Dealing with Ban Happy GMs. (PF)

[Desiani]

Is there a calm and collected way to deal with a DM who happily bans things at a whim?

To give some insight to my situation. I am know to be an 'optimizer without trying to optimize' within my group of friends. I honestly don't go through all of the pdfs in Pathfinder that I own to make the most OP Cookie Crunchers I can. I generally go through with a themed build that is meant to do one or two things.

A perfect example being in the last game we played I made a wizard who focused on illusions exclusively. His personality was he just was a paranoid Sum Bitch who used illusions to throw people off. The only times I used the fireball spell or anything with damage was during a surprise attack while I was making a few Wands of Fireball for a Quest NPC. His illusions were potent because I picked feats and what not to go with his Theme, as such I am now banned from playing Illusion school focused Wizards.

I am playing a fighter in this current game who uses a Falchion because falcions are cool looking. That weapon was banned from the game entirely, from me exclusively, because I rolled nat 20s 3 consecutive rounds and 3 shotted the mini BBEG at level 2...

Any advice to help me deal with my predicament?

[Spindrift]

Well, if you kept rolling natural 20s that's luck, they'd have been critical hits with a scythe too,and then you'd have x4 instead of x2 damage.
Maybe point out that the falchion has a high threat range, but lower damage than the greataxe, and plenty of monsters are immune to critical hits (undead,oozes,plants,constructs,etc)
So it'll balance out over multiple fights if you fight a variety of creature types.

Personally i think it's easier for the DM to prepare for you doubling your damage, if you used a scythe and 1-shot his BBEG he'd probably think that was worse.

[Svata]

The only thing to do is talk to him. And if he doesn't listen, either walk away, or Henderson the crap out of him.

[Desiani]

The only thing to do is talk to him. And if he doesn't listen, either walk away, or Henderson the crap out of him.

Whats henderson?

[AMFV]

The only thing to do is talk to him. And if he doesn't listen, either walk away, or Henderson the crap out of him.

Hendersoning only works with a really permissive GM, since another GM could stop the process altogether.

[Fax Celestis]

There is no solution for someone being a jerk.

[Snowbluff]

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131004164724/gtawiki/images/e/e9/GolfClub-GTA5-ingame.png
smalltongue

[Coidzor]

If you can't have something approaching a mature discussion then you're probably better off going with another GM or starting up your own game anyway.

Old Man Henderson (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Old_Man_Henderson)(beware that site. It is not safe.) is a Call of Cthulhu character turned story turned meme. Because he won Call of Cthulhu, which isn't supposed to be possible.

There's even a scale of plot derailment named after him. (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/The_Henderson_Scale_of_Plot_Derailment)

[malonkey1]

Whats henderson?

A reference to "Old Man Henderson", the only character to "win" Call of Cthulhu.

Link here. Warning, there's a bit of foul language, FYI. (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Old_Man_Henderson)

Gak! Swordsage'd

[pwykersotz]

Focus on the results you want. Don't nitpick. Don't use words that indicate hostility. Avoid using "you" too much, instead focus on "the game". It keeps the two of you in a rational discussion instead of you painting a target on him, which makes most people defensive. Use a conversational tone, and be prepared to concede points (for now) that you don't agree with if they're not in line with your objectives. Baby steps are important, he's not going to change overnight. But if you get his ear by a collective desire to make game better for everyone, you'll keep it long-term and he can improve with your help.

Edit: http://www.wikihow.com/Convince-Anyone-of-Anything

[AMFV]

If you can't have something approaching a mature discussion then you're probably better off going with another GM or starting up your own game anyway.

Old Man Henderson (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Old_Man_Henderson)(beware that site. It is not safe.) is a Call of Cthulhu character turned story turned meme. Because he won Call of Cthulhu, which isn't supposed to be possible.

There's even a scale of plot derailment named after him. (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/The_Henderson_Scale_of_Plot_Derailment)

Well to be fair the DM did have to make several rulings in his favor, and there were at least a few questionable bits that got ruled to his advantage. Which probably explains why he was able to do that. It's like Sir Bearington, as written it doesn't work quite the way it's supposed to.

[chaosegg]

That sort of retroactive ban can be necessary some times, sure, but it should be super rare, as a DM should have a good idea what his players are going to bring to the game and plan accordingly.

The only real-world analogy I could think of off-the-bat was the use of steroids in the Olympics or other pro sports;
the result of my pondering this comparison was to conclude that people using steroids should compete against other people using steroids,
and people not using them should compete against others who aren't using them... seems fair right?

Anyways,
my diplomatic suggestion is laugh, and roll with whatever he bans, but then talk to him alone, one-on-one later;
try and be polite and ask something like if "maybe he could make a list of things that are banned BEFORE they come up in the game play,
just so the game runs a bit more smoothly",
(avoid referring to yourself or him personally even if you really mean that it pissed you off when you say aloud "so the game runs more smoothly").

[JusticeZero]

What's going on with the other players in that regard? Are they all really really awful or something? Are they having characters banned?

[jiriku]

Remaining calm and collected is really a decision that you make, that you own your peace of mind and that no situation or person has your permission to take it from you. If you're the sort to easily get upset and flustered when others treat you badly, it can be a difficult shift to make. Most people quickly alter their mood in response to how the world is treating them. It takes a real effort to change your thinking into a mode where you choose your mood and you keep it regardless of what the world does to you. Try to understand that when he's unreasonable towards you, it's not about you. It's no reflection on you. That's just him, and that's how he interacts with the world. When others don't treat you with respect, it says a lot more about them than it does about you.

Now, for your predicament, understand that as difficult as it is for you to change yourself to keep your temper when your DM is spouting the crazy at you, it's going to be just as difficult for him to change and stop spouting crazy. However, of the two of you, you're the only one who's seeking input from others and looking for advice. Unfortunately, that means you have the classic "snowball's chance in hell" of doing anything to change his mind in the near term. If you establish a positive relationship with him and apply gentle pressure over time, he may become more reasonable. May. Or may not. It's up to you to decide if you want to invest that kind of effort.

[Sith_Happens]

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131004164724/gtawiki/images/e/e9/GolfClub-GTA5-ingame.png

You really want the OP to introduce the Mushroom Princess PrC to a ban-happy DM? It won't last a session.

[Fax Celestis]

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131004164724/gtawiki/images/e/e9/GolfClub-GTA5-ingame.png
smalltongue

A man DM chooses; a slave player obeys.

[grarrrg]

Any advice to help me deal with my predicament?

Keep breaking things.

Purposely break the smallest, stupidest things you can.

Break so much that the DM has to agree that you really aren't "breaking" anything.

[Tvtyrant]

It sounds like your characters are a little stronger than the DM is capable of handling, and they are removing them because they are not sure how to proceed otherwise. If you can reassure them that you are not trying to break the game and come to a consensus on where the line is for too strong it should be possible to fix it. Talk to the DM about what their expectations for a character are, and why your characters are not in line with them. Bring up what your own expectations are and how you can try to fit them together. If you cannot then I suggest you leave the group.

From personal experience I can say that everyone wants to play the game they can enjoy, but sometimes it just is not possible for two people's enjoyment to overlap. Different concepts on role playing styles, character alignments, and especially the line for sex and gore/violence are capable of making players incompatible.

I personally left a group that constantly made... Unsavory jokes about females while in an all male group and focused unwelcome attention on my female character. For the other members of the group it was their way of relaxing on the weekend, but for me it felt uncomfortable and isolating so I left.

[Sith_Happens]

Keep breaking things.

Purposely break the smallest, stupidest things you can.

Break so much that the DM has to agree that you really aren't "breaking" anything.

While I know it's not constructive, I'm really tempted to second this. Figuring out the silliest things you can get banned is just too fun not to try.

[Jormengand]

While I know it's not constructive, I'm really tempted to second this. Figuring out the silliest things you can get banned is just too fun not to try.

I once managed to get Burning Hands banned by a DM in a 3.5 game after creating a wondrous item of four lots of Continuous Burning Hands, three of which were Energy Substituted, and pointing it at things to cause them to take 1d4 damage of each of the four types until they die. I have no idea whether that's even RAW legal or not, but the fact that I managed to get burning hands banned is quite funny.

Neither Energy Substitution, nor custom wondrous items, were banned.

[Seppo87]

While I know it's not constructive, I'm really tempted to second this. Figuring out the silliest things you can get banned is just too fun not to try.
If he keeps banning things for you only, this is not going to take you anywhere.
At some point, other players might even start mocking you when they can use their shiny Falchion and you can't (because you'll have become the disruptive optimizer who deserves to be ostracized)

[WhamBamSam]

If he keeps banning things for you only, this is not going to take you anywhere.
At some point, other players might even start mocking you when they can use their shiny Falchion and you can't (because you'll have become the disruptive optimizer who deserves to be ostracized)Clearly, the solution is to invite weird bans while being as party friendly as possible. I made an Ironsoul Forgemaster build a while back for Red Fel's handbook based around using a spiked chain it held in its mouth to fling enemies into really high quality traps. This DM would probably swing the banhammer hard at that build, but in the meantime, you've made really nice gear for everyone in the party and put on an entertaining show. Then you make a hammy DFI bard who they also love. Then a Wizard/War Weaver or DMM Persist Cleric who's all about party buffing. Then some other such thing. Then another. Of course, this is all 3.5, not PF, but you get the point. The party will probably eventually get pretty upset at the DM for taking away all their new best friends.

Alternately, does the Assplomancer work in PF? Because getting Escape Artist banned that way is worth it no matter the consequences.

[Seppo87]

Clearly, the solution is to invite weird bans while being as party friendly as possible. I made an Ironsoul Forgemaster build a while back for Red Fel's handbook based around using a spiked chain it held in its mouth to fling enemies into really high quality traps. This DM would probably swing the banhammer hard at that build, but in the meantime, you've made really nice gear for everyone in the party and put on an entertaining show. Then you make a hammy DFI bard who they also love. Then a Wizard/War Weaver or DMM Persist Cleric who's all about party buffing. Then some other such thing. Then another. Of course, this is all 3.5, not PF, but you get the point. The party will probably eventually get pretty upset at the DM for taking away all their new best friends.

Alternately, does the Assplomancer work in PF? Because getting Escape Artist banned that way is worth it no matter the consequences.
I see, and I second this.

Especially, well, the assplomancer part :smallcool:

[icefractal]

Starting "banning" his monsters. The next time a monster gets lucky in a fight, declare that monster type to be ridiculous and no longer usable. Act like he's being completely unreasonable if he decides to use one. Refuse to fight them or go on quests that include them.

When he says that this is stupid and annoying, point out that constantly having parts of your character banned is stupid and annoying.

[Seppo87]

Starting "banning" his monsters. The next time a monster gets lucky in a fight, declare that monster type to be ridiculous and no longer usable. Act like he's being completely unreasonable if he decides to use one. Refuse to fight them or go on quests that include them.

When he says that this is stupid and annoying, point out that constantly having parts of your character banned is stupid and annoying.
what if he actually banned some of those monsters? The game would get worse by the minute and the tension would keep rising.
It could go horribly wrong imo

[Poranthi]

It sounds to me like you take great care and time creating your characters and plan out their paths well in advance. It also sounds like your GM, and perhaps the other members of your table, do not prepare their side to the same care in which you do.

The only options I can see are
A: start GMing yourself;
B: find a new group, which may lead into option A;
C: get your group together and have an in depth discussion with the GM as far as house rules and record them, the harder the copy the better.
D: "break" everything, at some point the GM will either have to rescind some or all of the bans or disintegrate the entire game

I know as a GM (3.5 but close enough) myself I try to use some Optimized builds to challenge my PC's to think outside the core class/ cookie cutter characters. It's working too, now I have to adjust my adventures, hooks, and challenges to compliment and challenge the new ideas I've spawned. It keeps the fighting and RPing interesting especially on a table where about half have been playing for 20+ years. When we set a house rule we write it down, vote on it, and roll it out for the entire table - GM and PC alike. There are some that were great for me as a PC and bit me in the ass as a GM, but that's the price I paid.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if your GM cannot adjust his adventures, it may be time for a change at the helm.

[Segev]

You could try playing a "god" wizard. Focus on buffing your party, moving them about the battlefield, and keeping them safe from enemy attacks. Never directly harm the foe. Don't plant your crowd-control spells on them. Instead, place them as deterrents. Done right, your party will feel awesome, and the DM may incorrectly target things the other players are doing that take advantage of your help with his ban-hammer. If not, you win anyway, because now he's not banning things anymore.

There's the chance he'll ban what you're doing to make the party awesome, but that will take him realizing the true source of the power of the party to overrun his encounters. It will also make the other party members feel the sting of your wizard being banhammered. There is a distinct chance, however, that he'll instead just ramp up the CR of encounters, because you'll have elevated the whole party. A lot of the time, a GM feels the need to ban things in an "overpowered" character's hands because he can't challenge that player without risking slaughtering the rest of the party.

[Yahzi]

I think the best answer by far is to make a character who makes the other characters super-cool. Then the DM can't ban your stuff without banning the other players.

And you may even discover - once the entire party is super-cool killing machines - that the DM doesn't need to ban any of your stuff again. Maybe it's not the NPCs the Dm is protecting; maybe he just doesn't want you overshadowing the rest of the group.

[Mastikator]

Keep breaking things.

Purposely break the smallest, stupidest things you can.

Break so much that the DM has to agree that you really aren't "breaking" anything.

Bonus points if you can trick the DM into banning things so you literally can't do anything, then roll up a commoner and say "you forced me into this".

[Firechanter]

The trouble with this kind of DM - and I know that lot well - is that once they have convinced themselves that you over-optimize / break things, they will accuse you of this behaviour no matter what you do or don't do. You could probably roll a VoP Monk and they'd still call him overpowered.

[Inevitability]

Bonus points if you can trick the DM into banning things so you literally can't do anything, then roll up a commoner and say "you forced me into this".

Two words.

Chicken Infested.

That's all.

[Hecuba]

My advice would be to handle it thus:

Make sure you're not actually significantly out-optimizing the rest of the table. If your optimization really is accidental, this may (counter-intuitively) require getting better at it so that you understand how to pull your punches.
In general discussions, bring up "cool" mechanical combinations that are more applicable to other people's characters (or even the DM's NPCs). Include fluff. Do not use them yourself.
Make sure you have fair dice. 20 3 times in a row is very rare: I doubt you have intentionally bought weighted dice, but you may have ended up with one that is not actually fairly weighted.
Talk to the DM out of game about the issue. Including him/her in checking #3 may make a good option to show you're earnest.
Find a polite way to leave the game before before you start trying to "teach the DM a lesson" by breaking the game in this general direction. Unless the DM is already mechanically inclined (in which case this would likely not be an issue), this is likely to accomplish little except showing that you can do the thing they are upset at you about doing.

[Desiani]

As sort of an after action report over this weekends game. I was banned from playing a Druid this time because of the level 13 permanent alter self spell. As a matter of RP reason the Druid was an apprentice of a world renown Assassin who was getting old and wanted to leave a legacy... Or just some one who remembered him. He figured a Druid is a decent apprentice because of Permanent Alter Self and wild shape make perfect hiding tools.

As a matter of point to GET myself banned I assassinated the local Petty King. I did this so I could play a Schizophrenic Commoner. I picked commoner because if he bans this class, there goes 90% of the NPCs. I was given the ability to level it up and not be forced to stay at level one because 'lolcommoner.'

I broke it in such an RP that he had two distinct personalities with their own alignments and was allowed each personality their own level up system provided with 1/4 BAB increases since I'll be tagging along as the Royal Liason/Ambassador to the newly founded Adventurer Nation next door ( he was given this job title because it was a good will gesture to keep the Peasentry from revolting. )

One personality was Lawful Evil, had the Vile Brand line of feats as he was the local Cult of Asmodeus leader (The nation of the king king my druid assassinated worked somewhat like Chelliax from PF Golarion.) He openly preaches about the glory of Asmodeus no matter where he is regardless of the Toleration of Asmodeus. This personality preaches that Peace can only be attained through the unholy Law and Order that his patron is known for and as such has feats to up is diplomacy and such along with Vile Brand.

The other personality is Chaotic Good with Vow of Non-violence/Peace along with exalted feats that improve diplomacy.. He believes that peace is a Worthy goal to preach about but must be attained through the abolition of War.

Both personalities know about each other and since they really can't do much about each other other then suicide so they both use their own methods for the goal of peace. :D

The supposed Game Breaking point is the trigger for switching. Stress from either negative or positive stessors. Examples being at the begining and end of an encounter, the stress of going into battle and the stress of victory or the stress of intense debate.

Suffice to say that the GM is royally ticked as well as the party members due to VoN/P and the fact they are all Good but can't kill me due to if they due... they risk starting a war with half the game world because each country on our continent has each signed the Writ of Military Assistance as the Adventurer Nation was formed from a revolt they incited.

I took inspiration from the Henderson example by providing a 160 page back ground! :p I made the game world at the behest of the GM because I like writing back grounds and new worlds with pre-existing Nations for Adventurers to mess around in so I know all the info needed for my Commoners rise to power :p

[Trasilor]

Is there a calm and collected way to deal with a DM who happily bans things at a whim?

To give some insight to my situation. I am know to be an 'optimizer without trying to optimize' within my group of friends. I honestly don't go through all of the pdfs in Pathfinder that I own to make the most OP Cookie Crunchers I can. I generally go through with a themed build that is meant to do one or two things.

A perfect example being in the last game we played I made a wizard who focused on illusions exclusively. His personality was he just was a paranoid Sum Bitch who used illusions to throw people off. The only times I used the fireball spell or anything with damage was during a surprise attack while I was making a few Wands of Fireball for a Quest NPC. His illusions were potent because I picked feats and what not to go with his Theme, as such I am now banned from playing Illusion school focused Wizards.

I am playing a fighter in this current game who uses a Falchion because falcions are cool looking. That weapon was banned from the game entirely, from me exclusively, because I rolled nat 20s 3 consecutive rounds and 3 shotted the mini BBEG at level 2...

Any advice to help me deal with my predicament?


Tell your friend to stop being a jerk.

Seriously, if the DM is your friend (not just a guy you meet at the local gaming shop), tell them to stop nerfing your character for no reason. Rolling three critical threats (assuming PF works like 3.5 here) in 3 rounds is not a game breaker. So the combat lasted 3 fewer rounds. This is breaking his game?

Talk to the GM. Find out why he is singling you out in a cooperative storytelling environment.

[Arbane]

Suffice to say that the GM is royally ticked as well as the party members due to VoN/P and the fact they are all Good but can't kill me due to if they due... they risk starting a war with half the game world because each country on our continent has each signed the Writ of Military Assistance as the Adventurer Nation was formed from a revolt they incited.


I'm pretty sure the players can legally send you home and ask for a new ambassador. And if they do, I don't blame them one bit.

[Sith_Happens]

I'm pretty sure the players can legally send you home and ask for a new ambassador. And if they do, I don't blame them one bit.

Yeah, of all the possible responses to a heavy-handed DM, deliberately making a character that the whole group will hate is the single least productive.

Though I will be quite amused if it results in the banning of any of the following:
Lawful Evil alignment
Chaotic Good alignment
Dissociative Identity Disorder

[Snowbluff]

You really want the OP to introduce the Mushroom Princess PrC to a ban-happy DM? It won't last a session.
Dammit, what if I take the "easy kidnapping target" flaw?

A man DM chooses; a slave player obeys.
:smallbiggrin:

[ThisIsZen]

Old Man Henderson was a funny story.

Hendersoning a campaign, especially over a dispute that's this minor, is pretty much completely unjustified, especially if you didn't try any of the other methods first. You're basically just angling to get thrown out of the party, and honestly? If you want out of the group, leave. Don't make them throw you out.

These games are ultimately about having fun, and pointedly ruining other peoples' fun for multiple sessions is wasting everyone's time. If their way of having fun doesn't mesh with your way of having fun, so be it, but don't hang around just to pee in their cornflakes.

[Anlashok]

Old Man Henderson was a funny story.
It's also just a story. Since the micromanaging, railroading, abusive, domineering DM and the player running wild with shenanigany are kind of, by definition, mutually exclusive.

[Dalebert]

A: start GMing yourself;

I tried that for a while but it was very lonely and I heard it can grow hair on your palms.

Things my PF DM has banned:

Any kind of spell/item/ability that grants long-term flight.
Most teleportation of any distance.
All item crafting feats other than for spell trigger items.
Alignments.
He sort of banned extra-dimensional space devices but then kind of unbanned them and we got access to some Handy Haversacks.

The first two were about feeling like so much adventuring was bypassed by such efficient travel methods. The last one was mostly about acknowledging how it would screw up typical trade economies. He ultimately decided that they're just very rare and hard to make or something.

I'm playing a witch and have argued that flight and teleportation are some of the few really good spells that witches get access to with their very limited spell-list compared to sorc/wiz. Therefore, I asked that he give me something decent in exchange. He seems receptive to this but I haven't gotten access to those spells yet so I'm not sure how it will play out when that time comes. I suppose we'll just have to have a conversation about decent spells that sort of make sense for a witch.

[Firechanter]

The first two were about feeling like so much adventuring was bypassed by such efficient travel methods.

Yeah see, those are different philosophies at work there. In my understanding, Teleport is there exactly for bypassing the tedious parts and get straight _to_ the actual adventuring.

[bjoern]

I tried that for a while but it was very lonely and I heard it can grow hair on your palms.

Things my PF DM has banned:

Any kind of spell/item/ability that grants long-term flight.
Most teleportation of any distance.
All item crafting feats other than for spell trigger items.
Alignments.
He sort of banned extra-dimensional space devices but then kind of unbanned them and we got access to some Handy Haversacks.

The first two were about feeling like so much adventuring was bypassed by such efficient travel methods. The last one was mostly about acknowledging how it would screw up typical trade economies. He ultimately decided that they're just very rare and hard to make or something.

I'm playing a witch and have argued that flight and teleportation are some of the few really good spells that witches get access to with their very limited spell-list compared to sorc/wiz. Therefore, I asked that he give me something decent in exchange. He seems receptive to this but I haven't gotten access to those spells yet so I'm not sure how it will play out when that time comes. I suppose we'll just have to have a conversation about decent spells that sort of make sense for a witch.

Playing a guy that you are unsure will be nerfed later is just asking to have conflict again later. If the DM has preferences as to what his players play, grab a book and start flipping through classes and ask him on each class if he has issue with it? When youfind a class that ddoesn't upset him, just go with that .

[Segev]

Is your goal to find a way to have fun with this group, or to "teach them a lesson?" If the former, try building the god-wizard. (Look up "D&D batman wizard" on google and go to the optimization guide it will link.) If the latter, don't. Just don't. It makes you a jerk, and leads to no good for anybody.

[killem2]

If my DM did this, I would just give him my feedback. I would not expect him to change anything.

Hey man, in our last session I really have to be honest with you and give you some feedback. I feel like you are targeting me unfairly because I rolled lucky. Sure I got three natural 20s, but I also confirmed with normal rolls on all those to earn those critical hits. I was clearly lucky and I wouldn't give up on your sessions entirely just because a baddie rolled 3-4 crits in a row on me. I would hate to lose my character but that's the nature of the game. Falchion isn't the only weapon that can hurt when I score a critical hit either so I really need to know, are all weapons off the table if I roll more than two critical in a row? Please reconsider man.

[Firechanter]

The fact that the OP actually rolled several Nat20s in a row, and thus his using a Falchion has nothing at all to do with his output, and in fact _any_ other two-handed weapon would have been much more effective in this situation (a Greataxe, even a Greatsword), just proves what I said further up: no matter what you do or what happens, this DM will denounce _anything_ as overpowered if it involves the player he is accusing of doing broken stuff.
I suppose this qualifies as a case of cognitive dissonance. There's usually no way out when dealing with these people.

[killem2]

The fact that the OP actually rolled several Nat20s in a row, and thus his using a Falchion has nothing at all to do with his output, and in fact _any_ other two-handed weapon would have been much more effective in this situation (a Greataxe, even a Greatsword), just proves what I said further up: no matter what you do or what happens, this DM will denounce _anything_ as overpowered if it involves the player he is accusing of doing broken stuff.
I suppose this qualifies as a case of cognitive dissonance. There's usually no way out when dealing with these people.

Yup, but players should be providing feedback in the unlikely chance, it finally gets through the thick skull.

[JusticeZero]

D&D: The game in which becoming knowledgeable of the rules will result in no longer being permitted to play.

[Segev]

D&D: The game in which becoming knowledgeable of the rules will result in no longer being permitted to play.

I've found this to also be true of Monopoly.

[Fax Celestis]

I've found this to also be true of Monopoly.

Monopoly isn't a game, because the only person who has fun at it is the winner. It's an exercise in attrition.

[Segev]

Monopoly isn't a game, because the only person who has fun at it is the winner. It's an exercise in attrition.

Not to derail too much, but played right, with all the rules known and followed by all the players, the fun is in trying to build your network of deals such that it's unclear who is going to win but you are still angling for advantage.

The operative rules I find most critical to avoiding it being an unfun slog are the ones about auctioning unpurchased spaces when they're landed on and about bailing mortgaged properties out before they can be sold. Combine this iwth the fact that you can make any bargain you want with another willing party and you can have amazing constructs of consortiums between players, with the ultimate winner being the one who is both lucky and skilled enough to have as much safety on the board as possible. But even that's not enough, if another player also happens to have more wealth-generating capacity.

[AMFV]

Monopoly isn't a game, because the only person who has fun at it is the winner. It's an exercise in attrition.

Oh, it's fun, it's very fun. The trick is just to be the winner, or to plan to learn how to improve your game so you can be the winner next time inspired by the bitter taste of defeat. Having that precipitous slog facing you if you lose encourages you to be more competitive. Which is makes the game fun. Of course being a competitive ass helps, but I probably am, additionally so are the other people I play with, so it's fun for us.

[Desiani]

I'm pretty sure the players can legally send you home and ask for a new ambassador. And if they do, I don't blame them one bit.

To answer your question. Yes, while they technically -can- ask for a new Ambassador pretty much every one in the game world has 1 of two thoughts of the Adventurer Nation. One is to cower in fear until they eventually enslave the world or they want to unite and crush the nation. The only reason my character is there in the first place is because he has fought for peace with the Nation since its formation the other being he is blatantly crazy.

Ironically, VoN/P hasn't hindered anything battle wise as he generally stands back and lets the party do all the fighting. He is the party face despite the bard being there. What they are mad over is that I RP my character in such a way that it's a beleivable person. In knowing this, I don't use my feats to punish the group... I use them as RP tools.

The DM is ticked because banning anything would a result in a Ban of actual Role Playing the character of all who is playing.

[AMFV]

To answer your question. Yes, while they technically -can- ask for a new Ambassador pretty much every one in the game world has 1 of two thoughts of the Adventurer Nation. One is to cower in fear until they eventually enslave the world or they want to unite and crush the nation. The only reason my character is there in the first place is because he has fought for peace with the Nation since its formation the other being he is blatantly crazy.

Ironically, VoN/P hasn't hindered anything battle wise as he generally stands back and lets the party do all the fighting. He is the party face despite the bard being there. What they are mad over is that I RP my character in such a way that it's a beleivable person. In knowing this, I don't use my feats to punish the group... I use them as RP tools.

The DM is ticked because banning anything would a result in a Ban of actual Role Playing the character of all who is playing.

You realize that VoN/P doesn't work that way. You can't associate with people who are being violent, at all. Not with anybody that's doling out anything harsher than Nonlethal damage. You fall for them.

[Desiani]

You realize that VoN/P doesn't work that way. You can't associate with people who are being violent, at all. Not with anybody that's doling out anything harsher than Nonlethal damage. You fall for them.

The way my schizo trigger works after the first few battles, due to the built up resistance to the fighting stressor Hadar has been stuck in the LE side. To give the group credit, when the CG VoN side is active they due to their best to not harm unarmed humanoids and take prisoner rather then kill. On the upside when he comes active every time so far no one has beaten the save from VoN/P so ironically the CG side hasn't experienced them being violent.

It's going to be fun walking into town with the level 15 BBEG in handcuffs because he failed his Save for the calming effect. XD

[Flashy]

The way my schizo trigger works after the first few battles, due to the built up resistance to the fighting stressor Hadar has been stuck in the LE side. To give the group credit, when the CG VoN side is active they due to their best to not harm unarmed humanoids and take prisoner rather then kill. On the upside when he comes active every time so far no one has beaten the save from VoN/P so ironically the CG side hasn't experienced them being violent.

For all that your DM senselessly bans whatever he doesn't like this split personality thing is super permissive.

[Raven777]

Well, at least it seems like you're having fun. Just keep making sure the others are as well and you should do alright.

[JusticeZero]

It may be permissive, but... does he really want to be known as the guy who banned Commoner?

[AMFV]

It may be permissive, but... does he really want to be known as the guy who banned Commoner?

Well being the guy who banned commoner, no...

Being the guy who banned people from taking Multiple Personality Disorder so they could have all of the advantages of Vow of Peace and Vow of Nonviolence with none of the drawbacks... Possibly.

Edit: Furthermore breaking the vow even under Magical Compulsion counts. So I assume that if you break your Vow while in the other personality, it's still broken, and you'd still have to atone.

[Hazrond]

Edit: Furthermore breaking the vow even under Magical Compulsion counts. So I assume that if you break your Vow while in the other personality, it's still broken, and you'd still have to atone.

I dont think so, its different from magical compulsion, when you are compulsed you are still the same person, but its not the same because the other personality is a different person in the same body as you

[AMFV]

I dont think so, its different from magical compulsion, when you are compulsed you are still the same person, but its not the same because the other personality is a different person in the same body as you

No, you share the same soul, same need for atonement. If you're under the effect of a Magic Jar (you'd have a different soul) and you'd still have to atone.

[rs2excelsior]

To give some insight to my situation. I am know to be an 'optimizer without trying to optimize' within my group of friends. I honestly don't go through all of the pdfs in Pathfinder that I own to make the most OP Cookie Crunchers I can. I generally go through with a themed build that is meant to do one or two things.

A perfect example being in the last game we played I made a wizard who focused on illusions exclusively. His personality was he just was a paranoid Sum Bitch who used illusions to throw people off. The only times I used the fireball spell or anything with damage was during a surprise attack while I was making a few Wands of Fireball for a Quest NPC. His illusions were potent because I picked feats and what not to go with his Theme, as such I am now banned from playing Illusion school focused Wizards.

Not really answering the OP's question, but related to this: why is there this mentality in D&D that being good at something is game-breaking?

I play a fighter. I do like the OP described the wizard: he's good at fighting. He has a good axe (in-game reason for him to have it) and feats and abilities to use it well, because if I do 90% of my fighting with a battleaxe I'm not going to take weapon training (it's Pathfinder) and Weapon Focus in hammers. It just doesn't make sense. He's a fighter, so I choose to make him a better fighter when he levels up.

What's the line between "not sucking at what your character is supposed to do" and "optimizing"? Because it seems very thin.

[flamewolf393]

There is a simple spell that no DM in the world would ban.

Magic Missile.

With this assumption in mind, I have a super-broken magic missile mage character you could recreate. At level 11 he could shoot 330 magic missiles (at 9 damage each) in the first round of combat. Let me know if you are interested.

[nedz]

There is a simple spell that no DM in the world would ban.

Magic Missile.

With this assumption in mind, I have a super-broken magic missile mage character you could recreate. At level 11 he could shoot 330 magic missiles (at 9 damage each) in the first round of combat. Let me know if you are interested.

Actually I have considered banning this, along with Fireball, for one group. Basically we have this one guy who always plays Wizards who cast little else and I'm bored of these two spells.

[Desiani]

There is a simple spell that no DM in the world would ban.

Magic Missile.

With this assumption in mind, I have a super-broken magic missile mage character you could recreate. At level 11 he could shoot 330 magic missiles (at 9 damage each) in the first round of combat. Let me know if you are interested.

Lol I would like to know. I can't seem to find a PM button. :(

[Vhaidara]

Edit: Furthermore breaking the vow even under Magical Compulsion counts. So I assume that if you break your Vow while in the other personality, it's still broken, and you'd still have to atone.

Actually, he's clear. As far as I can tell, the two sides have completely different feat sets. Therefore, when the evil side is in control, he doesn't have a vow to break.

[Spindrift]

If the good side knows about the evil side, Wouldn't he want to get a heal spell cast on himself to cure himself of his insanity? If he's an important ambassador I'd think the people he represents would at least lend him the funds to pay for his treatment(unless they're evil), or they'd strip him of his authority once they find out about his condition. It seems to me that not finding more ways to restrict the evil side equals endangering others, or endangering their souls if he's corrupting people. Even if he's technically not got the vows while evil, he should do all within his power to remove the evil when he's in his good phases, just ignoring it and hoping he can balance out the evil he does half the time seems negligent in the extreme.

[Desiani]

If the good side knows about the evil side, Wouldn't he want to get a heal spell cast on himself to cure himself of his insanity? If he's an important ambassador I'd think the people he represents would at least lend him the funds to pay for his treatment(unless they're evil), or they'd strip him of his authority once they find out about his condition. It seems to me that not finding more ways to restrict the evil side equals endangering others, or endangering their souls if he's corrupting people. Even if he's technically not got the vows while evil, he should do all within his power to remove the evil when he's in his good phases, just ignoring it and hoping he can balance out the evil he does half the time seems negligent in the extreme.

While you are right on the logic to cure himself, he doesn't think anything is wrong with himself. To him this is his 'normal' as he's had this from an extremely young age. To the point about him being an important individual. He was chosen at random from the countries peasentry in order to try and satisfy their want for 'more privilege' and to delay the peasent revolt everyone knows is comming. To elaborate more on the two knowing each other. They know that there is another 'me' and they don't really know much about each other than they exist and they are vaguely working for the same goal of peace.

As I mentioned the country is run similiar to Cheliax in PF'S Golarion setting. The city is run buy a noble house with strong, some are rumored to be sexual co-mingling, ties with the LE God Asmodeus. So to the majority of the populous having a head of the local Asmodeus peasent cult isn't anything out of the ordinary.

[AMFV]

Actually, he's clear. As far as I can tell, the two sides have completely different feat sets. Therefore, when the evil side is in control, he doesn't have a vow to break.

But if he's possessed then the possessing entity doesn't have the vow either, and that would count as breaking it under magical compulsion. That's why I brought up the magic jar example. The Vow doesn't cease existing just because his mind is not his own, and at best, at best, you'd have his "other self" classed as a companion, which would mean that if he didn't take steps to restrain his other self, he's still liable for anything he does or doesn't do.

[Spindrift]

If he does ever get heal cast on himself though, I think it would force him to adopt one true personality or fuse the existing ones together.

Also, nitpicking here, but I think you meant dissociative identity disorder (DID) and not schizophrenic.

[AMFV]

If he does ever get heal cast on himself though, I think it would force him to adopt one true personality or fuse the existing ones together.

Also, nitpicking here, but I think you meant dissociative identity disorder (DID) and not schizophrenic.

I think that under the effects of his vow he'd be obligated to seek out the Heal spell, to be honest. It doesn't matter how normal you are. Exalted requires you to be better than normal. And VoPe/VoN is a level of Exalted that's above and beyond the rest. Since he's allowing others to come to harm, because he can't stop his companions when he's not there, he has an obligation to try everything in his power to reverse that process, regardless of his feelings of normalcy, because Exalted characters need to strive to be better than normal.

[Spindrift]

Also, the evil brand has a physical manifestation that would be visible to the good side.

Quote "The symbol is unquestionable in it's perversity, depicting a depravity so unthinkable that all who see it know beyond a doubt that the bearer is forever in the sway of the blackest powers".

Sounds to me like the moment he looks in a mirror he'd be forced to realise how vile and evil his other half is, he'd be compelled to do something about it.

He wouldn't gain the benefits of being branded when he's good, but it should still be there, as it's a physical mark.

[malonkey1]

Also, the evil brand has a physical manifestation that would be visible to the good side.

Quote "The symbol is unquestionable in it's perversity, depicting a depravity so unthinkable that all who see it know beyond a doubt that the bearer is forever in the sway of the blackest powers".

Sounds to me like the moment he looks in a mirror he'd be forced to realise how vile and evil his other half is, he'd be compelled to do something about it.

He wouldn't gain the benefits of being branded when he's good, but it should still be there, as it's a physical mark.

And it could be some sort of curse inflicted by an archfiend that can't be lifted by a simple heal spell, and the character(s) embark on a quest to separate from each other, and the story gains its strength from the tension between doing what's right (the moralistic Good side) v. doing what is necessary (the pragmatic Evil side).

[Spindrift]

And it could be some sort of curse inflicted by an archfiend that can't be lifted by a simple heal spell, and the character(s) embark on a quest to separate from each other, and the story gains its strength from the tension between doing what's right (the moralistic Good side) v. doing what is necessary (the pragmatic Evil side).

That could be interesting, though if the identity disorder were a curse, but he's had it all his life, that implies he was cursed before they even knew he'd be randomly picked to be ambassador, unless the fiend pulled strings to get him that position. It'd seem a bit odd for an archfiend to go around cursing individual commoner children unless they were going to grow up to be someone important. If the archfiend's been secretly manipulating his life since childhood that could be interesting, but then it's kind of incongrous that he didn't just corrupt him entirely rather than cursing him and splitting his personality(if it were a demon and not Asmodeus that kind of unpredictable curse may be more fitting). It also seems like a lot of harm to innocents could be avoided through suicide, so if there's no quick way out a truly exalted character may bite the bullet rather than give the evil more time to do evil.

[Vhaidara]

That could be interesting, though if the identity disorder were a curse, but he's had it all his life, that implies he was cursed before they even knew he'd be randomly picked to be ambassador, unless the fiend pulled strings to get him that position. It'd seem a bit odd for an archfiend to go around cursing individual commoner children unless they were going to grow up to be someone important. If the archfiend's been secretly manipulating his life since childhood that could be interesting, but then it's kind of incongrous that he didn't just corrupt him entirely rather than cursing him and splitting his personality(if it were a demon and not Asmodeus that kind of unpredictable curse may be more fitting). It also seems like a lot of harm to innocents could be avoided through suicide, so if there's no quick way out a truly exalted character may bite the bullet rather than give the evil more time to do evil.

Excuse me, but do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior Asmodeus, the devil who is practically god of long term planning and political maneuvering?

[Spindrift]

Excuse me, but do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior Asmodeus, the devil who is practically god of long term planning and political maneuvering?

I'm pretty sure he could and would do all that, if he felt it'd be cost effective to achieving any goals.
However, I think it'd be easier for him just to fully corrupt someone than it would be to create a special curse that leaves them only serving him half the time, and potentially working against him the rest of the time, or having the option to kill himself, thus putting a stop to all the planning. There's too many variables and while he could easily plan around them, being the genius he is, I can't see it serving his purposes when the follower is already in a place where his worship is tolerated, so hiding the follower as a good person doesn't seem necessary, and there are easier ways to conceal alignment anyway.

[Vhaidara]

I'm pretty sure he could and would do all that, if he felt it'd be cost effective to achieving any goals.
However, I think it'd be easier for him just to fully corrupt someone than it would be to create a special curse that leaves them only serving him half the time, and potentially working against him the rest of the time, or having the option to kill himself, thus putting a stop to all the planning. There's too many variables and while he could easily plan around them, being the genius he is, I can't see it serving his purposes when the follower is already in a place where his worship is tolerated, so hiding the follower as a good person doesn't seem necessary, and there are easier ways to conceal alignment anyway.

Ah, but that's the genius: No one would suspect him of it.

Also, screening. This could be one massive diversion. All he did was curse one kid's soul, pull a few strings, and boom, all kinds of distractions from whatever else he might be doing.

[Spindrift]

Ah, but that's the genius: No one would suspect him of it.

Also, screening. This could be one massive diversion. All he did was curse one kid's soul, pull a few strings, and boom, all kinds of distractions from whatever else he might be doing.

Well, you could argue pretty much anything is part of a nefarious plot started by the big A.
It could be a double bluff, or a triple bluff diversion. It could even be some other fiend pretending to be big A, hoping that he can draw asmodeus' attention to what's going on there in his name, and distract him from his infernal business.

But that's all hypothetical stuff that's up to the DM to decide/retcon.
Just because a plan is so unreliable or odd that no one would suspect asmodeus of being behind it doesn't mean he must actually be behind it, else almost everything that ever happens must be a result of his plotting.

[Vhaidara]

Well, you could argue pretty much anything is part of a nefarious plot started by the big A.
It could be a double bluff, or a triple bluff diversion. It could even be some other fiend pretending to be big A, hoping that he can draw asmodeus' attention to what's going on there in his name, and distract him from his infernal business.

But that's all hypothetical stuff that's up to the DM to decide/retcon.
Just because a plan is so unreliable or odd that no one would suspect asmodeus of being behind it doesn't mean he must actually be behind it, else almost everything that ever happens must be a result of his plotting.


I'm sorry, of course that's ridiculous.

*on radio* They know to much, eliminate them!

[Sith_Happens]

Excuse me, but do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior Asmodeus, the devil who is practically god of long term planning and political maneuvering?

This thread is for Pathfinder, where he actually is a god.

Incidentally, one possible reason for going with a split personality rather than total corruption is the fact that, as mentioned by the OP, the existence of the Good personality is what's keeping the party from ditching or offing this guy.

[Spindrift]

This thread is for Pathfinder, where he actually is a god.

Incidentally, one possible reason for going with a split personality rather than total corruption is the fact that, as mentioned by the OP, the existence of the Good personality is what's keeping the party from ditching or offing this guy.

As long as it's reasoned to be a split personality I think it falls under heal's sanity restoring department, and thus the obvious evil nature of the evil brand should make them aware and wish to purge him of that madness that makes him do evil. Unless the true identity is the evil half, and the good one is the fragment that broke off. If his true self is evil, then the good part may wish to have himself imprisoned and converted to goodness, or might commit suicide if the unspeakable nature of the evil brand makes him believe he's beyond saving.

[AMFV]

This thread is for Pathfinder, where he actually is a god.

Incidentally, one possible reason for going with a split personality rather than total corruption is the fact that, as mentioned by the OP, the existence of the Good personality is what's keeping the party from ditching or offing this guy.

But the problem isn't the Evil half, it's the Good VoPe, and VoNV half. He's the one who's not going to be willing to play ball.

[Vhaidara]

This thread is for Pathfinder, where he actually is a god.

Incidentally, one possible reason for going with a split personality rather than total corruption is the fact that, as mentioned by the OP, the existence of the Good personality is what's keeping the party from ditching or offing this guy.

I personally choose to ignore that, since I like him being the biggest badass who isn't a god.


As long as it's reasoned to be a split personality I think it falls under heal's sanity restoring department, and thus the obvious evil nature of the evil brand should make them aware and wish to purge him of that madness that makes him do evil. Unless the true identity is the evil half, and the good one is the fragment that broke off. If his true self is evil, then the good part may wish to have himself imprisoned and converted to goodness, or might commit suicide if the unspeakable nature of the evil brand makes him believe he's beyond saving.

Except that, for the same reason the evil character doesn't have the vows, the good character doesn't have the brand. Even with it being physical, if you don't have the feat, you don't get the sign.

[Spindrift]

The text for the evil brand feat says the recipient is marked "forever".
I'm going to assume that mental illness doesn't override it. Even if it overrides the benefits he gets from it. I don't think "forever" is a game term that has a detailed definition, so it's up to opinion I guess. If he had the brand and became non-evil, he'd still be marked and lose his vile feat's powers, I think. Just like a red wizard who had a psion rewrite all his feats would still have a tattoo even if he has no tattoo focus feat anymore.

[Vhaidara]

The text for the evil brand feat says the recipient is marked "forever".
I'm going to assume that mental illness doesn't override it. Even if it overrides the benefits he gets from it. I don't think "forever" is a game term that has a detailed definition, so it's up to opinion I guess. If he had the brand and became non-evil, he'd still be marked and lose his vile feat's powers, I think. Just like a red wizard who had a psion rewrite all his feats would still have a tattoo even if he has no tattoo focus feat anymore.

You see, I view it more as the brand manifests when he has the feat. Mostly because the image of the peaceful diplomat getting stressed, then suddenly grinning as the symbol of Asmodeus appears, burned into his forehead, is really cool.

And the difference between the Red Wizard and Evil Brand is that the Tattoo Focus involves getting a tattoo as part of the feat, while the brand is an effect of the feat.

[Spindrift]

You see, I view it more as the brand manifests when he has the feat. Mostly because the image of the peaceful diplomat getting stressed, then suddenly grinning as the symbol of Asmodeus appears, burned into his forehead, is really cool.

And the difference between the Red Wizard and Evil Brand is that the Tattoo Focus involves getting a tattoo as part of the feat, while the brand is an effect of the feat.

Well, I think we're at an impasse as I think it's a mark physically burned into the flesh and you see it as a magical manifestation.Both valid enough interpretations, I'm not sure it's written clearly enough that it couldn't be either.
So in the end it's a matter of opinion or preference, I guess.

His group members would still be able to tell him he's evil part of the time, as they'd be able to tell him about the obviously evil mark, unless it's hidden somewhere he keeps covered.

[Sith_Happens]

I personally choose to ignore that, since I like him being the biggest badass who isn't a god.

I like the default 4e cosmology's take on upgrading him to godhood, which actually ups his badass factor by a lot: His first act after ascending was to completely obliterate the Abyss in one fell swoop (though the surviving demons did conquer a new plane to call home).

[Vhaidara]

I like the default 4e cosmology's take on upgrading him to godhood, which actually ups his badass factor by a lot: His first act after ascending was to completely obliterate the Abyss in one fell swoop (though the surviving demons did conquer a new plane to call home).

Eh, like I said, I prefer him as "I could be a god, but why bother? I'm awesome."

So that's a neutral mark for 4e: Good execution of an idea I don't really like. Kind of ruined by the removal of LE from existence.

[Spindrift]

Eh, like I said, I prefer him as "I could be a god, but why bother? I'm awesome."

So that's a neutral mark for 4e: Good execution of an idea I don't really like. Kind of ruined by the removal of LE from existence.

That removal of alignments always rubbed me the wrong way, but I've always liked having all 9 options. I know some people don't like the distinctions, but I think we need a LE.

[AMFV]

Well, I think we're at an impasse as I think it's a mark physically burned into the flesh and you see it as a magical manifestation.Both valid enough interpretations, I'm not sure it's written clearly enough that it couldn't be either.
So in the end it's a matter of opinion or preference, I guess.

His group members would still be able to tell him he's evil part of the time, as they'd be able to tell him about the obviously evil mark, unless it's hidden somewhere he keeps covered.

Well in either case, it's not like he wouldn't want to know what happened when he blacked out. Particularly if it was at the start of a period of potential violence.

[afroakuma]

I find it hard to understand why the advice so often given (and sometimes gleefully followed) in situations like this is "annoy him even more." Is the theory that the DM will go too far, feel stupid and end up letting you do whatever you want so he doesn't self-humiliate again?

That's not productive. What you're really doing is taking out your frustrations on him by annoying him even more. If you want him to stop DMing, talk to your tablemates; don't try to goad the guy into ragequitting. Conversely, if you legitimately want him to become a better DM, offer actual help. You're clearly more familiar and/or more comfortable with the materials than he is. Show him how to make more interesting encounters, more threatening BBEGs. Give him ideas on how to challenge the party in interesting ways, rather than just trying to banhammer the game into a state he feels he can handle.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

In the first place, I would like to echo AfroAkuma by saying that returning annoyance with annoyance is never going to end well.

Second, there's an old saying for martial artists: there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people. This translates fairly well into gaming terminology. Quite bluntly, there's too many ways to break D&D 3.5, ways that are too integral to simply ban. Heck, that's where Legend came from. They tried banning this or that, and ended up with the conclusion that they needed to fundamentally rewrite the rules from the ground up.

GM's can use this to create 'rocks fall, everyone dies' situations. Players can use it to trivialize nearly any encounter. Ultimately, however, the problem is not one that can be solved in game, it is one that can only be solved by talking player to GM. Otherwise, you just end up with drama and more drama.

[atemu1234]

In relation to the split personality thing, one of my groups once faced a BBEG with two distinct personalities. One was polite, respectful and emotionlessly ruthless. The other was rude, disrespectful and utterly random. I statted him as neutral evil and had him use Japanese honorifics to denote which personality was in control. It was a pretty good villain, IMHO.

[Coidzor]

I find it hard to understand why the advice so often given (and sometimes gleefully followed) in situations like this is "annoy him even more." Is the theory that the DM will go too far, feel stupid and end up letting you do whatever you want so he doesn't self-humiliate again?

That's not productive. What you're really doing is taking out your frustrations on him by annoying him even more. If you want him to stop DMing, talk to your tablemates; don't try to goad the guy into ragequitting. Conversely, if you legitimately want him to become a better DM, offer actual help. You're clearly more familiar and/or more comfortable with the materials than he is. Show him how to make more interesting encounters, more threatening BBEGs. Give him ideas on how to challenge the party in interesting ways, rather than just trying to banhammer the game into a state he feels he can handle.

De-escalation is usually the hardest path, unfortunately. Between our natural inclinations and actually pulling it off. :/

[Chd]

Why is it, as human beings, we attribute to malice, what is often more accurately attributable to ignorance?

I honestly can't see why you can't arrive earlier to the game session, sit down with the DM to find out explicitly what their expectations/restrictions are?

By the same token however, a GM needs to be prepared for when (not if, but when) the party breaks something, for example;

A Standard Party (Cleric, Warrior, Thief, Mage) said they wanted to liberate a kingdom, and they decided that they'd need to kill the corrupt king to do so.

I had an entire arc, (8 sessions at least) to get into the Palace, but the party stealthily killed some royal message couriers, put on their uniforms and used their horses to ride through to the castle in under 2 in-game days and no less then 8 checkpoints.

They passed through despite the increasingly higher rolls required to bluff past them, (they called in a favor to get a shipment of Glibness potions and some reagents I had no clue what for at the time.)

Then after reaching the castle, the mage mixes the reagents together into a potion, and went to the king saying that they created a 'potion of wealth' that the king need only drink to 'have more gold then he'd ever want again', passed the diplomacy and bluff checks due to the Glib potions.

The King drank the potion, a Potion of 'Convert to Gold', and became a gold statue that the mage melted with a fireball before his spiritual adviser could 'remove curse'.

One session, that finished early, and so I gave them the full 8 sessions of experience, and let them IC celebrate their victory.

OOC, I gave the players a High five and then asked them if they wanted to spend a week IC time to explore their kingdom, crush any noble-led rebellions and see what work is available until they hear word from the west.

[Brookshw]

De-escalation is usually the hardest path, unfortunately. Between our natural inclinations and actually pulling it off. :/

While that may be true it's not exactly the same as saying it would be a healthy recourse or hold it up as an excuse to try and NOT be better people.

[malonkey1]

Why is it, as human beings, we attribute to malice, what is often more accurately attributable to ignorance?

Ah, yes, Hanlon's Razor (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HanlonsRazor).

[atemu1234]

Why is it, as human beings, we attribute to malice, what is often more accurately attributable to ignorance?

Because of an evolutionary imperative to dominate other beings while not wanting to be **** and have a reason to do it.

[DigoDragon]

Old Man Henderson was a funny story.

It totally was. I read it with a friend of mine and were rating various derailing moments in past campaigns by the "Henderson Scale".