Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rosella 07-01-03, 07:07 AM	I have this little problem with my new half-Orc barbarian and my DM: My parents lived seperately, and me being with my mother, she got burned for raising such an abomination. I'm mad at my daddy for not protecting her and I don't like most humans and orcs very much. As a result of this "incident" I don't like singing as I don't think that life is worth something like that. My DM has ruled that I have to permit Bards to sing in "their line of duty" and he wouldn't allow me to do something bad to a bard should I encounter one. Now I'm pretty serious about not liking music, and I have serious tendencies to kill one who does, and my character also has a tendency towards evil because he wants his dad to suffer badly. (not just death, but torture etc.) Currently he's Lawfull neutral, but I'd like to roleplay the fact that he's tempted to become some sort of blackguard. (I'm not intending to become one, but roleplaying the tendency seems like a great thing to do) Now my question is; How should I resolve a situation when I, during battle, find out that a PC or NPC that is with me is a bard and that guy begins to sing? (and maybe a sidenote; is a DM allowed to put such a restriction on a character?)
Mr.Musgrave 07-01-03, 08:28 AM	If it were me, I'd give your DM a good slap for hindering a PC. If I were running your barbarian character, I would have his/her rage triggered by singing. Every time a bard starts with the la-la-las, I'd fly off the handle. Anyway, I really dislike how your DM is forcing you into "liking" bards singing. It's lazy DMing. He/she is just trying to avoid complecated situations. In my group, we stick by characterization no matter how much trouble it causes. Chances are it leads to more interesting role-playing (or at least some really funny moments.)
Mr. VanderMeer 07-01-03, 09:00 AM	Sure your DM should let you get angry and attack singing Bards. You should be able to play your character anyway you want. But if you choose such a silly and very unpractical neurosis, you should also face the consequences. So after you hurt a few bards who were trying to help you in combat he should have the Bards come back and kill you. Or the guards from the town where you kicked around some singing children should put you in prison for a while.
Eldermount 07-01-03, 11:13 AM	Or perhaps the DM is trying to avoid party conflict. Because this character concept means that none of the players can bring in a bard, or if a bard already exists in the group, then there will be bloodshed between two PC's.
Mr.Musgrave 07-01-03, 02:08 PM	Why does it mean there can't be any bards? I say bring a bard in, it could lead into all kinds of interesting role-playing. We've had people in my party who didnt get along and it just added to the group dynamic. It's all in how you play it.
ShoshuroKaigen 07-01-03, 02:53 PM	A bard doesn't need to sing. They can play on an instrument, tell a inspiring story, make a powerful speech, act like a bufoon, and make witty satire and still make the same effects that a bard usually does.
Fiantha 07-01-03, 03:03 PM	I'm confused. How does your mother's death lead to a dislike of singing? I'm sure there's an explanation, I just don't see it. I think that if a character playing a bard, who has been using song to create his or her effects, doesn't want this particular situation, you shouldn't do it. I personally would not want this situation if I was a bard in your party. Some people might welcome the roleplaying challenge, but I sometimes find that when characters don't get along, it can lead to problems between players. If there is no bard in your group, then your DM shouldn't be interfering. Anyone who wants to play a bard after you join would know what they were in for. But if there is already a bard, you need his or her permission to play out this neurosis, because when they chose their character, they didn't figure your barbarian into the picture. Just my thoughts. --Fiantha
Edymnion 07-02-03, 02:12 AM	Originally posted by ShoshuroKaigen A bard doesn't need to sing. They can play on an instrument, tell a inspiring story, make a powerful speech, act like a bufoon, and make witty satire and still make the same effects that a bard usually does. Yes, exactly. A bard doesn't have to sing, not when they've got preforming options equal to their ranks in preform. Even at first lvl, a Bard should have 4 differant ways to get their bardic abilities across. On the side of the DM (sorta): You don't have to kill a bard for singing. Just punch them in the teeth whenever they start. On the side of the Player: No, your DM does not get to tell you how to play your character, no more than you get to tell him how to run a monster. DM can tell you certain feats (like Leadership) don't work the way you might want them to, but the DM has no right to tell you how your character thinks or feels or acts. A good responce for when he tries this is to hand him your character sheet, and tell him that "Since you're running my character as an NPC, I'm going to go watch TV. Tell me when you're ready to let me play again." So after you hurt a few bards who were trying to help you in combat he should have the Bards come back and kill you. Or the guards from the town where you kicked around some singing children should put you in prison for a while.Uh, thats just as wrong as telling the player how to play their character. "You play the way I tell you to, or that bard you punched in the mouth is going to get all his friends and try to kill you!" is still railroading the player into "Leave bards alone or you die". When bards can inspire courage by giving a rousing battle chant (not singing, chanting and singing are two totally differant things), or playing War Drums, or any number of other things, there is no reason at all for punishing the player for being creative. Are bards going to start telling bad stories about the character? Oh yeah, the ones he punches out are going to make him out to be a slobbering beast of a man, a real brute, but thats about it. Absolute worst case senario, -2 to all diplomacy/bluff checks because nobody believes him or they all slightly fear him.
