with it as a GM, and given the number of terrible GMs out there someone having an aversion to the very concept simply because they've seen it handled poorly in the past is entirely reasonable.

[Mechanize]

Exactly (though in the second case battery powered alarm clocks avoid that particular problem nicely). I'd agree that the case given is a matter of approximate possibilities and entirely kosher, if not necessarily explained as well as it could have been. Your post, however, was criticizing the very idea of following the mechanics at all and stating that approximate probabilities don't exist in real life and as such shouldn't in a game, which is flawed on a number of points.

More directly on topic, I'd also note that there are ways to handle ability countering extremely poorly and to be obnoxious with it as a GM, and given the number of terrible GMs out there someone having an aversion to the very concept simply because they've seen it handled poorly in the past is entirely reasonable.

Some how my posts have come off as saying "lets ignore all the rules" when I am pretty sure I am saying things like "bending" rules occaisionally and playing "fair." I never said that approximate probabilities don't exist, and never once said to toss all mechanics down the drain. The mans immunity to fear should work in every case that it is viable but vs the main protagonist? Like I keep saying, have some fun!

Its a game and the DM is your guide! If it turns out later that all in all his campaign was poop then you give him constructive criticism so that he learns from it. But I think players should relax for a while before jumping the gun on rules unless hes just butchering everything. :smallcool:

[Alabenson]

Man Crush Achieved. I want you in a campaign -_-

Regardless, in the newer campaign (because the other one sunk better than a paper titanic) this same person is playing a cleric.

Anything I should be worried about for that, cause he's gonna be chaotic neutral with a chaotic evil deity (Whom we've renamed to Loki, because he wanted the Madness and Trickery domains, which I was cool with.)

My main concern about that would be that he sounds like the type of player to use chaotic neutral as an excuse to play chaotic [Insert Profanity Here].

[Mechanize]

My main concern about that would be that he sounds like the type of player to use chaotic neutral as an excuse to play chaotic [Insert Profanity Here].

I agree... a problematic player playing chaotic or evil can be a headache. I love playing chaotic or evil classes, but it takes a mature and creative player to be able to play chaotic or evil in a group setting and not cause issues.

[Uiriamu]

I agree with the OP

[Myrddin0001]

I think it comes down to this (and I recently took a DMing seminar with Tracey Hickman and he stated this exact thing): rules are the rules, yes, however the DM is the DM. which means that if he says something happens it happens, the end. Keeping this in mind DMs should not intentionally jack with their players, I don't think you were doing this at all I'm just pointing it out, but if it is part of your story for the unshakable hero the become shaken by the grip of fear then that's what happens. Rules Lawyers need to deal or get out of your game. If you are a fair and fun DM then what you have created is law. Tracey Hickman stated that the rules are guidelines for how to play in an imaginary world. DMs are above these laws. If they change a printed rule, it's changed, period.

[Starbuck_II]

I think it comes down to this (and I recently took a DMing seminar with Tracey Hickman and he stated this exact thing): rules are the rules, yes, however the DM is the DM. which means that if he says something happens it happens, the end. Keeping this in mind DMs should not intentionally jack with their players, I don't think you were doing this at all I'm just pointing it out, but if it is part of your story for the unshakable hero the become shaken by the grip of fear then that's what happens. Rules Lawyers need to deal or get out of your game. If you are a fair and fun DM then what you have created is law. Tracey Hickman stated that the rules are guidelines for how to play in an imaginary world. DMs are above these laws. If they change a printed rule, it's changed, period.

I perfer if a DM tells players his houserules up front, I find hidden houserules deplorable, just deplorable.

It is grounds for prefenestration.

[Ravenica]

I agree... a problematic player playing chaotic or evil can be a headache. I love playing chaotic or evil classes, but it takes a mature and creative player to be able to play chaotic or evil in a group setting and not cause issues.

I've got a player playing chaotic evil right now. I had to tell her point blank last session that if she seriously wants to keep setting fire to every person she meets she is going to end up paying the consequences.

She set fire to a pair of traders in a remote tradepost, ones she had terrorized in the past and that had already called for help from the closest fort.

The next time the group went to the trade post to use it as a home base there was a large guard contingent. The rest of the players were so irritated with her that the turned her over AND helped them subdue her when she went ballistic. :smallbiggrin:

[gooddragon1]

Personally, I don't recommend ever bypassing player immunities. If they've gotten an immunity it is important to them for some reason. Work around it with other things. If you want to make him run away give him a reason (like he needs to save someone important rather than fight) but don't bypass an immunity.

