Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TarlSS 07-30-06, 05:09 AM	That's right. Jackassery is in high form with brilliant creations like The Frenzied Barbarian and the Chaotic Neutral Alignment. Honestly, who thought it was a good idea to balance the game by including class penalties that increase disharmony among players? D&D is supposed to be a Team Game. It is not the D20 system, it is not White Wolf, it is not Politika. It is not a toolbox where every bloody game you can imagine should exist. I think game designers do all of us a disservice when they design mechanics that legitimize what is essentially griefing- intentionally harming other characters to disturb other people's game experiences. I think the much vaunted idea of 'roleplaying' needs to be condemned and set aside when people roleplay characters that are 'interesting' in the particular vein that they inconvienence other people's characters. This isn't just those guys that play psycopaths that run around killing folk, it's also about those people who play superpowerful lycanthropes that 'just can't help' but rip your throat out at night when the moon turns full. It's primarily the duty of the DM to get rid of such characters as one removes a firearms from the reach of children, yet often these kinds of characters are praised for some kind of brazen creativity. I think designers and roleplayers need to take a stand on defining how ettiquette should work in D&D, and that the connection between IC and OOC behavior needs to be acknowledged. Malicious character abuse needs to be regulated. There's nothing that ruins the game experience more than having some griefer kill you and being told to suck it up because it's part of the game. Limits for acceptable behavior should be defined- the tendency for armed conflict resolution between players in RPGs is a disgusting trend, as it reflects egomashing abusiveness, and frankly is not realistic at all. I'm not calling for mechanics or anything like that. I just want people to get with the grips and talk about how to properly play a roleplaying game, and put it down, make a consensus. Like in any society, and effort to restrain certain behaviors needs to be made. Currently there is little quantification of these behaviors, and far too much leeway for those who act poorly.
Shaggy_Shaggs 07-30-06, 05:12 AM	I agree. We must remove paladins immediately, and permanently ban from our groups any player that so much as asks to play one! :rolleye2: Seriously, if I see one more thread whining about the frenzied berserker for being just like the paladin but not apologetic for it, I'll... I don't know what I'll do, but I'll do it right after losing what's left of my mind.
TarlSS 07-30-06, 05:35 AM	Hardy har, sarcasm. You certainly are so high-and-mighty again with your buck it up attitude. I'm surprised you're not in a school gymnasium taunting overweight children while pelting them with tennis balls and sharp objects. Good lord. Does the word 'behavioral restriction' put such a fear of god into you that you think you'll never be ever able to roleplay anything again? Or maybe you're one of those folks that likes browbeating others for no other reason than egomania with the justification of freedom behind it? Liberty in real-life is one thing, but rules of courtesy need to be defined. The seperation of IC and OOC is not a sacred barrier, it is one that is regularly crossed. It needs to be regulated.
Robert_Fox_Kitsune 07-30-06, 05:36 AM	I agree that D and D works best as a team game, but that dosn't mean you can't play, for example, evil in a good party. Even th superpowerful lycanthropething, i agree with ingame. My primary d and d group are a mature, excelent bunch of roleplayers- what happens if a characted dies? Thats a shame, lets roll another or get ressed/raised It's just a game, and its about having fun. If someones idea of fun at that partiular time is a stand alone werewolf whose helping the group because he has to, so be it
kelvinaw273 07-30-06, 05:56 AM	On the whole, D&D has been applauded by neutral parties for its beneficial effects, including improving social skills of young players. Oh, I can see the OP's point, that some classes appear just designed to cause maximum chaos in a well-knit party, but I think he misses the point that not everybody plays that way, and sometimes material is included in player books that is primarily intended for the DM. The game encourages social skills by allowing players to make mistake in character that they later get a second chance at. It wouldn't work if the game didn't allow them to make mistakes, would it? There's no point teaching people that there are repurcussions to bad actions if they are never allowed to take bad actions in order to learn this. If there is a Lawful alignment there has to be a chaotic one. If there is good, there has to be evil. And if there is a strong case, there is a devil's advocate willing to argue the opposite cause for the sake of it. Hence, sadly, there is bad in the D&D worlds. And because it is there, some players wish to use it. Let them. If a player makes a CN character and argues he can 'do what he likes', shift his alignment wherever you feel it fits and let him have the consequences of his actions. From "Jackassory" thou shalt bring forth Sense, from Foolishness, you teach Wisdom. Thus shall the game of D&D be.
