Am I Being a Bad Group Member?

[Amaril]

So here's something that's bugging me a little bit...maybe you can help.

In my group's most recent Pathfinder game, my groupmates are playing fairly standard characters--the type who actually have some experience with adventuring and combat, and don't totally freak out at the sight of blood. I, however, am playing a character who, until this game began, had no idea that "adventuring" was even a profession--he'd never been in a fight or lost hit points, he'd never seen anybody die, and he still hasn't actually killed anyone himself. As an understandable result of this, so far I've been roleplaying him so that he's pretty much useless in a fight--while he is getting better at handling the stress, and the idea of using violence to solve problems is becoming more tolerable (though certainly not desirable), he's pretty much restricted his spellcasting to the occasional buff on a party member or shield spell on himself--not the ideal level of contribution.

Obviously, I'm not planning on doing this forever. If his character arc never allowed him to become tougher and more competent, it wouldn't be much of an "arc" at all. My question, though, is this--by intentionally handicapping myself in combat for the sake of roleplaying faithfully, am I being a bad group member? Our DM hasn't exactly been throwing the most challenging fights at us, and it doesn't seem like it's really been much of a problem, but I worry that my group may still be bothered by it. Is my behavior within acceptable deviations from effectiveness?

[Alejandro]

Have you asked the other players if it's a problem?

If they say no, you're set.

If they say yes, find out how much of a problem.

[Delwugor]

I personally like what you are doing and it would work well with me and the people I prefer to game with. But not everyone enjoys that type of role playing and think the group play is more important than individual role playing. (note not making a judgement, just a statement).

Also, you are asking the wrong people, the people you need to discuss this with is the other players in your group. We have opinions, but you group is more important to your play than our opinions.

[NikitaDarkstar]

You're asking the wrong people. Ask your group, they're the ones who you actually have to mesh with. :)

[Amaril]

Okay then, I will

If anybody would be okay with it, though, it would be these guys--in our six or so months of playing this game, we've had maybe four combat encounters. A hack-and-slash murder hobo game this is not.

[Malrone]

I wouldn't have a problem with it OOC. But then again, I'm not a member of your group. As the others have said, just ask your fellow players what they think.

I believe it's a character study that deserves a place in a sword&sorcery type story- the transition from sheltered, or merely meek, to hardened adventurer. I feel the attitude and experience this PC is going to end of having will feel far more earned and real than that of any just-generated 'badass.'

Edit: Swordsage'd
That is a very low-violence campaign indeed! All the more fitting...

[Mastikator]

Depends on your group, it may be that they're not used to this level of roleplay, it may be that it's not what they're into, it may inspire them to roleplay.

Edit- they might not even have noticed. Some are in it for the personal glory, they tend to forget what the others are about.

[Toofey]

In addition to asking if everyone is cool with it. I would start buy explaining your concept, if they're already aware of why he's being that way out of character it will go better when it comes up. (also it does sound like the DM is giving your character a chance to develop to useful, I would talk with him about how you and he want to move your development)

Also for your sake, and for fun's sake, I would pick a few things that would be "red lines" for the character that if X happen, he would clearly kind of freak out and do something as violent as he is capable of etc... Like if the party member he's closest to is downed, or something similar. And when you do it play it as him freaking out with his attack, (which is not to say don't be effective) and that way you can use an in fight shift to meaningfully progress your character's story.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm going to assume your guy is a spellcaster. In that case, popping off a 1d10 Crossbow bolt with a his low BAB and Dex every other round wasn't going to make a huge difference anyway.

[Amaril]

I'm going to assume your guy is a spellcaster. In that case, popping off a 1d10 Crossbow bolt with a his low BAB and Dex every other round wasn't going to make a huge difference anyway.

Heh...with your sig right after it, that post actually sounds really funny

[Mordar]

While I echo the sentiments of the others in this thread (best ask the other players), my one driving question would be:

Are you contributing sufficiently in other ways to be a valuable member of the group, earning your share of the "experience"/loot/etc, or are you RPing the "deadbeat sponge friend" who is only tolerated in Conan the Destroyer, Shaun of the Dead and a handful of other such films?

Even if you plan a competency increase, I'd hope you have value from the beginning.

- M

[dps]

I wouldn't have a problem with it OOC.

This brings up a good point, though. I wouldn't have a problem with it OOC as a player, but my character might have a problem with it in-character. It actually sets up role-playing opportunities for other party members--one character could be mentoring the newbie, another could be getting ticked off that the newbie is useless/holding them back, another might not actually have a problem with it but use it as an excuse to give the newbie a smaller share of any loot (thereby getting more for themselves), etc.