[Kogak]

Referring to this fellow playing a chaotic neutral, I think the important thing to ask is whether he's ever successfully played chaotic neutral. I love the alignment, but it can be the hardest one to play (in my never humble opinion). It's not necessarily "I do want I want when I want". That's neutral evil as much as anything else. "I do what I want when I want without hurting too many people", eh maybe. Personally I prefer to suggest someone uses a four sided dice and tries to come up with four reasonable and alignment-varied choices, then roll. A coin can work if you can avoid the player ending up like Two-Face.

For example (this happened to my CN AD&D fighter), an ogre has surrendered to your party on the way to a time-sensitive endeavor (Tomb of Horrors... :smallannoyed: ), so you cannot take him with you. You happen to be the proprietor of a bar with a legally questionable entertainment ring.

1) the ogre tried to kill me, I stab him in the gut and laugh as the life drains
2) the ogre is an evil being that will beset those in the surrounding country, it must be slain for crimes both past and future
3) we take it with us as it has surrendered and I will call him Sqooshie
4) release him on his own recognizance and word of honor that he will turn up in your tavern as a prize fighter.

It takes a lot more energy on the part of the player, but makes for a fuller character. You may note the similar outcomes of option 1 or 2 with very different strings of logic. As a DM, though, you may despise the uncertainty and inability to predict a player (I know mine did, the dice method was used to add predictability).


On a more serious and off topic note, why do I feel suddenly compelled to make a pancake that has been permanently hit with "Animate Objects", then "Awaken Construct", that goes through life waiting on a plate to leap up and suffocate anyone that sits down at the table? No empty tavern on the side of the road is without suspicion! We could even make it an anti-paladin. :smallbiggrin:

[NichG]

Referring to this fellow playing a chaotic neutral, I think the important thing to ask is whether he's ever successfully played chaotic neutral. I love the alignment, but it can be the hardest one to play (in my never humble opinion). It's not necessarily "I do want I want when I want". That's neutral evil as much as anything else. "I do what I want when I want without hurting too many people", eh maybe. Personally I prefer to suggest someone uses a four sided dice and tries to come up with four reasonable and alignment-varied choices, then roll. A coin can work if you can avoid the player ending up like Two-Face.


This seems unnecessarily random. Chaotic doesn't have to mean inconsistent. You could have a chaotic neutral person who has a consistent philosophy that 'people (sentient humanoids) need to be allowed to make choices', for example. So if a bad guy is threatening a village because he has the mayor's daughter as a hostage, this fellow might stand back and say 'villagers: you should decide whether the daughter is more or less importalt to you than the villain's demands.' While on the other hand, he might step in to stop a mindless monster that is just indiscriminantly slaying everyone, because those people don't really have a meaningful choice in the matter. He might fight vehemently against a slaver or a tyrant, up until the point when he thinks that those people directly involved have enough freedom to actually make a decision (at which point they're on their own and he suddenly up and leaves). Furthermore, he might fight vehemently against a paladin or cleric of a religion he finds too restrictive, regardless of that religion's alignment. On the darker side, he might want to put people in situations where they have to make harsh choices, because he's helping to free them by giving them real, meaningful decisions whereas most people live in a grey of meaningless choices.

Another one might be someone who has decided he can't stand authority. Not that he feels compelled necessarily to violate a law just because its a law, but he's filled with resentment whenever someone tells him what to do, leading to discontent and a need to suppress his instincts to avoid trouble. So he stays away from the centers of civilization where things are highly regulated. His reactions when presented with strong authority run the gamut from petty vengeance and simmering resentment to outright violence, depending on the nature of the authority and how close it touches something he personally cares about (rather than a moral cause, since he's neutral on the Good/Evil line).

[willpell]

Yeah, Chaotic doesn't mean "insane" or "devoid of personal volition"; only someone like a cleric of Chance would let their actions be decided by dice. Chaotic specifically means you prefer to make your own choices, instead of obeying an authority stricture; it's about following your emotions and whims, doing whatever you want to do just because you want to (minus the "imp of the perverse" which makes this an Evil motivation). A Chaotic Good character likes to be happy and make others happy; a Chaotic Evil one likes to be happy that he's making others unhappy; a Chaotic Neutral one just cares about himself, but probably isn't going to borrow trouble by attacking others (unless he's really bored).