Haradim 07-02-03, 02:38 AM	Originally posted by Rosella (and maybe a sidenote; is a DM allowed to put such a restriction on a character?) Not really, or at all. If there is a Bard in the party, he should try to make sure both characters will fit with a minimum of effort (and risk of death). However, he is very justified in making sure you feel the consequences of something like that. If you are going to go around and attack people who sing, make sure you put on a good enough show that the singer is dead, and everyone else isn't going to lift a finger. Because otherwise, there is little reason that people won't come after *you*. You don't want to go making enemies of people who can make sure you are infamous or even hated everywhere you go (let alone law officials, bounty hunters, and other characters). Few, if any, people are going to see anything but what amounts to an animal attacking someone over something they generally enjoy (music), for no apparent reason. People tend to react negatively to such things. Just be prepared for such eventualities. Your DM shouldn't be telling you you can do this, but he is well within his rights to make sure your actions have appropriate* consequences. * = By appropriate, he shouldn't be using it as a means of forcing you to do something else. Such as, no sudden appearances of Bardic hit squads the first time you try this stunt. Unless, of course, there is a Bardic hit squad watching. Then you're in trouble :P
Theocracity 07-02-03, 10:19 AM	Originally posted by Haradim Not really, or at all. If there is a Bard in the party, he should try to make sure both characters will fit with a minimum of effort (and risk of death). However, he is very justified in making sure you feel the consequences of something like that. If you are going to go around and attack people who sing, make sure you put on a good enough show that the singer is dead, and everyone else isn't going to lift a finger. Because otherwise, there is little reason that people won't come after *you*. You don't want to go making enemies of people who can make sure you are infamous or even hated everywhere you go (let alone law officials, bounty hunters, and other characters). Few, if any, people are going to see anything but what amounts to an animal attacking someone over something they generally enjoy (music), for no apparent reason. People tend to react negatively to such things. Just be prepared for such eventualities. Your DM shouldn't be telling you you can do this, but he is well within his rights to make sure your actions have appropriate* consequences. * = By appropriate, he shouldn't be using it as a means of forcing you to do something else. Such as, no sudden appearances of Bardic hit squads the first time you try this stunt. Unless, of course, there is a Bardic hit squad watching. Then you're in trouble :P Exactly. I think your character's attempts to kill things is a bit overdone; perhaps a tendency to break their instruments or punch them out is more appropriate. If you were to kill people based on their music, then your characters should face the legal consequences; killing someone for no reason is murder, and if you're in town the authorities would come after you (and "I'm just playing my character" is not a good enough reason for them not to arrest you). And even if you don't kill them, keep in mind that bards have a tendency to tell stories; they will sing the horrors of Grug the Half-Orc just as much as they spread the stories of other's great deeds. I would play a character like that anyway, as I like adding complications to a story. However, it is something you should keep in mind; and if I were you, I would not have your character kill bards. Those kinds of complications just lead to the game being totally wrecked.
Rosella 07-02-03, 11:30 AM	Unfortunately it isn't relevant anymore: I got killed by a surprise attack from a tiger, who, after taking away half my health in the surprise round, won the initiative and killed me outright in the first round of combat. Is it unsafe for a barbarian to go wander around in a forest that is inside a building that is again inside a mountain where it's freezing cold except that the building itself is pretty hot on the inside? (tropical) My history sofar: Paladin (kicked out of the party for not getting along with an Orc) Evocator(Sentenced during trial after trying to help out partymembers for using excessive force) Barbarian(Killed without a chance by tiger in forest) I'm getting fairly depressed here....
Theocracity 07-02-03, 12:00 PM	Originally posted by Rosella Unfortunately it isn't relevant anymore: I got killed by a surprise attack from a tiger, who, after taking away half my health in the surprise round, won the initiative and killed me outright in the first round of combat. Is it unsafe for a barbarian to go wander around in a forest that is inside a building that is again inside a mountain where it's freezing cold except that the building itself is pretty hot on the inside? (tropical) My history sofar: Paladin (kicked out of the party for not getting along with an Orc) Evocator(Sentenced during trial after trying to help out partymembers for using excessive force) Barbarian(Killed without a chance by tiger in forest) I'm getting fairly depressed here.... Sounds like you and your DM / party have different ideas of how to play. You seem to want to play more combat-oriented characters; however, the DM seems to be trying to stymie that. Here's a couple questions for you: 1) Was the Orc a major NPC, and what's defined as "not getting along with?" Paladins aren't generally supposed to get along with Orcs; if you detected him as being evil, you wouldn't have trusted him, though you might not have pulled your sword on him. What's a more detailed version of the situation? 2) Did your Evoker end up blowing away some civilians when he was saving the party? If so, was he repentant for doing so and willing to pay damages rather than just being locked up? 3) Did the rest of the party have trouble with the tiger, or did they dispatch it with no problem? Or were they not even there? Either way, I'd say that from my point of view, your DM is far too restrictive of character actions. I should preface that with saying that you may tend to play abrasive or destructive characters, which may lead to the DM's action. If you're the type to do anything regardless of consequences (attack NPCs, fireball enemies with civilians in the area, or wander off by yourself), then maybe you deserve some punishment; but I think that DM's being far too harsh with the punishments he deals out. It takes a lot of work to create a character, and to be summarily booted out for one mistake is pretty aggravating. If you think it's a problem, talk with your DM and see if you can resolve this conflict.
VirgilCaine 07-02-03, 12:22 PM	I'm confused. How does your mother's death lead to a dislike of singing? I'm sure there's an explanation, I just don't see it. The character has had a sad life full of turmoil and unhappiness. He doesn't see much point in expressing joy or happiness through singing because to him, life has been a long series of terrible experiences. That's why he doesn't like singing. And it makes sense.
Rosella 07-02-03, 12:26 PM	we do indeed have different opinions, which are starting to clash more and more lately. For example he has changed the paladin and ranger classes because he thinks them "front-heavy" meaning that they're too strong at low levels. (multiclassing is too easy and gives too much in his opinion) He for example stripped away the ranger's ambidexterity and two handed weapon fight and instead gave him extra feats at higher levels, just like the fighter, but less of them. He also has a different bonus feat list than a fighter to encourage two handed weapon fighting and bows more than a fighter. The paladin has lost detect evil unlimited, which has become a fixed amount per day, depending on level. (1st level 2/day, 4th level 4/day etc.) Divine health is gone too, as is cure disease. Instead we get some more smite evil and protection from evil. I personally love the paladin, but without detect evil as often i have trouble liking the character as I find that to be the biggest asset of the paladin. about your questions: 1 - Orc was PC, a brute, extremely filthy and unsocial, but with very great strength and combat abilities. not evil, but fighting instead of talking all the time. (and consequently winning) 2 - Long story that's been in these forums before, in short: Party got split up, me and paladin on one side, rest in pursuit of an escapee. Our adversary (rogue) surrencers after heavy damage and I blow him knock out with a melfs acid arrow to be able to aid the others which could be ambushed. (tying up etc. would take too long and chances of surviving were like 95%) 3 - One partymember outside the door of the very big building, but out of sight. rest in village looting shops etc. We went ahead a little. After I surrendered the rest of the party entered and dispatched the tiger with some effort. no other creatures present. The problem as I see it is as follows: I try to roleplay, but the other players in the party do the usual hack'n slash and looting without much realism in their actions. (they've never run away immediately) As soon as I get a character that survives, it clashes with the party and is consequently booted anyways. (I'm normally the wizard or paladin, the barbarian was an exception that I'm not planning to repeat anyways.) p.s; maybe the barbarian wandering around in the forest might've been a mistake, but i've grown up in the forest, and I was able to have a strength of 27 (extreme I know) so I'd say it should be pretty save to get around in any forest if there's nothing legendary or extremely evil in it. nothing indicated this when i entered aside from the forest being subtropical inside a frosty mountain (and inside a building in that mountain).
ShoshuroKaigen 07-02-03, 02:47 PM	Tigers normally live in tropical enviroments, or sometimes tundra enviroments. I would say that it was unjustified. Sit down with your group and talk about this hack-and-slash mentality. Try to sort it out. If they can't change and you can't play with their mentality, you may try to find another group.