Shaggy_Shaggs 07-30-06, 06:42 AM	Good lord. Does the word 'behavioral restriction' put such a fear of god into you that you think you'll never be ever able to roleplay anything again? Or maybe you're one of those folks that likes browbeating others for no other reason than egomania with the justification of freedom behind it? No and no, actually I'm just sick and tired of hearing "Frenzied Berserker" (or "Frenzied Barbarian," for those that can't keep the names straight) come up every time someone decides to drag through the mud any character type that has to work harder at being a team player, or is especially powerful in one area at expense of being pretty useless elsewhere. Frenzied berserker wasn't the first class having issues with its party, nor was it the last, nor is it the most recent. I think most people just pick on that class out of spite, jealousy, or fear of being knocked off their own pedestal, as it's a melee class that can keep up with spellcasters on killing things in the late game, which is rather rare. People who single the class out to whine about without even knowing it well enough to remember its name should (removed for the CoC's sake) have something unpleasant befall them. I'm not calling for mechanics or anything like that. I just want people to get with the grips and talk about how to properly play a roleplaying game, and put it down, make a consensus. Like in any society, and effort to restrain certain behaviors needs to be made. Currently there is little quantification of these behaviors, and far too much leeway for those who act poorly. As for this... where does one draw the line? Is there any behaviour that universally needs to be restrained and isn't already illegal? How far should one be able to go before hitting the barrier? Is this not something that's best discussed among each group, rather than the community as a whole, in order to keep boundaries, restrictions, freedoms and opportunities within the groups' personal comfort levels?
Fiery Avenger 07-30-06, 07:24 AM	Originally Posted by TarlSS I'm not calling for mechanics or anything like that. I just want people to get with the grips and talk about how to properly play a roleplaying game, and put it down, make a consensus. Like in any society, and effort to restrain certain behaviors needs to be made. Currently there is little quantification of these behaviors, and far too much leeway for those who act poorly. You see, the problem with this sort of statement is that it automatically assumes that everyone wants to play your way. And that just isn't true. I know plenty of people who play differently than I do, and who am I to say differently? I have free will to play the way I do, and they have free will to do the same without worrying about me badgering them. I have friends who play nothing but Evil Campaigns, and friends who play nothing but Resident Evil, friends who play nothing but Star Wars d20. If you don't like the roleplaying application of one element of the game, are you going to push people to change that because you think it's wrong? What if you don't like (for a probably very bad example) Lightsabers in a Star Wars Game - does that mean they shouldn't exist? They are unbalancing, but hey; that's something to deal with in your group, and not push people around about. All in all, you can play the way you want just the same as I can - I just don't browbeat people about it. I'm trying to come off as fair and balanced but I fear I may have failed - it just bothers me when people thinks others have to play the way they do.
Rake 07-30-06, 09:19 AM	I have only this to contribute: My brother and I play with a group every other weekend. On the off-weekends, or slow weekdays, we solo. One such solo campaign starred a lone Frenzied Barbarian, and it was a fantasticly good campaign. If you had it your way, however, there would be no Frenzied Berserker, and my brother and I would have been denied a perfectly good run. There's no end to what you can do with a game of Dungeons & Dragons. If one mechanic or class isn't working for your players, or your players don't seem to have an appropriate or mature mindset with regards to one mechanic or class, that's just your experience, and your problem. I've never had a problem with inter-party conflict, not even with paladins (but then, more than half of my players are old pros). Your mileage may vary. Everyone's mileage may vary. That's my point.
WayneTheGame 07-30-06, 09:40 AM	TarlSS: Sounds like you just have sour grapes over an experience. While I agree with you that D&D is a team game and players should not deliberately play characters that ruin that (FB, Chaotic Stupid PCs, etc.), it's not your place to say that the game should disallow them. I like the ability to be able to CHOOSE if you want to play something like that, even if I do not agree with the people who do (because, and no offense, the people who do typically do it ONLY to screw with people) On the contrary, it's the DM's job to limit it in his/her campaign. I know that if I DM, I would not allow the Frenzied Berzerker PrC for exactly these reasons. If a player wanted one and refused to compromise, than maybe that player's style doesn't mesh with my DMing and he/she should find another group. Harsh, but necessary when you have a player that won't listen to the DM's reasoning and insists on playing something that constantly screws with everyone else.