[Augmental]

Personally, I don't recommend ever bypassing player immunities. If they've gotten an immunity it is important to them for some reason. Work around it with other things. If you want to make him run away give him a reason (like he needs to save someone important rather than fight) but don't bypass an immunity.

Bad things happen to PCs. Wizards might get their spellbooks stolen, the fighter may have his equipment sundered, etc. If a player acts up when the DM makes something bad happen to his player, that's not a very good player.

[Threadnaught]

My own DMing experience.

I had a problem with a Lawful Good (didn't really know what he was doing) Bard who is now a Neutral Druid... And still giving me problems.
To the point where I have to tell him. As DM, my job is to challenge you making this fun fun for both of you. Not let you tell a story of your "awesome" character who never fails.
I've given both players 2 Wishes each, to use whenever they want for whatever reason, they're level 4 and I've told the Wizard about the Planar Binding trick that I fully expect him to use when he hits level 11.

As a Bard he complained that my use of The Giant's Diplomacy patch made him incapable of using it to build an unstoppable army and win every encounter against everything by talking. He complained that I allowed him to encounter a plot device end boss at level 2, yet decided to chase after it. He decided to go up against the Epic God of Death, despite my constant ingame warnings against it... Then complained when he died. He did a bit of complaining about the God of Nature transforming into a Tarasque, but that was more due to shock and he came up with some interesting way to beat him, but alas he was suspicious of why I let him win and started complaining. And everytime both players faced their Equal Level Goblin Rivals, he constantly stood between the DMPC Monk's, Barbarian Rival getting OHKOd by the Raging Barbarian's Merciful Greataxe... His own rival was a Druid, who behaved mostly as a healbot.
As a Druid, he complained when his Animal Companion doesn't level up every time he gains 1 level. He complained about the Wish I granted being incapable of giving him an item of constant Foresight. He complained about the Magic system. He complained when I changed the magic system so they could get used to preparing their spells. He's even complained when I suggested making him unable to cast spells without a certain piece of equipment, Wizard without Spells is useless, a Druid is still a powerful melee class. His last complaint was a mixture of NPC interaction and wanting free stuff worth more than anything he's carrying... Excluding the Wish Stones. Next time he asks for something stupid like that, I'll take one of his damn wishes off him and see how he likes it.
Everytime I suggest anything, I get "you can't do that because it's homebrew/too powerful/doesn't fit into MY world" I'm the DM and he wants complete and total control of the world.

Which is why I whole heartedly agree with everything the OP has done.


The other player who was a Ranger, is currently a Wizard. Likes the way I run things and only complains, when I forget about his abilities and when I say he complains, it's more along the lines of politely pointing out what I did wrong. As for being a Wizard, after showing him the OotS strip with V scribing Power Word Blind, he wasn't really looking forward to the Wizard, especially since I was charging him so much for each Spell he could cast. Yet he's enjoying the class even moreso than the Ranger because of the freedom it grants him and also. Because of his willingness to contribute toward the party's progress, he has been on the receiving end of more rewards than the Druid. Who is perfectly willing to ask the Wizard to come up with a solution for every problem, but continues to whine when the Wizard is rewarded for his efforts.

[blazinghand]

Yeah, Chaotic doesn't mean "insane" or "devoid of personal volition"; only someone like a cleric of Chance would let their actions be decided by dice. Chaotic specifically means you prefer to make your own choices, instead of obeying an authority stricture; it's about following your emotions and whims, doing whatever you want to do just because you want to (minus the "imp of the perverse" which makes this an Evil motivation). A Chaotic Good character likes to be happy and make others happy; a Chaotic Evil one likes to be happy that he's making others unhappy; a Chaotic Neutral one just cares about himself, but probably isn't going to borrow trouble by attacking others (unless he's really bored).

I'm not even sure necessarily that a Chaotic Neutral character would try to get trouble by attacking others or whatever... In terms of Chaos versus Law in character motivations, I think things are a bit more fluid than that. I have a few favorite scenes from OOTS for describing what I think the main differences between Law and Chaos are in terms of alignment. Specifics in the Spoilers, which spoil events up through OOTS #772.