Barrid 07-02-03, 04:03 PM	He changed Paladins because he thinks people with multiclass it? Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay. I can understand the Ranger part, but making him just a baby fighter is kinda weak. A fighter gets 2 feats at 1st level (1st character level) 3 if he is human. A Ranger gets a feat, Track, ambidexterity and TWF. Pushing Back Ambidexterity and TWF to 2nd level probably would have been a better fix.
dirk hightower 07-02-03, 05:30 PM	uhhhhhh.... why does your character hate singing? Because the character is unhappy? lame. Now, if your mother was RAPED by a singing Bard..... maybe... and if you were FORCED to sing against your will.... or tortured by a Bard that sang during the torture.... maybe... But it sounds like you just want to mess with so-and-so's Bard character. Is there ALREADY a singing Bard in the party? Then I can understand why your DM would discourage developing a trait that antagonizes another character. and I'll bet you won't pick on a spellcaster... I'm betting you are just playing out a personal grudge... com'on ... fess up!:behold:
Rosella 07-02-03, 05:32 PM	lol, no bard in party yet. and the killing thing was more of a metaphore, that's how i felt, I wouldn't actually do it. (well, I might kick 'em a little or confront him, but kill? naaaaaaah!)
Mr. VanderMeer 07-02-03, 06:05 PM	The character has had a sad life full of turmoil and unhappiness. He doesn't see much point in expressing joy or happiness through singing because to him, life has been a long series of terrible experiences. Okay, that sounds like a very good reason to attack people who have the audacity to sing. Oh no, wait. it really isn't. In my opinion, trying to roleplay by giving your character silly and disruptive quirks is not the way to go. Sure he can dislike singing, and he can express his dislike out loud too. But attacking others over it? Only people with a severe psychosis do that.
Rosella 07-02-03, 06:17 PM	euhm, police officers have to handle neighbourhood quarrels as part of their everyday job. Just imagine your neighbour playing piano all day long, I think there'd be quite a lot of people who'd get upset about that after a certain amount of time. it's the same here, except that the time needed for the barbarian to get angry is extremely short. It's not that uncommon, I bet that there are quite a few people in your city or village that have the same problem. (assuming you live in atleast a medium sized village)
Edymnion 07-02-03, 07:38 PM	Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer Okay, that sounds like a very good reason to attack people who have the audacity to sing. Oh no, wait. it really isn't. Um, we're not here to judge character motivations people. If he wants to punch out bards, thats no differant from the self rightous prick characters that turn in every rogue they meet to the authorities on general principle. And since this is the same guy (gal?) from the wizard trial, I'm starting to see a pattern with the DM putting his story ahead of what the players want, or at least this player. And frankly, the tiger jumping out of nowhere, getting a surprise round, and going right after the bard puncher sounds plenty suspicious to me. Did you get rolls for Spot or Listen to see/hear it coming? Did the DM roll randomly to see who get attacked, or was it just automatically your bard puncher? It just seems that whenever you make a character your DM doesn't like (or have a character make a decision the DM doesn't like), he tries his darndest to remove that character from the game.
Rosella 07-03-03, 04:58 AM	well, the barbarian did go into the forest alone, so I'm partly to blame on this one too. He got exactly one spot check. I do have a very weird character history at the moment though. (especially how they left) I've talked to my DM about it, and I've created a new character, and he'll have a look at it on how to improve the character to my likings. (I didn't have a character that I liked when we talked yesterday, especially since I wanted a Fighter 4/Ranger 1/Paladin 3 character (original phb that is)). The DM and I are very good friends, the problem is that our roleplaying (mine vs. the rest) differ a lot. It is generally acknowledged that the amount of roleplaying is not enough at the moment but it is very difficult to change something about it. my DM is trying very hard though, and I do credit him for it. The party currently exists out of a paladin human, ogre druid(some prestige, king of the wild but I'm not 100% sure), human (monk?) and me (http://www.geocities.com/arakris/pc/zen/index.html) I hope I'll fit in this time :-/ (follow the link if you'd like to check out my character, I always like to share my characters :) )
Mr. VanderMeer 07-03-03, 05:07 AM	It's not that uncommon, I bet that there are quite a few people in your city or village that have the same problem. (assuming you live in atleast a medium sized village) ? There are 40.000 people in the town I live in yet I have never heard of someeone attacking others because they sing a song. Okay In my other post it sounds like I am judging motivations. I overstated it to make a point. Strange quirks do not make for good roleplaying. Try tuly roleplaying a character without a severe neurosis. Then you have to roleplya personality. And that is the way to go. I agree that Rosella's DM is doing something weird. I hope you can work that out. You're new character seems great and I think you should have no problem really roleplaying his personality.