[Amaril]

While I echo the sentiments of the others in this thread (best ask the other players), my one driving question would be:

Are you contributing sufficiently in other ways to be a valuable member of the group, earning your share of the "experience"/loot/etc, or are you RPing the "deadbeat sponge friend" who is only tolerated in Conan the Destroyer, Shaun of the Dead and a handful of other such films?

Even if you plan a competency increase, I'd hope you have value from the beginning.

- M

Well as I mentioned, so far it's mostly an RP-focused game, meaning in most sequences anybody can contribute equally. Being a wizard, I'm also helping out as much as I can with knowledge skills, magic item identification, spellcraft checks, and delivering messages with my familiar.

It also helps my usefulness in RP that I'm the only party member who's actually lived in the main city for any significant length of time, and being an elf who's considerably older than the mostly-human population (despite being the equivalent of about 20), I know pretty much all the locals. So I think I'm earning my keep.

[Water_Bear]

I'm going to come down on the "being a bad group member" side here.

On top of the whole "weakening the party and thus making them less likely to survive and succeed at their tasks" thing, this character sounds unbelievably annoying. The fish-out-of-water schtick is irritating enough on it's own merits, but it also likely soaks up time and keeps the story firmly centered on your personal character arc. The party is worse off for not having a functioning member, they have to deal with your character's freak-outs and hang-ups, and there's less time to develop more interesting people and events.

Whenever NPCs like this start following the party around in games I play in, my first thought is "how do I get rid of this guy?" Your group might be different, but I'm willing to bet that if your character wasn't a PC they would have drowned him by now.

[Alejandro]

I have to admit, I am surprised you are using Pathfinder (or D&D) for a game that's had four combat encounters in six months of playing.

[Amaril]

I have to admit, I am surprised you are using Pathfinder (or D&D) for a game that's had four combat encounters in six months of playing.

I'm exaggerating, but it's a remarkably combat-light game nonetheless. I was pleasantly surprised at that discovery, since I'd just left a group run by a DM who had little interest in anything but the tactical combat aspects of the game and really didn't give a flying **** about the rest, which isn't the kind of game I like.

Also, Water_Bear--I can see why it would be annoying to a lot of people, and I'd be very cautious about playing this character in any other party, but so far it seems to be okay with the rest of my group (that's what they say, at least). That probably has a lot to do with the fact that we have so little combat in the game, so it's rarely an issue, and partly with the fact that my character has a lot of nonlethal save-or-lose and save-or-suck spells he can cast to help out in fights without actually killing people (he relies heavily on sleep). Of the three fights we've had against humanoid enemies (my character's fine with killing undead and animals), one was half won by a couple of sleep spells, one I wasn't there for, and the only one I just deliberately didn't participate in was so laughably easy that nobody else was in any danger--the enemies didn't even get a chance to draw weapons.

Anyway, I definitely see your point, and I'll keep it in mind. The last thing I want to do is make the game not fun for everybody else.

[Another_Poet]

As others said above, it's really up to your group.

I would add, though, that you have options.

Rather than being useless in a fight - intentionally choosing as a player not to have your character contribute - you can also let the dice decide whether you're good or not, and roleplay reactively.

In other words, go ahead and mercilessly swing that sword every round and see if you hit. If you actually kill something, roleplay once the fight is over - freak out a little, struggle not to be sick, maybe apologize to all the other PCs as if you think you did something wrong ("My gods! I didn't mean to kill him, I just-- he was coming right at you! I DIDN'T MEAN TO!")

Even as an inexperienced adventurer, your friends are in danger and it's a fight for your life. Adrenaline kicks in. Own it.

[Boci]

As others said above, it's really up to your group.

I would add, though, that you have options.

Rather than being useless in a fight - intentionally choosing as a player not to have your character contribute - you can also let the dice decide whether you're good or not, and roleplay reactively.

In other words, go ahead and mercilessly swing that sword every round and see if you hit. If you actually kill something, roleplay once the fight is over - freak out a little, struggle not to be sick, maybe apologize to all the other PCs as if you think you did something wrong ("My gods! I didn't mean to kill him, I just-- he was coming right at you! I DIDN'T MEAN TO!")

Even as an inexperienced adventurer, your friends are in danger and it's a fight for your life. Adrenaline kicks in. Own it.

The OP is a wizard, which means this aproach can be taken by casting the first spell you think of when your turn is called. Whispering wind? Scorching ray on a fire elemental (sans searing)? Doesn't matter, in the heat of the moment that is what you cast. Works rather well with the wizards casting method. The spell is already mostly casts, so it could be argued that by the time he realized "bad choice" it was to late, the switch had already been flicked.

[Xelbiuj]

I wouldn't have a problem with it, personally I want the DM to give you less xp or minus 2 to initiative?
Isn't there a pacifist trait or something you could tack on?