VrecknidjX 07-30-06, 10:03 AM	On the contrary, it's the DM's job to limit it in his/her campaign. I know that if I DM, I would not allow the Frenzied Berzerker PrC for exactly these reasons. If a player wanted one and refused to compromise, than maybe that player's style doesn't mesh with my DMing and he/she should find another group. Harsh, but necessary when you have a player that won't listen to the DM's reasoning and insists on playing something that constantly screws with everyone else.I've been running a campaign for about 5 years now that has exactly two CN characters (in a campaign where each player has multiple characters for different adventures, and where I have 12 or so total players). One is an NPC that's being run by a player while his main character sits out (long story). This is a Barbarian/Fighter/Frenzied Berserker (26th level) who puts serious smackdown on things (at full power attack, he's doing something like 1d8+129 damage). The rest of the party has learned to fear and respect the frenzy. The other is a single-classed orc barbarian, 18th level. His personality is played excellently, and, depsite his occasional random behaviors, the character just so happens to have really good reasons for adventuring with a bunch of lawful "sissies" (i.e. dwarves and some humans). Over time, the characters have learned to respect one another's roles, and the players have been fantastic at roleplaying their characters' developments. It's all about the players and the DM. If the players don't have the maturity to have a frenzied berserker (or other CN) in their group, the DM shouldn't allow it. It's a simple issue really. Dave
Bob Loblaw 07-30-06, 12:05 PM	I think, quite often, people assume that because something exists in DnD, it was meant for the players. There are quite a few classes, feats, magic items, spells, races, etc. that are meant as adversaries. There are entire books written with this in mind in all editions, and for many different game systems. It isn't all that hard for the DM and players to set the tone for their group and decide what's best for them. There are some things I will not tolerate in my games (or games I play in). We sit down as a group and decide what we want to allow. Then we play. If I'm in a group where they routinely play against how I feel we should be playing, I tell them that this group is not for me. I don't insult them, I just tell them that I don't enjoy the way they are playing and I find another group. What you are asking for TarlSS, already exists. It's called freedom of choice. When exercised with care, you can have a lot of fun without ruining someone elses.
a_psh 07-30-06, 12:37 PM	Rich Burlew covered this pretty well in his "Decide to React Differently" article (http://www.giantitp.com/frm0007.html). Game elements can definitely encourage or discourage certain playstyles, but there's nothing about Chaotic Neutral as written that says "Hey, you can be secretly CE and a total jackass to the other PCs and they'll have to accept it!". I think it's more a matter of years and years of player culture developed during a time when alignment was more rigid and some common and commonly-perpetuated misunderstandings (I played with a guy who was Chaotic Stupid -- it seemed like it was a matter of him not really "getting" the point of D&D rather than a mechanic telling him to be bad). My main problem with the Frenzied Berserker (as well as classes like the Apostle of Peace) is that it assumes other people's inconvenience is a fair trade-off for tons of personal power. Some kind of Frenzy-like mechanic should exist in the game somewhere, however, because players and GMs will want a model of the iconic truly-berserk fighting style.
Dead_Karma 07-30-06, 01:44 PM	sounds to me like the op pretty much just wants a cookie cutter style setting where everyone does the same things. if that is what they want they should start a game and tell the players that they all have to be the exact same no deviation. then proceed to make the entire world the same. then see how long the campaign lasts.
pres_man 07-30-06, 02:48 PM	Well, I can see your point. If D&D is suppose to be played as a group game, that is inter-party conflicts should be kept to a minimum and should never be decided by fighting, then the creators are doing a disservice to give classes and abilities that have a very strong chance of resulting in PC-vs-PC conflicts. The paladin actually shouldn't be a big conflict issue since it specifically states that the default way to play D&D is with non-evil characters. Most player characters are good or neutral rather than evil. In general, evil alignments are for villians and monsters. Yet just as some may want to play villians, some gamers may want to play in a situation where the frenzied berserker is acceptable. Though I would have to say, that such things should be open to the party as a whole and agreed on by everyone. If a player does not feel comfortable with a FB in the party they should be given the chance to state that, if they are the lone voice then they should either quit the game or suck it up and deal with it. Yet these things should not be sprung on people mid-game just because the FB player and the DM don't see a problem with it. As a_psh said, "it assumes other people's inconvenience is a fair trade-off for tons of personal power." This is not a valid assumption unless those other people at least get a say in it.
a_psh 07-30-06, 03:43 PM	As a_psh said, "it assumes other people's inconvenience is a fair trade-off for tons of personal power." This is not a valid assumption unless those other people at least get a say in it.I'm more of the opinion that it's not a valid assumption because, while it does make a little bit of sense from the perspective of the FB (and friends -- there are other classes like this, too) wasting enough of the party's resources to compensate for his awesomeness, it makes the game horribly un-fun for everyone else. This is much like why clerics aren't just walking medkits any more. That said, the system has a class specifically designed for people who want to be walking medkits and play a very secondary role in battle -- the Healer, which some folks have called the ultimate "uninterested girlfriend" class, and it does fill a useful role (that of being the "uninterested girlfriend" class). ... It depends on how you waste the party's resources, I suppose. If it's a matter of "rage, kill the bad guys, calm emotions, rinse and repeat", then I'm sure the casters in the party are just going to sigh when they do it, because they're trading exciting abilities for boring ones in order to keep your exciting abilities in check. If it's a matter of, say, the rogue getting to beat you into unconsciousness after you go off the handle, then other party members get to have some excitement, too.
ThorGuy 07-30-06, 03:55 PM	Hardy har, sarcasm. You certainly are so high-and-mighty again with your buck it up attitude. I'm surprised you're not in a school gymnasium taunting overweight children while pelting them with tennis balls and sharp objects. *cough*Hypocrite*cough* I think the other posters have summed this up very well, but just because certain classes and alignments don't gel with your particular play style doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the game. Some people, like you, don't like they're gaming to be inconvenianced for the sake of roleplaying. Other people don't like they're roleplaying to be destroyed for the sake of gaming. Both are valid points of view, and it should be up to the DM and the players to decide which type of game they want to play. What you're doing is akin to saying "I think that PG-13 movies are innapropriate for children, so they shouldn't let people under 13 into the theatres." Sure, it might be better for your family, (read: D&D Group) but what about all the parents who think their kids are responsible enough to see PG-13 movies? (read: play CN characters and such) I'm sure there are hundreds of groups out there who think the roleplaying opportunities created by characters that aren't neccessarily team players are a good trade off for the party difficulties they may present, and are mature enough to realize that their character getting killed by the frenzied beserker isn't the end of the world, but an oppurtunity to play something different.
Ezell Pike 07-30-06, 04:15 PM	I won't be party to telling others how to play D&D. :teach: If we play together, that is one thing but there are some out there that like to play that way. We are a scociety of posters on boards. The only scociety that you should be concerned with sits down at your gaming table.
pres_man 07-30-06, 04:35 PM	Indeed, but we should remind players and DMs (hey, they are players also), that if someone has a character that there is no reason why the party would travel with, because the character is a danger to everyone else (whether due to class ability or just untrustworthy), then there is absolutely no reason the party has to keep the character in it. If a FB came into a party and started attacking others, it is certainly within the rest of the party's discretion to tell him to leave (make a new character). Too often people feel they HAVE to put up with retards because they are all in a party. As soon as someone stops being a party-player they forfeit all rights to stay in the party. You wouldn't hang around a guy that you knew would beat the crap out of someone and everyone else just because he got his toe stepped on. Why would your character put up with that crap?
savant_warlord13 07-30-06, 05:14 PM	D&D is supposed to be a Team Game. It is not the D20 system, it is not White Wolf, it is not Politika. Take a D&D book. Look at the bottom left corner of the back cover.
SokenzanMarauder 07-30-06, 05:29 PM	Take a D&D book. Look at the bottom left corner of the back cover. *loud children* Silence! *quiet children* Alright class, this is an example of a person being owned. *oohs and ahhs* Personally, I think the OPs views are so unsupported it's not funny. If a player plays Chaotic Neutral (or any alignment for that matter) like an idiot that's the player's fault not D&Ds. Frenzied Berserker is as screwed up as a party class as you can get and if a player doesn't realize this (after it being explained nicely) then the player is just trying to be a jerk. Paladins are fine. -Gene
fatal error 07-30-06, 07:01 PM	*points* Hey look, another thinly veiled post whining about Frenzied BERSERKERS not working well in a party. Huh, who woulda thunk it, with all those frenzies per day that make them attack friends once they've completely destroyed foes. I mean, honestly, I had no idea that a class with such an ability could cause problems in cooperation. Amazingly, not all classes are meant for all campaigns and or all players. Imagine, most campaigns people won't be playing a group of red wizards, thayan knights, ravagers and ur-priests.
scienceman47 07-30-06, 07:48 PM	Violent immaturity in party fighting (VIIPF) is something you grow out of after a few sessions. Or you stop playing. Same with utterly random people, doing stupid and nonsensical things. After that is powergrabbing. It's a person exploring the limits of the environment, something akin to a child exploring outside. Just keep em from hurting themselves too much. Having discovered the extent of the world around them, they will want to play the character that truly suits them.
savant_warlord13 07-30-06, 09:10 PM	If you ask me, penalties like the ones posedby a frenzied berserker are just more challenges to be overcome. I would deal with a frenzied berserker in the party with the following custom magic item Rod of safety Each rod of safety is keyed to a small stone called a keystone. It creates a resilient sphere effect around the keystone when you speak the command word. The resilient sphere does not move with the keystone. You may end the resilient sphere effect immediately by speaking the command word again. If the Keystone is more than 100 feet away, speaking the command word doesn't do anything. Just put the keystone in the frenzied berserker's backpack! As a DM, I would rule that this will run you up about 28000 gp. You could deduct this from the frenzied berserker's share of the treasure.
Bulletproof_Condom 07-30-06, 09:33 PM	I think designers and roleplayers need to take a stand on defining how ettiquette should work in D&D, and that the connection between IC and OOC behavior needs to be acknowledged. Malicious character abuse needs to be regulated. Well good luck with that. Your problem is not with D&D. Your problem is with immature players who see the game as their opportunity to do whatever they want (and it turns out 'whatever they want' includes treating those around them like garbage). My group doesn't have that problem. Stop blaming the game for things that people do.
Good Agnostic 07-30-06, 09:55 PM	or devil worship or the purchase of black trenchcoats and handguns. D&D is a social game and your game will be as sucessful as the social skills of the players involved. That, I think, is the bottom line to all of this.
The Amazing Dancing Bear 07-30-06, 09:55 PM	So... let me get this straight. You've decided what D&D is and isn't, on some greater cosmic authority. You don't like the material in a supplement that you didn't have to buy. And now people who play antiheroes are "children with firearms". So now, invested as you are with the aforementioned cosmic authority, you can tell people how to play their D&D. And personally insult board members with a stunning lack of a sense of irony. Not to mention the thread title looks like it's being posted by a member of MADD. Tell me why, exactly, you can't handle the idea that some characters not only aren't always team players, but that they're more interesting that way. Oh dear, my comrades. It appears I've provoked a round of baseless insults.
Ongorth 07-31-06, 12:23 AM	Home... a silence between glares That stutters words misleading Here... give me all you got With one shot sent to lend me No... here across the grass, Between the glass I know... you're not the one I left to wait here, helping I... I left in a sudden rush And never said why You... couldn't know That I had no goodbyes But I wish that you were I'm spying on you, Newo The way that you would've been if I stayed here at home I'm giving you up, Newo How important I could've been to you Press the steps I take to cross your door frame if You decide to answer when my fist rings hello I... I left in a sudden rush And never said why You... couldn't know That I had no goodbyes But I wish that you were I'm spying on you, Newo The way that you would've been if I stayed here at home I'm giving you up, Newo How important I could've been to you Casting quarters into wells that hold our dreams You won't believe me... if I told you so Casting quarters into wells that hold our dreams You won't believe me... I wouldn't if you told me so But I wish that you were I'm spying on you, Newo The way that you would've been if I stayed here at home I'm giving you up, Newo How important I could've been to you "Crossing the Flame" Coheed and Cambria Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV: Volume 1. From Fear Through The Eyes Of Madness
Grey_Mage 07-31-06, 12:55 AM	I have numerous problems with the OP's statement. First off, one does not just gain social skills by being put in an enviroment where everybody gets along. Why? Because thats not the case in real life. Yes an example of how to work together and get along with others is always beneficial to a person needing social skills, but the ability to deal with adverse persons and down right *******s, not to mention simply those who are while not against one, but rather different than oneself, is probly one of the most needed lessons a person can learn. Out of those working and reading this, who hasnt at one point or another had a jerk for a manager? A teacher? Etc. People need to know how to deal with this. Develope your social skills? Yep...dealing with that badly stereotyped chaotic neutral rogue will help. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly from a mechanical veiw is that not everyone in a campaign is a "Hero". Just as not everyone in a campagin is a PC. We have NPC classes for this reason, for instance. Just because I dont really want a frenzied beserker in my party, or a blackgaurd for that matter, doesnt mean they dont make some thrilling villains. One has to have Yin for their Yang... balance.... good vs evil.... get the idea? Thirdly, sometimes its fun to just run around and cause havoc. Yep, you heard me right; some days I like to sit down at a dnd board with my evil party and say "so boys, do we take the castle and slaughter the royal family? Or is this more of a bank robbery/extortion day?". Does this make me a bad person? *shrugs* Maybe... but I dont think so. Why? Because its not in my nature to steal from people, or to hurt or kill relatively innoccent people out of hand. Its like the whole idea that violent video games cause people to go on killing rampages. B.S. If anything such things are therapeutic for anyone with a half decent will or the intellegence of a chimp. Everyone has a different tolerance, and the rest of us should not be punished for our relative strengths. The Least common denominator is a way to destroy ones species, not a way to help people. I think the much vaunted idea of 'roleplaying' needs to be condemned and set aside when people roleplay characters that are 'interesting' in the particular vein that they inconvienence other people's characters. This isn't just those guys that play psycopaths that run around killing folk, it's also about those people who play superpowerful lycanthropes that 'just can't help' but rip your throat out at night when the moon turns full. It's primarily the duty of the DM to get rid of such characters as one removes a firearms from the reach of children, yet often these kinds of characters are praised for some kind of brazen creativity. I think designers and roleplayers need to take a stand on defining how ettiquette should work in D&D, and that the connection between IC and OOC behavior needs to be acknowledged. Malicious character abuse needs to be regulated. There's nothing that ruins the game experience more than having some griefer kill you and being told to suck it up because it's part of the game. Limits for acceptable behavior should be defined- the tendency for armed conflict resolution between players in RPGs is a disgusting trend, as it reflects egomashing abusiveness, and frankly is not realistic at all. Its the duty of the DM? Not as strongly as you say... the players are NOT children. It is each players responsiblity to make a character that can be viable in the game, entertaining in some form, and to play their character. If I have a lycanthrope, or a XLB2J or whatever, Im going to act like what my character is. Would I rip out a persons throat with my teeth? NO! Im not even sure Im physically capable of that. On the other hand I also wouldnt run around with a sword slaying goblins, and not just because goblins be hard to find these days. You think designers and roleplayers need to talk about ettiquette? WHY? Why in heavens name? Wouldnt it be a whole heck of alot easier and more productive for a gaming group to talk among themselves, with their dm, about what their limits are? What kind of mood theyre looking for in their campaigns? How their characters interact, are related, and what kind of world theyre in? I know its a bit of work... but its a basic foundation. Thats not a design problem... if you dont do its YOUR problem, and your consequences. If it doesnt hurt your group, fine, but if it is its your own responsibility to fix it... not the writers. But lastly, and most importantly, if you are indeed ROLEplaying there should be little if any connection betweein IC and OOC behaviour. So Ragnar the Terrible slew and entire village last night, his player can still say please when he asks someone to pass him a coke. If your so locked into who you are that you cant make some basic changes to your thoughts in order to play.... you should probly be doing some soul searching in the time youd normally be playing. *shrugs* But hey, Im just a psychologist with eight years of RP under my belt. What do I know?
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-31-06, 01:12 AM	Its not so much bad behavior as shoddy design ethos. Someone thinks that punishing the party for who they have as a member is a valid balancing favor. To a lesser extent, as found in the Trappfinding ability, someone also thinks that punishing a party for not having a certain class makes the class more powerful. Those someones should stop making class and PrCs. Make them stat out drow and ogres with class levels for MMV and never allow them to do anything else ever. But yeah, you allowed the Paladin, with thier whole 'everyone has to do as my alignment says or I either PK you or lose my powers', shtick, so you get what you deserve with Exalted cheese and FBs.
Cannon_Fodder 07-31-06, 01:27 AM	In an open game I'm now running (as the previous DM is now working for the store we play in) we do deal with characters with evil alignments now and then. The previous DM houseruled it as "No evil characters" because they were more likely to disrupt the flow of things. I agree with the Living Greyhawk standard - characters in that setting are supposed to be heroes fighting against evil. However, I do think that having evil characters or potentially disruptive PrC's (the Frenzied Berserker quickly comes to mind) can add some flavor to the game. My group generally doesn't like the FB because yes, once the enemies are dead (which my Barb/FB characters usually can make swift work of) they have a nasty habit of attacking friends. What do they do? Make contingency plans, such as Calm Emotions, or just staying the hell away from the frenzying madman until he goes unconscious. With the previous DM, if there wasn't a rogue, we didn't get punished for it. He just wouldn't toss as many traps our way, or other rogue-only obstacles. We had two Paladins in the party, a Fighter/Wizard, a Bard, a Cleric/Radiant Servant and a fire elemental-type guy, who happened to be evil. The Paladins were going to deal with the fire guy, but he did save the Paladins from drowning, and from other death. They worked out a peace agreement, and he was going to atone and become neutral. Party balance is what you make of it. I do not see that D&D promotes adverse behavior in any way, as it is written. Certain DM's and players may promote so-called bad behavior soley based on how they act at the table. With the Living Greyhawk game that gets run every other weekend, we end up having a lot of one-timers show up and play, mostly young kids. We invite them in, and they have a blast. Some of them show up more often, and that's great. I like showing the kids that D&D is a fun and social activity, and helps build up mental faculties and social skills. We have to tone the language down, but that's no biggie.