Jaxian Redleaf 07-03-03, 06:42 AM	If you have a bard in your party it could make for some really interesting roleplay: Bard: starts to sing *la la la* Barbarian: Ahh stop singing!!! Bard: why? *la la la la* Barbarian: Aaaaaahhhhhh Bard: WHAT!!!! Barbarian: Stop.........Singing...... Bard: But listen to this *la la la* wasn't that nice? *grins* Barbarian: ok that's it! Bard: Hey what are you doing with that axe? You stupid half orc put that down!!! Wait...what are you.... Aiee!!! Barbarian: Splat :devil:
Fox Lee 07-03-03, 08:55 AM	Sure, your character has every right to get angry and attack anybody who sings - though, if your GM wants to run a game where the party won't have such a dangerous radical in their midst, I think you should respect that and look at playing a character who doesn't waver to evil (at least for this game). However, if the GM respects your right to create the character that you want to, you need to respect his/her right - and the right of the other players - to react accordingly. If you decide to kill the party Bard for humming a jaunty tune (should you end up with one, of course) and the party decides they should kick your ass for it, well, you did have it coming. I might add, however, that bards are not explicitly requied to sing - any kind of performance is valid, at last check, and that's anything from vocal drumming to narration to impersonating the party Paladin to playing the spoons on your temple. If the singing thing is going to become an issue with party cohesion, this may well be worth taking into account.
Fox Lee 07-03-03, 09:01 AM	Originally posted by Jaxian Redleaf If you have a bard in your party it could make for some really interesting roleplay: Bard: starts to sing *la la la* Barbarian: Ahh stop singing!!! Bard: why? *la la la la* Barbarian: Aaaaaahhhhhh Bard: WHAT!!!! Barbarian: Stop.........Singing...... Bard: But listen to this *la la la* wasn't that nice? *grins* Barbarian: ok that's it! Bard: Hey what are you doing with that axe? You stupid half orc put that down!!! Wait...what are you.... Aiee!!! Barbarian: Splat :devil: This is "interesting roleplay" where you come from? It would seem at the very least to be extremely harmful to the party and at least one player's enjoyment of the game. I guess you could call it "interesting", but I'd tend to call it more "hurtful". Of course, in the example, the Bard is being a jerk as well as the Barbarian, so they probably both deserve whatever's coming to them...
Mr. VanderMeer 07-03-03, 10:45 AM	This is "interesting roleplay" where you come from? It would seem at the very least to be extremely harmful to the party and at least one player's enjoyment of the game. I guess you could call it "interesting", but I'd tend to call it more "hurtful". Of course, in the example, the Bard is being a jerk as well as the Barbarian, so they probably both deserve whatever's coming to them... And of course, quite clearly....... Jaxian is kidding!
Fox Lee 07-03-03, 11:36 AM	Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer And of course, quite clearly....... Jaxian is kidding! I was hoping so, but sadly I've learned I can't assume these things any more ^^;
Mr. VanderMeer 07-03-03, 04:46 PM	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So after you hurt a few bards who were trying to help you in combat he should have the Bards come back and kill you. Or the guards from the town where you kicked around some singing children should put you in prison for a while. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Uh, thats just as wrong as telling the player how to play their character. "You play the way I tell you to, or that bard you punched in the mouth is going to get all his friends and try to kill you!" is still railroading the player into "Leave bards alone or you die". I have to disagree. It is more a matter of action and consequence. You can't go around abusing people because they sing and not expect some sort of retaliation. Especially if your behaviour is as aggresive and uncalled for as this. That is why I would suggest playing out a quirk like this in a less disruptive way. If people sing shout at them, or go away, or get grumpy or something. That is a much more natural way to respond. Only attack if someone is purposely singing to annoy you.
Rosella 07-03-03, 04:51 PM	I could explain this in Dutch if you want to :D I never intended to kill or attack rightaway, but atleast to get grumpy indeed. I would expect a retal if I did something rash, but after repeatedly warning, I do think that putting the bard in it's place would've been normal enough.
Mr. VanderMeer 07-04-03, 05:50 AM	Sorry, I don't speak Gronings, just Brabants.:D In your first post it says you had serious intentions to kill anyone who sings. I thought you meant you would actually do it. But you mean you just got the urge. That makes it a lot more understandable (and better roleplaying, in my eyes). And yes, after repeated warning I think you should kick the bard in the head. You are (were) a half-orc barbarian after all.
Jaxian Redleaf 07-04-03, 06:22 AM	As Mr. VanderMeer said... I am kidding!