A good example of how they clash is Shojo vs Hinjo's ideologies. In a most obvious way, Shojo literally doesn't care about the laws for their own sake, whereas Hinjo does, and this prevents him from abusing his authority to arrest Kubota for no reason. He doesn't want to be like his father, who to him did wrong. Elan, being Chaotic, sees no problem with Shojo's actions. This sort of distinction, between literal Law and unLaw, is how you typically distinguish lawful characters from chaotic ones. Although this is valid, this is a very limited interpretation of how we talk about Law and Chaos.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0503.html

An example that's more subtle is the Shell Game scene. Part of being Lawful is a mindset that rules are followed, and you're more likely to think inside the box than outside the box. Whereas Roy and Hinjo, both Lawful capable and experienced commanders, can't understand the shell game, Haley, who is Chaotic, quickly realizes that none of the undead they see are Xykon. She doesn't tacitly accept the rules of the game, because she's not Lawful.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html

It's not that Lawful characters can't think outside of the box, but you'll note that it's Belkar who has to explain why Shojo won't want to be resurrected just to serve prison time. A Lawful character's sense of duty might call him back to the resurrection, but Shojo did what he did not out of duty to an oath of a code of honor, but simply because he wanted to do good. What should have been his last words, "Everything I did, I did for my people", show a motivation beyond just Honor. He has no reason to come back and be jailed, his only motivation, as a Chaotic Good character, was to do anything and everything to help his people.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0410.html


Probably one of my favorite examples, which shows some of the shortcomings of Chaotic thinking, are the way both Girard Draketooth and Ian Starshine think. Girard only believes that family can be trusted, and that words of honor are worthless. He's incapable of even understanding how a multigenerational oath could bind the paladins, in part because of his anger, and in part because to him, following rules like that is foreign. He still will follow the rules of his family, or his party, or whatever group he's in, but the idea of a large-scale centralized organization rather than a small clan group doesn't make sense to him. Ian Starshine thinks in the same way, that only family can be trusted, and this blinds him to the idea that some other over-arching idea could bring people together besides family-- in Haley and Elan's case, love. Ian like Girard is blinded by his paranoia and hatred, but these examples serve to show the dark side of Chaotic thought.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0772.html


In any case, I guess what I'm getting it is that as a CN rather than LN player, you're not inherently more likely to get bored and attack people. CN people don't have shorter attention spans (though they certainly can have short ones). Even a chaotic character recognizes they live in a society of law and have people who are their friends that they like, and will do their best to hide their actions if they break the law.

Some bad PC actions you sometimes see CN characters take, like stealing from allies, is profoundly out-of-character. This is especially true for someone who's on a life-or-death quest alongside his long-time friends to claim the Orb of Lutius to use in battle against the Dread Wizard Weruq. Chaos is more about freedom and a frame of thought then randomness or nonadherence to laws, at least in mortal characters.

[GnomeGninjas]

@ op:You're wrong. If a DM needs to target/humiliate one PC in order to progress the story it should be a player who would enjoys that sort of thing. It should not be some player who you find annoying and think need to be taken down a peg.
If my DM was letting the rest of the party killed golems while I was being beat on by a higher level npc designed to defeat me then I would probably try to rules lawer for any little advantage I could if it would let me kill the dm's agent of power tripping. Once the guy finally beat me I would want him to kill me so I could build a new character that could defeat him rather than having to play guy the dm is specificly countering. Is this immature? Probably, but I see where the player is coming from and all of his actions seem fairly reasonable (not the best ways hecould have responded but his response makes sense).

[DrDeth]

I'm inclined to agree with Aharon, too. While a (one) curb-stomp battle can set up a villain (although not my favorite way to do so, I must admit), a consistent string of curb-stomp battles or one taken to far makes you wonder why you didn't just roll up a Commoner with Skill Focus (Grovelling).



It seems to like the situation was designed to make the player not have any fun. When your abilities are countered and the result of what happens to you isn't dependent on what you do, it doesn't exactly make you get involved with the story.
Right>
Was there a reasonable chance for the pally to win?

Is there a reasonable chance for the rogues nemesis to fail?

Altho this does sound like it could be fun, if the AP comes in and wipes the floor over and over again with the pally, without the pally having a chance, then what’s the point?

[Duboris]

Right>
Was there a reasonable chance for the pally to win?

Is there a reasonable chance for the rogues nemesis to fail?

Altho this does sound like it could be fun, if the AP comes in and wipes the floor over and over again with the pally, without the pally having a chance, then what’s the point?

Point being that they eventually beat him and he apologizes for pretty much everything and has a "Crowning moment of atonement" right before the end of the campaign.

That fight in particular was the only time he completely wiped the floor with said pally.