In character, I'd totally demand that you only take half your share of the loot if you're not contributing. Wouldn't make sense for your character to put up much of an argument against it either. :D

[Boci]

In character, I'd totally demand that you only take half your share of the loot if you're not contributing. Wouldn't make sense for your character to put up much of an argument against it either. :D

As stated though he earns his keep outside of combat though spell casting and being the only member of the group to know anything about cities. If anything he could ask for a bigger share of the treasure because what he contributes is rarer in the group.

[Machinekng]

It seems to me that you're being a very good group member. As a wizard, you're contributing to combat without overshadowing anyone else, and you're doing a lot outside of combat as well. Anyways, at least early on, most of the good save-or-lose and save-or-suck spells are nonviolent anyways (Sleep, Grease, Web, etc...). As long as you're prepared to go full-out in critical situations, I don't see a problem with your character. As a GM, I wouldn't have an issue with it, and if I were playing alongside you I probably wouldn't have a problem either.

[Another_Poet]

The OP is a wizard, which means this aproach can be taken by casting the first spell you think of when your turn is called.

Ah, I didn't see that. Yep, good call.

Also I second Machineking's suggestions of save-or-lose spells. Color Spray forever.

[Tengu_temp]

You're pulling your weight, right? You're not freezing in the middle of combat, incapable of doing anything and requiring rescue from the others. You're using non-damaging spells (as mentioned a few times before, they're actually way better than throwing fireballs around) and providing lots of utility. I don't see an issue with your character.

Furthermore, if the other players like your character a lot, you can be the most useless Gilligan ever and they will still want to have you around and won't mind.

I wouldn't have a problem with it, personally I want the DM to give you less xp or minus 2 to initiative?

Punishment for roleplaying? Yeah, no.

[Mystral]

Well.. what you are doing doesn't sound to be a problem.

But I have seen people who went to far on this road. People who played a ranger who had never before left his forest, had little to no idea about magic items and wordly things, who kept hitting people with their bow and threw their sword, not to mention no animal companion because they didn't want to put any animal in danger. You have to be carefull not to become anoying. But it seems you are doing just that.

So, rock on with this nice concept.

Oh, and if you wanted to get mechanical on this thing, you might make a flaw out of it. Maybe the one that lowers your initiative. You could buy it off with a future feat if your character has developed enough.

[Slipperychicken]

If anything he could ask for a bigger share of the treasure because what he contributes is rarer in the group.

Yeah, like Lily-Livered McSissy here has the stones to hardball three guys who could snap his neck without a second thought and sleep for 8 hours like nothing happened. If anything, a simple Intimidate check would probably be enough to keep this wussy wizard down.

[Amaril]

Yeah, like Lily-Livered McSissy here has the stones to hardball three guys who could snap his neck without a second thought and sleep for 8 hours like nothing happened. If anything, a simple Intimidate check would probably be enough to keep this wussy wizard down.

Hey, I've got d6 hit dice and a racial Con penalty, at least I have an excuse to be a sissy

In all seriousness, though, my character is most certainly not a coward (okay, maybe a little bit, but cowards live longer)--if you'd just been thrust into a life-or-death battle after never even holding a gun before, you'd be freaking out too. I'm being entirely realistic.

[Tengu_temp]

Yeah, like Lily-Livered McSissy here has the stones to hardball three guys who could snap his neck without a second thought and sleep for 8 hours like nothing happened. If anything, a simple Intimidate check would probably be enough to keep this wussy wizard down.

Not until he realizes he can pretty much solo these guys once they all reach a higher level, at least.

[Amaril]

Not until he realizes he can pretty much solo these guys once they all reach a higher level, at least.

The knowledge that my ALMIGHTY ARCANE POWER will dwarf the abilities of all my comrades by the end of the game is the only thing keeping me from sinking into a deep depression about the massive powergamed brokenness of our party's rogue and monk, both of whom are considerably more effective in combat thus far than my dad's fighter. Yes, you read that right--our monk is a better warrior than our fighter.

[Acanous]

The knowledge that my ALMIGHTY ARCANE POWER will dwarf the abilities of all my comrades by the end of the game is the only thing keeping me from sinking into a deep depression about the massive powergamed brokenness of our party's rogue and monk, both of whom are considerably more effective in combat thus far than my dad's fighter. Yes, you read that right--our monk is a better warrior than our fighter.

Since it's Monk and Fighter, I'll believe you. But that a monk could be better than anything but a Truenamer stretches my suspension of disbelief.

[Amaril]

Since it's Monk and Fighter, I'll believe you. But that a monk could be better than anything but a Truenamer stretches my suspension of disbelief.

It's entirely because my dad knows nothing of the fine art of munchkindom, while our monk and rogue players are both masters.

Actually, that's not true--both of them have engaging character concepts and personalities, so they're not at all munchkins. They are, however, incredibly overoptimized, while my dad's fighter is...not.