The Ubbergeek 07-31-06, 11:46 AM	But yeah, you allowed the Paladin, with thier whole 'everyone has to do as my alignment says or I either PK you or lose my powers', shtick, so you get what you deserve with Exalted cheese and FBs. The paladin is LG, not CG. It have honor, and would not go PK for disagreements, unless the party is wholly and nastyly evil. That's a bad rpging probllem, not a class problem.
OravennasBrother 07-31-06, 11:54 AM	ANY class/concept can break a team. I once joined a group and asked th DM if they needed a fighter. He said sure. Then I asked about the setting and was told that it was feudal Europe like 12th century France and Britain. I asked if my figther could be a Knight. Again I got an OK. Finished creating the character and play commenced. Stereotypical group meets at an inn (the inn of the colored noun) I walk in and say "Landlord, I need lodging for myself and my squire, stabling for our steeds, and suppers and wine." I drop some coins on the table erady to meet the rest of the party. A voice breaks in "Kinghts are all scum, I don't like you, get out of this Inn." One of the other players. He just happened to be playing a fighter who hated knights. Me - "Quiet man I'm trying to enjoy some wine here." Him -"Make me you pansy." Me - "Innkeeper send for the guards and have this man whipped for his insolence." Everyone else at the table :confused: Me - ooc - "12th century Britain and France remember. I can have him whipped for rudeness." DM 'Well you're in neutral territory and they don't have those sort of laws." I imagine you can guess the pattern - the otehr player insisted that his character WOULD NOT be polite, or even marginally civil, to any knight in the party. Period. THe DM insisted that the other guy had the right to play his character as he saw fit and in party combat would not be tolerated. me :confused: The point is that there is no need for a specific class to disrupt play. Just a disruptive player and a permissive DM. Never have seen the Frenzied Berserker, but I am familiar with paladins. I've seen badly played paladins be a drain on the group, and well played paladins be an aid. It's not the class of the character. It's the lack of class of the player.
razorboy 07-31-06, 12:28 PM	Heh, well put Oravennas, lack of class indeed. Blame the player who plays an alignment in a disruptive way, and blame the DM for allowing the player to get away with it. Don't blame the designers and don't play the alignment. Haven't it ever occured to you TarlSS that FB might've been designed as a prestige class suitable to NPCs as well? Alignments such as LE, NE and CE aren't in the game just so that the players could play evil characters, they're also in the game so that there is a mechanical way of dealing with villains (so that protection from evil, smite evil, etc work). I've played in games where the party had to be non-evil and non CN and some players still managed to be disruptive. Now I'm playing in a game where the whole party is different shades of evil and we haven't run into any disruptions whatsoever. It's all about the people you play with, not the game itself.
savant_warlord13 07-31-06, 12:33 PM	If you ask me, penalties like the ones posedby a frenzied berserker are just more challenges to be overcome. I would deal with a frenzied berserker in the party with the following custom magic item Rod of safety Each rod of safety is keyed to a small stone called a keystone. It creates a resilient sphere effect around the keystone when you speak the command word. The resilient sphere does not move with the keystone. You may end the resilient sphere effect immediately by speaking the command word again. If the Keystone is more than 100 feet away, speaking the command word doesn't do anything. Just put the keystone in the frenzied berserker's backpack! As a DM, I would rule that this will run you up about 28000 gp. You could deduct this from the frenzied berserker's share of the treasure. I already fixed the problem anyway!
a_psh 07-31-06, 12:41 PM	I already fixed the problem anyway!No, you just threw money at it.
savant_warlord13 07-31-06, 12:44 PM	No, you just threw money at it. While I admit that throwing money at problems doesn't solve all of them, it does solve this one.
Raj 07-31-06, 12:52 PM	I would like to add that I really like playing Chaotic Neutral characters. I see my thus aligned characters as being, for the most part, entirely self serving and somewhat selfish. But thats not to say they lack a sense of comradeship and would randomly betray their fellows, they may even find themselves fighting for a higher and noble cause...because it satisfies some desire within them to be somesort of hero, despite lacking a genuine desire to be a good person. Of course this varies extensively from CN to CN, the alignments arent rigid.