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

I didn't bend rules when it came to the fear immunity, by the way. It wasn't a matter of DM fiat, because anti paladins remove fear immunity, no matter what it is. The only way he could cause the fear is through touch of corruption with the added effect of fear, which he failed the save against.

I'll be honest, however. When someone goes out of their way to repeatedly interrupt your "Chronicling of the story" by yelling obscenities while you're trying to tell the story, and what the guy does as he attacks, not to mention after that attack with flavorful, well-thought out role-play causing words, you do start to get a little bit irritated.

I know I shouldn't target certain players, and this one in particular actually wasn't me targeting him, but I'll admit. I kind of liked watching the single source of all my DM fury get a boot to the face.

[TuggyNE]

Point being that they eventually beat him and he apologizes for pretty much everything and has a "Crowning moment of atonement" right before the end of the campaign.

While this can be cool, you're asking for quite a lot of patience from the targeted player in the meanwhile.


I'll be honest, however. When someone goes out of their way to repeatedly interrupt your "Chronicling of the story" by yelling obscenities while you're trying to tell the story, and what the guy does as he attacks, not to mention after that attack with flavorful, well-thought out role-play causing words, you do start to get a little bit irritated.

I know I shouldn't target certain players, and this one in particular actually wasn't me targeting him, but I'll admit. I kind of liked watching the single source of all my DM fury get a boot to the face.

Well, while you were technically within your rights here, it sounds like there's some other frustrations between you that are likely coloring things and causing extra discord. In particular, that player almost certainly felt your satisfaction at smushing him with the antipaladin, which undoubtedly didn't make him feel any happier with the situation.

You really need to resolve some of your other problems before continuing to make him the target of attacks, although some tension might be eased if you just flat-out told him "look, things are going to be awesome eventually because of this for you" or similar, though even that relies on him trusting you in a way that may not be earned yet.

[Duboris]

You really need to resolve some of your other problems before continuing to make him the target of attacks, although some tension might be eased if you just flat-out told him "look, things are going to be awesome eventually because of this for you" or similar, though even that relies on him trusting you in a way that may not be earned yet.

I did. I ended the campaign.

Now we're doing something on clockworks and he's not playing Lawful stupid :U

He's still trying to plan ideas, but putting up with him has gotten a lot easier after his nonsense got the other 5 guys to put their 2-sense in in my favor.

Now he's a CN cleric with Madness and Trickery

[Knaight]

Point being that they eventually beat him and he apologizes for pretty much everything and has a "Crowning moment of atonement" right before the end of the campaign.

This sounds like a planned plot with little room for player control. That casts everything into doubt, where powerful opposition was merely powerful opposition before, now it begins to look suspiciously like the minefield laid to either side of the tracks to better support railroading. This isn't necessarily the case, but for a player who has had bad GMs who favor railroading before it is more than enough to entertain the possibility. If the possibility turns out to be the case, then it's probably high time to see that the GM gets replaced and is now a player.

[Duboris]

This sounds like a planned plot with little room for player control.

The player wasn't the only reason that we ended the campaign. The campaign itself was, as you mentioned, narrow, and basically a moving train on 1 track with minefields on both.

Long story short, I realized the campaign was becoming a doom train and abandoned ship. I now use factions/side-quests/Neutral play to give the players plenty of options.

[Killer Angel]

Once the guy finally beat me I would want him to kill me so I could build a new character that could defeat him rather than having to play guy the dm is specificly countering.

Now, this is moot, but this specific enemy was a nemesis, so it makes perfectly sense. Were I the Paladin, knowing the weaknesses of the AP class, i would try to prepare myself more accurately, buying specific equipment, outsmarting the AP, and so on.
It should be a challenge to win, not a chance to whine.

[Belril Duskwalk]

I'll be honest, however. When someone goes out of their way to repeatedly interrupt your "Chronicling of the story" by yelling obscenities while you're trying to tell the story, and what the guy does as he attacks, not to mention after that attack with flavorful, well-thought out role-play causing words, you do start to get a little bit irritated.

I know I shouldn't target certain players, and this one in particular actually wasn't me targeting him, but I'll admit. I kind of liked watching the single source of all my DM fury get a boot to the face.

Give in to your hate. Release your anger. Strike down the Paladin and your journey towards the Dark Side will be complete.

[hoverfrog]

Give in to your hate. Release your anger. Strike down the Paladin and your journey towards the Dark Side will be complete.I knew it was worthwhile subscribing to this thread. :smallsmile: