When your DM kills your PC using energy drain

[Sadconfession]

Note*: As a disclaimer, I'm not looking for any advice as what's done is done, I harbor no ill-will to my DM, as what happens in a game or story happens, NPC's will do what they do, I'm just sad about it and want to vent a little.

So to start off, no, my character didn't actually physically die, but the result has basically made it so I can never use the character again in that specific campaign. And it was just disheartening as all hell how it all happened. I've been in a number of campaigns with this same DM were the party's have fallen through and we need to roll up new characters to stick in, but one of the more recent ones has me like a wet deflated balloon.

I rolled up a lvl8 character, picked out Favored Soul because I never really did healing classes and wanted to try it out, his god is Akadi, primordial elemental deity of air, freedom and travel. I honestly loved the class, I loved healing and buffing the party, it was surprisingly great (I’ve only played dps or tank classes previously), and my character was fun to play. But tension in the party wasn’t so great. We were all trapped in this dungeon like gauntlet, we were all being watched and had no idea why we were there, and we were all strangers, ect ect of the kidnapped plotline.

As I played my character, he was a lot more childish and immature then I first thought, but it makes sense for the character so I stuck with it. I did make him with the mindset that he was young, and I let my DM know beforehand and I wasnt told not to, which is where the big bad miscommunication happened. He's small, skittish, flighty, and basically an air genasi with the favor of the primordial of freedom and he was trapped. Plus one of the other party members was aggressive and misogynist, and has tried to grapple my basically kid character a number of times (the character was a p0suave rogue). My character was scared of him, lashed out at him, and fought back when he tried to grab him, ect. (The rogue’s tried to grab him maybe three times before, has tried to push him out of the way to get to a lever or loot. When the rogue was stupid enough to successfully grab my character in a grapple, my favored soul unleashed a good dash of Inflict Serious on him) I don’t regret how I played the character, he reacted how he would react as a small, young healing class that was being threatened by a bigger, more aggressive stranger. He did not feel safe with this person.

We made it three sessions with this party, and my DM let us all know collectively as a group that our characters have pissed off the big bad lvl25 that has them trapped in his gauntlet. And not because he thought we weren't capable, no, in fact he thought we were all amazing at our classes, it was how we acted and that we were making him ‘look bad’ (We were told later that the wizard had put us all in there to test our abilities and see if we were worth hiring, and was watching us with a potential client during the sessions, hence why he was pissed that we, his kidnap victims, were making him look bad). Our DM asked us if we were okay with the fact that our characters had the possibility of being killed off, and we all nodded because what else can you do? And we preferred to be mentally prepared if it was an inevitably party wipe. We were definitely a group that rolled with the punches of character death or TPK.

But then my DM had a one on one with me.

I’m glad for the talk, because it mentally prepared me for what was about to happen in the next session, and I know if it was pulled on me and my character in the moment of the game I would have been inconsolable. Basically, the big bad lvl25 wizard was mad at everyone, but was SUPER mad that somehow a basically child was put in his gauntlet (which was a case of miscommunication on both our parts, I created a character that was younger then he should have been and my DM didnt ask enough questions about my character before hand to stop it). Instead of feeding my character to a dragon or teleporting him into the middle of a desert and leaving him there to rot, my DM told me that the wizard saw that there was tremendous potential in my character, but was livid at how he was using his powers.

So he was going to take it away from him, and ‘give him the opportunity’ to learn how to better use his powers. Basically, my DM explained that the wizard was going to hit my character with enough Energy Drain spells to effectively reset him to lvl1, and then pack him up and send him to a temple of Akadi to live a cloistered life and learn how to be a better worshipper in the hopes that he ‘grows and learns how to wield the ability and greatness in him, instead of wasting it’. Which I would have taken, because well, ****, there’s nothing I can do there. But then my DM tells me that its not just the wizard, Akadi is going to sit my character down and tell him she didnt like how he did things in her name and is going to withhold the powers of her favor until she thinks he deserves it again.

And thats how my favored soul was killed, because having your god that for sixty years of your life, a god of freedom and flight and that raw, primordial freedom of choice and chaos, suddenly tells you she was going to take away your powers because she didnt like that you harmed a person in her name, a person who has frightened you, that misgendered you and tried to grab you on numerous occasions, and wants you to ‘think about his decisions to use his powers to hurt another living creature’. He was devastated. Devastated she was abandoning him, devastated that she was on board with the idea that this lvl25 wizard was going to essentially ‘clip his wings’ and send him to a cage of a cloistered life in a temple. It was a betrayal.

Honestly, I think it would have been better to have killed my character off, instead of having everything that made him who he was stripped from him and leaving him alive with the knowledge his god turned her back on him and the person who took everything from him is sending him off to a cloister because he wants to mold my character into something HE thinks is good. I’m sad, angry, but mostly heartbroken that this is the game over for my character.

Personally, the Akadi that my DM was playing was not HIS Akadi, because I personally do not believe that is what she would have done, taking away his freedom like that. The Akadi that favored him would have laughed at his antics. And that’s the only solace I have left from this campaign.

(As another side note, I’m rolling up another healer to replace this one. Wish me luck)

[Fouredged Sword]

Sounds like "DM didn't like my character, used IC actions to resolve OOC problem."

Basically I would ask if there was an OOC reason for him to basically remove your character from play. You don't want to run into the same problem again without correcting it or he is just gonna do it again.

[GrayDeath]

OK, that is a very serious case of "DM does not get it how to tell players that their character does not fit the game and then is a Diggheed (Spelling^) about it".

I would have a serious conversation if it was my DM. This is just not something you do.

Not to even mention the molester player....

mechanics of a Favoured Soul aside (they cannot fall/be denied their powers normally, like for example clerics can), its a bad bad way to deal with "mismatched styles"....

[Telonius]

Yeah, this seems like a total baloney move on the DM's part. "Cloistered life" would not be something that Akadi would ever want done to a worshiper. Her whole ethos is about traveling to new places and freedom. From Faiths and Pantheons, under Dogma: "Do not ever let yourself be fettered or imprisoned, for constrained life is little better than death."

My sympathies.

[RoboEmperor]

Ditch the DM. Seriously ditch the DM. Life's too short to spend years playing with someone who hurts you for no reason.

Like you and others have said, DM doesn't know what Akadi does and just asserted his authority on you for no reason other than to feel like the man.

This is a red flag of a railroad DM. In campaign, if you guys do something other than what he wanted, he'll pull this **** on you again.

Tell him that your character became super confused because of the hypocrisy of his order and just committed suicide in the most gruesome way possible. Describe it in detail and then leave.

You just don't bring in an epic level NPC on an 8th level PC to make him your bitch. You just don't. If this happened to me I would have spoken my mind, gave him the finger, and left. Or if I'm feeling toxic, break his campaign somehow. But life's too short to waste years on being toxic.

[Zanos]

Ditch the DM. Seriously ditch the DM. Life's too short to spend years playing with someone who hurts you for no reason.

Like you and others have said, DM doesn't know what Akadi does and just asserted his authority on you for no reason other than to feel like the man.

This is a red flag of a railroad DM. In campaign, if you guys do something other than what he wanted, he'll pull this **** on you again.

Tell him that your character became super confused because of the hypocrisy of his order and just committed suicide in the most gruesome way possible. Describe it in detail and then leave.

You just don't bring in an epic level NPC on an 8th level PC to make him your bitch. You just don't. If this happened to me I would have spoken my mind, gave him the finger, and left. Or if I'm feeling toxic, break his campaign somehow. But life's too short to waste years on being toxic.
It's a bad situation but it didn't come out of nowhere, and a DM that sits down for a 1-on-1 to hash thinga out before game is a green flag. I definitely agree he misinterpreted the characters deity and that wizard is super Evil, but it sounds like the DM and OP both knew the character wasn't working out and came up with a way to justify and exit stage right; thr DM just botched the execution.

Your DM seems pretty open to discusion, maybe just ask him about it and be honest? I'd be less than thrilled if one of my characters was retired in a way like that.

Also, wtf @ molester rogue. That's the real red flag.

[Blu]

Also, wtf @ molester rogue. That's the real red flag.

It's also a red flag that the DM let the player show this kind of character behaviour at the table and another red flag that not only did the DM let, but he also punished the character for resisting. Plus another red flag since the DM used the deity in a poorly manor. Like "hey, i don't care he tried to molest you, you shouldn't have fought back even tough you are a child and were desperate".

We have 4 red flags VS 1 green.

To me his DM seems to much into railroad, so much he doesn't care to read characters backstory or even deitys. Seems too much like "my way or the highway"

[MrSandman]

I know that you haven't asked for advice, but I must join with the voices that disagree with your game master's actions.

If I were you, I'd talk to the game master and say, "Look, I agreed to what you said becausr it didn't seem to me that I had am alternative, but I don't think you were fair. Basically the wizard guy and my character's god got mad at him for defending himself. What should have he done, let the rogue abuse him? I think that's hardly reasonable."

[RoboEmperor]

It's a bad situation but it didn't come out of nowhere, and a DM that sits down for a 1-on-1 to hash thinga out before game is a green flag. I definitely agree he misinterpreted the characters deity and that wizard is super Evil, but it sounds like the DM and OP both knew the character wasn't working out and came up with a way to justify and exit stage right; thr DM just botched the execution.

Your DM seems pretty open to discusion, maybe just ask him about it and be honest? I'd be less than thrilled if one of my characters was retired in a way like that.

Also, wtf @ molester rogue. That's the real red flag.

I don't give a damn whether or not a DM has a 1 on 1 session to let the player know he's going to railroad him because of whatever reason. That's not a green flag. He didn't hash things out. He just let him know in advance that's he's gonna **** up his character. The OP didn't mention anything about discussing what problems the DM had with him and coming up with possible solutions.

"look, i didn't like how you handled the molester rogue so i'm gonna bring in an epic wizard next session that's gonna mind rape your character into his bitch because i say so."

There's no way you can convince me that this is a green flag. DMs should never destroy non-disruptive players' characters. Ever. If you do, for whatever reason, you are a trash DM.

The DM is not punishing the molestor rogue, so what he's essentially saying is "Your character is not old enough to be molested so bring in a character that is old enough to be molested." Green flag indeed.

[Andor13]

Yeah. Even if everything is cool with you up to the Epic NPC abuse (and this does seem like a really stupid way for the Wizard to do things in any event), things break down completely at the point where your God of Freedom suddenly agrees with your kidnapper and jailer. I would have a sit down with the GM and ask why, exactly, your Deity was acting like the wizards b**** rather than restoring your character and asking how the Wizard liked having his levels taken away?

[Peat]

OP, I can't blame you for feeling sad. I'd be pretty dang angry in your shoes. If you're happy in the group that's the main thing, but that doesn't sound like a happy time to me.

[Zanos]

I don't give a damn whether or not a DM has a 1 on 1 session to let the player know he's going to railroad him because of whatever reason. That's not a green flag. He didn't hash things out. He just let him know in advance that's he's gonna **** up his character. The OP didn't mention anything about discussing what problems the DM had with him and coming up with possible solutions.

"look, i didn't like how you handled the molester rogue so i'm gonna bring in an epic wizard next session that's gonna mind rape your character into his bitch because i say so."

There's no way you can convince me that this is a green flag. DMs should never destroy non-disruptive players' characters. Ever. If you do, for whatever reason, you are a trash DM.

The DM is not punishing the molestor rogue, so what he's essentially saying is "Your character is not old enough to be molested so bring in a character that is old enough to be molested." Green flag indeed.
It sounded to me like the DM considered the character inappropriate for the campaign because of his age and personality, not because he gave uncle bad touch some of his own medicine. Then he botched the IC execution of putting the character on a bus for the OOC reason of the character not fitting in.

I think it's a workable situation, other than apparently a player and the DM thinking captain grabby hands is an okay character. I'd really like some background on how such a thing came to be.

[Holya]

Right.. Where to start here...

Rapist rogue.. Because that is where the character is heading since the player behind the character is actually rolling grapple checks and such to render you helpless should have been canned well before the game started. Since those kinds of characters only should come into play in certain kind of games. Sure you can have grabby characters but you don't roll for patting someone on the butt or copping a feel. That is rp/fluf interactions. Turning it into a role means hostile intent and the desire to render the other character helpess.. Hell I've played with grabby characters before. I opens up all kinds of doors for poor npc reactions to the attempted molestation and other things but the fact your DM let it continue and had you roll against it instead of outright just saying no implies more then a few bad things there.

The homeruling of a primordial of freedom to agree with a kidnapper and then to strip and imprison her favor soul.. Well.. That has so many homerules its not funny. One Favor souls CAN'T fall.. They ca't have their powers taken unless you change alignment.. Or perhaps the alignement thing is a homerule too. But anyway thats besides the point that they also completely homebrewed and ignored her dogma.. It really just stinks of your DM wanted this and wasn't leaving you a choice.

The Epic level wizard getting mad at his future minions being able to defend themselves from a minion who was a risk is also stupid. It just all stinks of a railroading ******* who wanted you to play his or her story and only their story. Because it would make sense to want a HEALER who can defend themselves in needed. What did you do defend yourself. This.. Christ this is just digusting to read on how the DM handled it. It just stinks of a giant ****ing railroading and favoring a player over the other since I've not seen the first damn thing about your DM doing anything to mister grabby hands.

[Sadconfession]

Hi, OP here! So first off, I just wanted to say, thank you guys so much for all the supportive comments. I'm actually gonna try to talk to my DM again and just voice both my characters and my own feelings on how things went. And depending on how things go, I'll consider leaving. I do appreciate everyone pointing out the red flags and how railroading it is. Its good to hear how other perspectives view the situation.

I would also like to clarify and clear up some things about the rogue. He is gross, misogynistic, and homophibic, but the player assured everyone he was not a rapist. He wouldnt have sexually assault my character, but apparently physical and mental terrorization was ok. But all the players were informed of this, and the DM told the rogue's player that as long as he knows that whatever he does might have consequence to other characters, he was warned. And the other party member was a large onispawn tiefling woman who had dressed him down in their first meeting and she told him if he tried any of that baloney with her she was going to pummel his head in with her greatclub. The rogue's player told us that his character felt attacked because he felt the other characters (my air genasi and the tiefling) were forming an alliance against him (no duh)

The first time the rogue tried to grab my character, my character was distrustful of the strangers around him and used his levitate spell to float to the ceiling. The rogue then decided he was going to make a grab for the kids foot and yank him down for sticks and giggles. He missed, and my character punted him in the face for trying and told him to stick his knife where the sun dont shine.

The second time, there was a puzzle room with some levers, my character was tasked with remembering what combinations used on the levers (pulling down certain levers did certain things) The rogue decided to take it upon himself to do a few combinations without discussing with the party and tried to flip some random levers. My character was in front of a lever and wasnt about to let him do something stupid, so the rogue decided he was going to roll to push my character out of the way. He rolled poorly, instead trying to reach around my character for the lever. My kid wouldnt budge, so he decided to grapple, and my character grappled back. He rolled poorly and I hit my grabble attack, and DM said I had a chance to hit him with a spell. Which I did, but it was a Handfire spell that did 1d4 damage.

The third time was right after the second attempt. The rogue, pissed at getting burned, rolled to grapple my character again. He nat 1 and I nat 20'd. The DM ruled I could do whatever the heck I wanted and my character gleefully used the force of the rogue's momentum to throw him down to the steel dungeong ground face first. The rogue even chipped a tooth. That was the best moment of the entire campaign for me for my 5'4 favored soul to toss down a grown ass man.

The fourth time was when shimmy hit the fan and apparently was when the DM, evil wizard, and Akadi ruled my character was abusing his god given powers. I do admit, my character reacted poorly, but he reacted how he reacted because the rogue never gave him reason to trust him. I stand firm with my characters decision. There was a chest, my character got there first, he opened it, and the rogue zoomed in because 'LOOT!!1!!' and made a mad grab for the items inside. My character, who was scared of this man, flighty, and at this point flinchy whenever the rogue made sudden moves because usually it meant he was going to try and grab him, over reacted and tried to hit him with a inflict serious wounds. When that missed, he tried again, and missed. The rogue, who now knew what my character was trying to do as he pilfered the chest of the items, and I was told by the rogues player, lost his god damn mind. He grappled to grab my character in a headlock because he was PISSED. And my character rightfully lost his sticks and hit him with all the Inflict Serious he had because the guy who was violent to him before had him in a headlock.

So no, he wasnt an uncle bad touch, he was just an aggressive bumhole that decided because my character was smaller that he could try to frighten him into doing what he said. And my character wouldnt, and fought back.

I am going to think about things. I dont like how my DM shoehorns things, or decides that the NPC's, evil and gods alike, are going to work together and do a thing even though she should know the evil wizard and shouldnt side with the guy who kidnapped her supposed favored soul and trapped him in a gauntlet. And if its simply 'because that's what she wants to do', well, thats that. I've accepted the fact this is not the Akadi I chose when I made this character, and I've accepted that as soon as my character is put on the bus, I'm never brining him up again because he would not have existed in this world had I known how the DM would be man'ing Akadi.

[Peat]

Your clarifications don't really make them sound better tbh. Playing a homophobic misogynistic bullying jerk is enough red flags in a fellow PC without being Uncle Badtouch. Allowing that at the table as a GM, ditto.

And encouraging a PvP situation then punishing a PC when they fight back is super not cool in my book. The GM put you in a situation where there was only one fun thing for your character to do - fight back - then punished you for doing so. Failures of communication over PCs happen, railroads happen (and aren't wrong as long as people are having fun), disagreements over the world happen...

... but putting the player in a box then objecting when they take the only way out shouldn't happen.

[umbergod]

Imo if you stay, roll up a character designed to antagonize the rogue. Boost your grapple and start pinning him down, groping him, refer to him as a woman (maybe even force him into a dress) and making him helpless. Basically, fight fire with a tanker full of jet fuel ;)

[Resileaf]

Imo if you stay, roll up a character designed to antagonize the rogue. Boost your grapple and start pinning him down, groping him, refer to him as a woman (maybe even force him into a dress) and making him helpless. Basically, fight fire with a tanker full of jet fuel ;)

Even better, also find ways to energy drain the rogue. Make him fear being touched at all.

[RoboEmperor]

@Sadconfession

Trust me on this. Leave. I've been through like 7 horrendous DMs until i finally found a DM I respect, and it's really awesome. Thinking back I regret wasting my time with these 7 god awful DMs and wished I left sooner.

Your DM is trash, and your rogue player is ultra trash. Don't waste your precious time doing something you don't enjoy because this DM isn't going to get better. It won't be long before he does something similar to you again especially since thisPvP rogue player is free to antagonize you as much as he wants.

Don't settle. Find a DM right for you. My last DM wasn't bad but he was running sooooo many games he had 0 time to discuss anything with me so I left because I wanted a DM who talked to his players outside the session. Don't settle.

If I was you, I would've said outright the next time his character antagonizes my character, he will murder him right then and there, and actually follow through and tell the player to not roll a piece of **** next time. What's the point of playing a game if I have to be miserable most of the time for another player's amusement?

Here's a tip, find a DM who outright says "No disruptive roleplay" or something similar because it is these DMs who have enough experience with the game to know what causes player drama and how to stop/solve it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Imo if you stay, roll up a character designed to antagonize the rogue. Boost your grapple and start pinning him down, groping him, refer to him as a woman (maybe even force him into a dress) and making him helpless. Basically, fight fire with a tanker full of jet fuel ;)


Even better, also find ways to energy drain the rogue. Make him fear being touched at all.

Do not do this.

This is petty, vindictive, and ultimately counter-productive. If you have a problem with another player, sit down and talk to him. If you can't come to some kind of compromise then you just flat shouldn't play with him at all. Trolling is just going to be a headache for -everyone- at the table. Even if you have no respect for the GM and the rogue's player, you should still show some courtesy to the other people at the table and remain civil regardless.

[Kraklen]

A grabby Rogue and a DM who destroyed your character, twice even, for no reason? That's three red flags. Ditch the DM and the Rogue player.

[DarkSoul]

Also, in the future, don't play children. The life of an adventurer is one of violence and death, and 90% of the world won't expose a child to something like that. There's a very real chance that the idea of trying to kill a kid bothered the DM quite a bit. In my games, if someone said they wanted to play a character who's not physically or mentally mature, I'd likely tell them no, their mom is making them clean their room instead of going to fight the dragon with their "friends".

[Holya]

He is describing a kender more then a child. And they are a official race in D&D described as 14 year olds in appearance and even younger/fearless in mentality. The age of his character was never the issue here. The other player never had a issue with the favor soul. It is solely the rogue and the DM that is the issue in this situation. The DM for allowing and promoting a toxic playstyle from the Rogue and the Rogue for rolling what is honestly a toxic as hell character idea.

Look OP.. You might want to talk with the other player and see if they had a issue with this too and hell tell the other player what happened. If your DM blows you off leave. Get them to leave with you and let the two toxic ****s wallow in their own ****ty little world. Because if this is how the DM handles a player forcing PvP and then defending yourself. On top of what I said in my other post.. You need to nope the **** out and nope out hard.. Because it won't change.. It might seem like it changes.. The Dm might act better for a few sessions but then they will be even worse and you won't notice it till the **** is up to your eyeballs because you kept giving them another chance.

Also DarkSouls.. In d&d 3.5e.. Adult hood is 15 for a human.. Half Orc is 14.. So throwing out what we would consider a kid isn't actually working in a D&D setting.. YOU would have a 'kid' out fighting a dragon. Since commoner has no required age roll for it. The youngest sorcerer, Rogue, or barbarian would be 19 or in a half orc or a few other races 18 or less.. So really.. You have a lot of 'kids' by modern standers running around killing stuff so again.. The 'its your fault because you played a 'childish character' ' way of thinking just doesn't apply here or else he would have stopped sir grabby hands from trying to get and this is the big part here.. Sexual gratification by supressing and belittling another being.. And that is why most abusers and well what the Rogue is does just that.. They do it because it makes em feel good or other things.

[Buufreak]

Am I the only person catching that this rogue is homophobic, is a male character, but got grabby with another male character? Or am I misunderstanding something here? Can we add bigot to the list?

[Zanos]

I think this is more bullying than anything else. In general, I don't think PCs should be using PvP to force other players to do things. That's not really a cooperative party. Maybe a very specific Evil game could do that. And the DMs way of getting rid of your character was inappropriate, even if the character also was.


Also DarkSouls.. In d&d 3.5e.. Adult hood is 15 for a human.. Half Orc is 14.. So throwing out what we would consider a kid isn't actually working in a D&D setting.. YOU would have a 'kid' out fighting a dragon. Since commoner has no required age roll for it. The youngest sorcerer, Rogue, or barbarian would be 19 or in a half orc or a few other races 18 or less.. So really.. You have a lot of 'kids' by modern standers running around killing stuff so again.. The 'its your fault because you played a 'childish character' ' way of thinking just doesn't apply here or else he would have stopped sir grabby hands from trying to get and this is the big part here.. Sexual gratification by supressing and belittling another being.. And that is why most abusers and well what the Rogue is does just that.. They do it because it makes em feel good or other things.
Based on the OPs description I'm going to guess the character was much younger than 15. A 16 year old professional fighter isn't a babyfaced greenhorn, they're trained with weapons and armor, and probably close to fully grown and have probably killed a person or two. I doubt you would mistake a 16 year old barbarian as a child, although you could probably tell that they are young.


Am I the only person catching that this rogue is homophobic, is a male character, but got grabby with another male character? Or am I misunderstanding something here? Can we add bigot to the list?
OP clarified that the grabbing was non-sexual, simply violent. Which sounds weird to say, but I think violence is generally more acceptable in D&D land.

From my understanding he also thought the OP's character was a girl(misgendered)...have to say, "underaged trap" wouldn't get an enthusiastic thumbs up from me as a DM either.

[RoboEmperor]

Based on the OPs description I'm going to guess the character was much younger than 15. A 16 year old professional fighter isn't a babyfaced greenhorn, they're trained with weapons and armor, and probably close to fully grown and have probably killed a person or two. I doubt you would mistake a 16 year old barbarian as a child, although you could probably tell that they are young..


And thats how my favored soul was killed, because having your god that for sixty years of your life...

Character is at least sixty years old.

[Zanos]

Character is at least sixty years old.
60 human years or 60 of some species that lives to be 2000? Kind of matters in a fantasy setting, but in any case the OP describes him as physically appearing young and having a young mind.

[Mordaedil]

OP's username lives up to the thread at least, this is a very sad confession.

Not that I think it serves to help anything, but if you got level-drained, you don't immediately lose those levels, you have to roll fortitude saves after 24 hours for the level-loss to be permanent.

Albeit you could also return as a type of undead if level-drained that heavily.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not that it matters but levels lost to energy drain can be restored by the restoration and greater restoration spells.

[Crake]

60 human years or 60 of some species that lives to be 2000? Kind of matters in a fantasy setting, but in any case the OP describes him as physically appearing young and having a young mind.

60 years of experience is 60 years of experience. Doesn't matter if you live to 100, or 1000, that's just as much time to experience the world. Plus, the character is level 8, you don't get there without some kind of eye-opening experiences. I honestly think the OP's character was a bit of an oxymoron, you can't really have a young 60 year old, level 8 inexperienced, shy divine emmissary.

I agree that the rogue is a bit of a jerk, but whether or not it's bullying comes down to table dynamics, as for the DM, I don't think he set expectations well enough, and his entire story sounds like a railroaded excuse to have an almost pure combat game. I think the players at this table don't quite understand the reality of being level 8 either, they're seasoned adventurers, but playing like they're fresh level 1 characters.

[Peat]

Based on the OPs description I'm going to guess the character was much younger than 15. A 16 year old professional fighter isn't a babyfaced greenhorn, they're trained with weapons and armor, and probably close to fully grown and have probably killed a person or two. I doubt you would mistake a 16 year old barbarian as a child, although you could probably tell that they are young.


Being close to physically full grown and trained in dangerous things don't necessarily make you more mature. A lot of young PCs start at an age where, for their race, its possible they're really immature.

Which doesn't make it a good reason to play a really immature character.

[Mordaedil]

I've played underage characters before, but I do emphasize it with the DM to consider that I don't want to anything skeevy with the character and the other players have been fairly positive about it, but this isn't a guarantee to work at every table.

It's a fairly common literature fantasy trope and that is why I wanted to try it and I think that's why most people want to try it too, like Harry Potter, most anime, sword in the stone, etc. I think you can adapt easily D&D campaigns to work around it, not everything needs to be Game of Thrones level stuff (albeit Game of Thrones is also an example of places where child characters can have major and minor parts)

[King of Nowhere]

Am I the only one thinking the OP is identifying too much with his pc?
Because the whole tone he uses in the narration, well, it actually reads like a real victim of a crime recalling the experience. It doesn't feel like it happened to an imaginary character who exissted for three sessions, total. his very nickname, and the fact that he joined the forum to tell his story, show how he took it as a deeply personal thing.

And so, while I agree with everything said about bad DMing and bad rogue - I'd say the worst thing here was not to talk about it first; maybe the player thought roleplaying those interactions would be fun, but you clearly didn't - I would also suggest that the OP learn to keep a greater detachment with his characters.
Sure, the game is no fun if you can't identify with the character on some level. Sure, you'll get attached and stuff. It's even ok to cry for them every once in a while. But they remain fictionary characters, and it's unhealty if their wherebouts can hurt the player on a deep level.

[Psyren]

...What the hell did I just read?

@OP: No Gaming > Bad Gaming, and another PC trying to grope your (underage?) character while the GM punishes you IC for something he didn't even indicate was a problem until right before the session containing said punishment is Bad Gaming.

[Andor13]

Am I the only one thinking the OP is identifying too much with his pc?
Because the whole tone he uses in the narration, well, it actually reads like a real victim of a crime recalling the experience. It doesn't feel like it happened to an imaginary character who exissted for three sessions, total. his very nickname, and the fact that he joined the forum to tell his story, show how he took it as a deeply personal thing.

Maybe a little? Could be the underage thing. I've played a couple of juvenile characters (once in Shadowrun of all things, but at least he was a Mage) and thinking back on it, threats to them came across more intensely than to most characters. It might be the whole hardwired to protect children (even fictional children) thing.

[Zanos]

Being close to physically full grown and trained in dangerous things don't necessarily make you more mature. A lot of young PCs start at an age where, for their race, its possible they're really immature.

Which doesn't make it a good reason to play a really immature character.
Reading OPs post did not make me think of a nearly fully grown young adult. Am I suggesting that you should play a 16 year old? Not really. Am I suggesting that OPs character is much younger than whatever his species equivalent of 16 is? Absolutely.


60 years of experience is 60 years of experience. Doesn't matter if you live to 100, or 1000, that's just as much time to experience the world. Plus, the character is level 8, you don't get there without some kind of eye-opening experiences. I honestly think the OP's character was a bit of an oxymoron, you can't really have a young 60 year old, level 8 inexperienced, shy divine emmissary.
Not arguing it makes sense, but it's what the books say and how OP played it. Presumably that's why 70 year old humans have +3 to all mental stats and 114 year old elves are only barely considered to be adults.


Am I the only one thinking the OP is identifying too much with his pc?
Because the whole tone he uses in the narration, well, it actually reads like a real victim of a crime recalling the experience. It doesn't feel like it happened to an imaginary character who exissted for three sessions, total. his very nickname, and the fact that he joined the forum to tell his story, show how he took it as a deeply personal thing.

And so, while I agree with everything said about bad DMing and bad rogue - I'd say the worst thing here was not to talk about it first; maybe the player thought roleplaying those interactions would be fun, but you clearly didn't - I would also suggest that the OP learn to keep a greater detachment with his characters.
Sure, the game is no fun if you can't identify with the character on some level. Sure, you'll get attached and stuff. It's even ok to cry for them every once in a while. But they remain fictionary characters, and it's unhealty if their wherebouts can hurt the player on a deep level.
Yeah, I think it was really emotionally charged, to the point that it read to me more like an account of molestation than just regular ol' PvP. Not that using violence to get PCs to do what you want is really all that cool either, but it's pretty far cry from literally raping other PCs.

That said, I'd rather have players too invested than not enough.


...What the hell did I just read?

@OP: No Gaming > Bad Gaming, and another PC trying to grope your (underage?) character while the GM punishes you IC for something he didn't even indicate was a problem until right before the session containing said punishment is Bad Gaming.
You need to read OPs follow up posts. He 1. wasn't gropped and 2. the DM removed the character for being an underaged boy that is apparently frequently mistaken for a girl, not because he defended himself. Just botched the execution.

[RoboEmperor]

You need to read OPs follow up posts. He 1. wasn't gropped and 2. the DM removed the character for being an underaged boy that is apparently frequently mistaken for a girl, not because he defended himself. Just botched the execution.

It's more than that.

This is a DM that has all powerful NPCs doing whatever the **** they want to the PCs. I played with these DMs before. 100% of their focus is on their NPCs instead of the players, which always leads to railroads and the PCs feeling like ****. The DM kidnapped the PCs and started "testing" them. The PCs are completely helpless and is at the mercy of the epic wizard who can do whatever the **** he wants to them, and he did. You keep saying it's "botched execution" but it's more than that. You have to look at his attitude. The OP's PC could have just left the group because he hates the rogue and would never adventure with them. The OP's PC could have just been teleported out and forced to go his own way. But instead the DM mind rapes him. This is not "botched execution". This is "I can do whatever the **** I want to the PCs because I'm the DM" and "I am the wisest, most knowledgeable DM in the world so if I think Akadi supports imprisonment, then I'm right, you're wrong, end of discussion."

The PCs will always be at the mercy of his NPCs because that's what this DM likes, and the game is just an excuse for him to feel like he has more authority than other people.

This type of DM was actually one of the first DMs I played with, and it was a very bad experience for me. You're his bitch and you exist solely to stroke his ego. Every NPC is stronger than you and you gotta play the sycophant 24/7 to stay alive.

[Zanos]

This is a DM that has all powerful NPCs doing whatever the **** they want to the PCs. I played with these DMs before. 100% of their focus is on their NPCs instead of the players, which always leads to railroads and the PCs feeling like ****.
So have I. Then I talked to him about making his NPCs the star of his show, and he took it as legitimate feedback and reduced the amount that he featured NPCs and the number of monologuing recurring villains that never stayed dead despite how many pieces I put them in.

I've played with DMs that don't take criticism earnestly(although getting angry doesn't generally help), but it's worth trying. The world seriously lacks for people who give honest, calm, constructive criticism.


The DM kidnapped the PCs and started "testing" them. The PCs are completely helpless and is at the mercy of the epic wizard who can do whatever the **** he wants to them, and he did.
It was that way from session 1 though, so I think the inescapable dungeon trails is a railroad, but you knew that when you bought a ticket, yeah?


You keep saying it's "botched execution" but it's more than that. You have to look at his attitude. The OP's PC could have just left the group because he hates the rogue and would never adventure with them. The OP's PC could have just been teleported out and forced to go his own way.
That would have been a much better way to handle it, but I think you're reading too much into it. I haven't heard anything to indicate this guys ego is so big he won't listen to legitimate feedback.


But instead the DM mind rapes him.
A level drain isn't mind rape, but I agree the situation is ridiculous.


This is not "botched execution". This is "I can do whatever the **** I want to the PCs because I'm the DM" and "I am the wisest, most knowledgeable DM in the world so if I think Akadi supports imprisonment, then I'm right, you're wrong, end of discussion."
See above. You have nothing that supports that conclusion other than a single incident.

[RoboEmperor]

It was that way from session 1 though, so I think the inescapable dungeon trails is a railroad, but you knew that when you bought a ticket, yeah?

The OP is a new player and as someone who used to be a new player, I can confidently say the OP probably didn't know what he was getting into.


See above. You have nothing that supports that conclusion other than a single incident.

It's his attitude, not the incident. Would you ever use an epic level wizard to control your campaign? You gotta think what kind of a DM would use an epic level wizard on 8th level PCs. The answer is always the DM who loves feeling like a god, not the DM who wants to make a heroic story with the PCs. He wants his NPCs to be unkillable and the PCs to take their **** or die. That's what I see anyways.

Maybe you see things differently, but objectively looking at this DM I believe he is a noob, hasn't been DMing for long and doesn't know what he's doing. It's his whole approach to the game I find troubling.

Maybe you're right, maybe he can take criticism and improve, but I doubt it as most people in positions of authority cannot take criticisms and it doesn't change the fact that as-is, this DM is terrible.

[Andor13]

Personally, the Akadi that my DM was playing was not HIS Akadi, because I personally do not believe that is what she would have done, taking away his freedom like that. The Akadi that favored him would have laughed at his antics.

This is probably worth a little more discussion. Gods are a tricky thing in RPGs. Yes, they are NPCs and under the GMs control (and also a part of his worldbuilding), but they are also very formative beings for some PCs, and Clerics and other Devout characters can have a lot invested in their image of a God. Unless a God has already had a major appearance in a campaign, or there are divine plot elements in play, then I (and most GMs I respect) give their players a lot of control over what their gods are like. Now this can vary by campaign (Eberron), and it's entirely possible that a follower of a god has a false image of that god. (Maybe he has some really good PR angels.)

But in particular I would NEVER have a deity screw over a devoted follower (especially a Favored Soul) like that without a) Discussing it with the player ahead of time and b) Intending it to become a major plot element in the game to figure what the hell just went wrong. And it does not sound like that's what happened here.

Frankly, you need to sit down with your GM and have a discussion about player agency, and control over your character. And part of that is having an accurate picture of parts of campaign world that your character is intimately involved in, like having some foreknowledge that a supposed Deity of freedom, is actually into kidnapping, slavery and bondage.

[King of Nowhere]

what really makes no sense is the epic wizard getting angry at the favored soul. If he wanted to test the pcs to hire them, then the one who was screwing up by being aggressive with his teammates was the rogue. the one who forced a defence was the rogue. the one misusing the power, making the wizard looking bad in front of the customers, was the rogue. I could totally see the epic wizard getting mad at both for not talking out their problems, but taking it out on the favored soul alone?

[Psyren]

You need to read OPs follow up posts. He 1. wasn't gropped and 2. the DM removed the character for being an underaged boy that is apparently frequently mistaken for a girl, not because he defended himself. Just botched the execution.

I'm not saying that underaged PCs should be allowed. And I'm willing to give the DM the benefit of the doubt and say they probably didn't understand exactly how young this character would be, though generally if someone says they plan on playing a young character, "how young?" should be the first question out of the DM's mouth. But none of that changes the fact that it was handled extremely poorly.

And I don't care what the rogue was actually doing, it was just creepy.

[Zanos]

And I don't care what the rogue was actually doing, it was just creepy.
I mean, you should, because the actual explanation is way different than what originally came off.

1. First time OP's character floated away, rogue tried to grab his foot "for giggles" and got kicked in the face.
2. Second time Rogue was trying to do some lever puzzle apparently without consulting the party, OP got in front of the levers and the Rogue tried to push him out of the way or go around him, fails to do so and gets hit with a damage spell.
3. After getting burned by the damage spell he tries to grapple him again, resulting in another failed check and a faceful of rock floor.
4. The last time he's going for a chest OP's character is standing in front of but OP decides that his character is terrified of him at this point and tries to hit him with an inflict serious wounds twice, as he's looting the chest, which is an actual real damage spell even if its pretty bad. Rogue then puts him in a headlock and gets hit with another inflict serious wounds.

I don't know what prompted 1(possibly nothing), but 2 is highly questionable because apparently nobody had a problem with the Rogue doing the lever puzzle except for OP, 3. is pretty much just an extension of 2 because OP hit him with a damage spell, and 4. is honestly kind of ridiculous on OPs part because he tries to hit him with an inflict spell twice while he's looting the chest. Even if OP was scared of him I'd think he'd realize he was just looting the chest after the first one missed since it's a touch spell and OP would have to be right next to him. Neither OP or the rogue gets to "I was here first so it's mine" loot and then defend said loot with lethal force.

The Rogue has never even attempted to deal damage to OP. The "grabbing" is pretty clearly non-sexual either to mess with him slightly, to literally move him out of the way of what he was doing, or a response to the OP dealing damage to him. I wouldn't describe any of that as "physical and mental terror" experienced by OP's character. The only indications I have that he might be a bad dude is the first grabbing incident that was seemingly unprompted, and that OP describes him "gross, misogynistic, and homophobic."

[Peat]

Reading OPs post did not make me think of a nearly fully grown young adult. Am I suggesting that you should play a 16 year old? Not really. Am I suggesting that OPs character is much younger than whatever his species equivalent of 16 is? Absolutely.

Given that we don't know the character's species to know how short 5'4" makes them, all we have to go on is childish and immature. Which doesn't clash with being 16 or a lot older. I think you're jumping to a conclusion there.

[tterreb]

Given that we don't know the character's species to know how short 5'4" makes them, all we have to go on is childish and immature. Which doesn't clash with being 16 or a lot older. I think you're jumping to a conclusion there.

Actually, he did state that he was an air genasi. Twice. Which does kind of conflict with the whole being young and having worshiped for 60 years, but who knows; he may have just gotten a very early start.

[Psyren]

I mean, you should, because the actual explanation is way different than what originally came off.

Look, what the rogue did was the least problematic part of this whole scenario. The lengths you're going to to defend this bollocks are admirable, but it doesn't change anything about my initial judgement. OP is in a bad game.

[Zanos]

Look, what the rogue did was the least problematic part of this whole scenario. The lengths you're going to to defend this bollocks are admirable, but it doesn't change anything about my initial judgement. OP is in a bad game.
I haven't defended the situation that the DM created at all, only suggested that he can't improve without criticism.

[RoboEmperor]

Look, what the rogue did was the least problematic part of this whole scenario. The lengths you're going to to defend this bollocks are admirable, but it doesn't change anything about my initial judgement. OP is in a bad game.

I think it's a good thing Zanos is playing the devil's advocate. Without one a productive conversation cannot take place.

[Andor13]

I think it's a good thing Zanos is playing the devil's advocate. Without one a productive conversation cannot take place.

Agreed. While the GM is clearly not great, it's not at all apparent that the in party conflict was one sided. With the OPs clarification it's pretty clear, even from the one-sided description we''re getting that the Favored Souls was, at the very least, being played significantly passive-aggressively. At least two of those incidents can be read as "The rogue was trying to interact with the adventure but I wouldn't let him. When he tried to move me out of the spotlight I responded with lethal force."

[Psyren]

I would think that a "productive conversation" might need to involve the guy whose behavior you're trying to correct. But that's just me. Regardless, I've rolled my eyes at the void long enough.

[Peat]

Actually, he did state that he was an air genasi. Twice. Which does kind of conflict with the whole being young and having worshiped for 60 years, but who knows; he may have just gotten a very early start.

Ah, my b, thanks.