Renvale999 07-31-06, 01:31 PM	OP has got anger issues...dude, D&D is a game....a game....wait, let me rinse and repeat, it's a game. Guess what, no matter how mad ya get, the only person who can change how the game is played is the person running the game....you don't want something in your game, don't allow it. Not enough role-playing, encourage it. Player being disruptive, deal with it. Player wants to play a crazy class, simply say...wait for it.....NO. Not all that hard really. For me, no psionics, no grappling and everyone gets along (no killing other party members) that's the way I run and if the guys playing want something different, I tell them to start their own campaign and put 12-14 hours of work into it a week. Nuff Said.
getgoldcardsoul 07-31-06, 01:33 PM	[;)] Doesn't all the flaming going on in this thread kinda... well... prove the OP's topic right? Let's take a look at this in more depth. First, we must declare our givens. Given 1: We're all here for D&D. Anyone flaming here who doesn't play D&D would be a silly, silly unthinkable extrapolation and thus, can be disregarded. Given 2: "Ownage" has been declared. Already. [Monarch-mode] Come on! This is a joke, right? On the first freakin' page even! I shouldn't even have to mention how ludicrous it is to think that debunking a single line of the OP defeats the entire post! What's next? Someone'll be "owned" because they used the wrong homonym of "to," "too" or "two?" You know what? You can have the Internet, I don't even want it anymore! [/Monarch-mode] I'll let that one pass right over a few heads. Given 3: You will leave $10,000 in wooden nickels in a burlap sack underneath the oak tree on 95th and Harlem. Given 4: Some people are already debating against the OP by simplifying his motives as jealously. Wh...what?! Isn't that like... the 14-year-old-high-school-girlest trick in the book? Come on! You guys can argue better than that! Given 5: Someone will undoubtedly have thought to respond sarcastically to this very post, mocking it by giving a list of givens followed by insults. Ouch, that's nasty! May I have another? Given 6: Sorry, zen, modern science tells us that a tree falling in the forest, regardless of anyone being around to hear it, WILL indeed make noise. Just because you cover your eyes and plug your ears and cry for mammy don't mean no tree ain't screaming. Given 7: Making a snippy retort against sarcasm is not in of itself sarcasm. Sarcasm requires irony. Only the "Hardy Har" part and the rollseyes smiley was hypocritical. You get half-credit. Now that we have our facts straight, let's begin the logical mathematics. Given One (1) added to Givens 4 (Four) and Too (To) with the predicted possibility of Given Five (5) equals Rightitude! ...or twelve. [/;)] As for the OP, I agree to an extent. I don't assume you meant that all such classes should be removed from everyone's gameplay, but... well... in fact, you should keep them, if only as bait. You can tell which new players will act like jackasses because of those alignments/classes. If one picks those and consistently ruins the fun for others within the first few sessions, talk to him outside of the game. If he refuses to stop, then you, sir, have found a jackass! Proceed with kicking 'em out and getting new players. Now if this is a group of friends where one person is acting like this and you can't kick them out, then banning the offending class/alignment is the correct action, in my opinion. Is it a flaw in the design? I suppose it could be. The designers could have thought about jackassery in their process, but they either didn't or ignored it because the flavor of the class or preservation of an old alignment system was interesting to them. So its left to the DM to make the call. Personally, I feel that the Frenzied Berserker (and I don't mind that you call it a frenzied barbarian, the small error doesn't frickin' discredit you and I can't even imagine why it would) has the glaring problem of effectively "dominating" themselves against the party; however, the party is a team, as you say, and should work together to create measures to desist such a strong, damage-dealing behemoth who could very well be a great asset to the party. There are many examples of elements of D&D being counter-productive to the team effort that I'm sure you're aware of, not just the frenzied berserker or the alignment problems, but we can't nip 'em all. I'm sure someone can act like a jerk with something as innocuous as a message spell, but I figure if a PC constantly hurts the team effort and how much fun the players are having, there needs to be a talk. If that fails, then a boot or a house rule is called for.
RadicalTaoist 07-31-06, 06:47 PM	As has been stated before: Do not tell others how to play the game. Why? In the pursuit of learning, every day something is acquired. In the pursuit of Dao, everyday something is dropped. Less and less is done until non-action is achieved. When nothing is done, nothing is left undone. The world is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interference. The Tao Te Ching, chapter 48.