A little problem of opinion [Archive] - Wizards Community

A little problem of opinion [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
DamianRaider
03-01-04, 08:29 PM I've been playing a paladin, only because all my other favorite classes were taken. So, I decided to take paladin. But I've recently been playing him rather submissive and quiet, and it's been getting on people's nerves when the chaotic neutral druid is doing more heroic things than I am.

My question is, should I:

A. Change him into lawful stupid(bad). Start lashing out at anything I see as evil without even casting 'detect evil', get really uptight, and so on, and annoy the hell out of the DM.

B. Keep playing him submissive, and be the backup guy everyone depends on, and annoy the hell out of everyone.

C.(My favorite) Change him to lawful stupid(good). Run into rooms yelling 'JIHAD!', donate large sums of treasure to churches, treat everything not directly evil as cute and harmless, be patronizing, speak in an old english accent, and annoy the hell out of everyone trying to take the campaign seriously.
eRaz0r
03-01-04, 08:32 PM Umm.. Why ?

or are you a troll ?

You can play the strong silent type and still be LG you know.
Why are the other players bothered ?
Why do you hang out with louts like this anyway ? CN Druids ? Maniacs, I say. Let them hang in the woods with the hippy elves, I'll sit here quietly contemplating my role in the universe.
DamianRaider
03-01-04, 08:38 PM No, not just quiet. I've been a wimp. Using cover to cast random spells from my Rod of Wonder, cautiously coming in at the last minute only, running around, and such. The problem is, I've had divine intervention save my ass twice. In the same encounter, because it wasn't tactical, it was wimpy. A guy jumped down dragon's throat to try and kill it from the inside. I was slashing at it's ankle.

Whenever we see anything new, I automatically fall back and use detect evil. I've played him with the flair of a field mouse.

So I figured, everyone else has their flair(Suicidal fighter, tactical fighter, leading druid, quiet ranger, crazy-tactical monk, and raging barbarian), I figured I should make my own niche, instead of being a no-persona character.
eRaz0r
03-01-04, 08:52 PM I know I suggested (in a previous post) that someone play Lawful Stupid. But that was in a game already gone to the dogs.

Do you hate your game and character ?
Does your party give you crap because you aren't the take-charge kind of guy they were expecting from a high-CHA Paladin type ?
(Does your character even have a really high CHA ?)

Anyways - I'd advise against all of those options unless you're just looking to shake things up.

A = annoyed DM AND players.
B = annoyed players (I still don't understand why they hate you). (EDIT : - ok , I get why they hate you now..heh, this was still being written before you replied to my last post)
C = dead game if the general mood of the game is more somber and serious than fun and silly.

I would suggest
D = Make a damn effort at playing a real character... not a pale imitation of a caricature.
For example : You're serious and quiet, not brash and loud. You're the quiet achiever. You don't have to be a glory hound hero running around screaming "Look at ME - I'm a damn HERO ferchrissakes". You don't have to charge in first. You can be analytical. You can quietly go around cleaning up messes. The carousing characters awake with a hangover after celebrating their latest victory to find you gone. Come to think of it, you slipped out early from the celebrations as well. Where'd you go ? Perhaps you were simply grooming your horse, and helping out at the stables so the stableboy could have a good time. Perhaps you were donating your share of the loot to the nearby church - or helping the pastor patch that hole in his roof before the rains came.
Whatever you do - you do it calmly and quietly and seriously.
You do good everywhere and sometimes anonymously. You aren't in it for the glory - but for the good. You can be stern and unwavering, especially in the face of evil. You have little tolerance for the raw "force of nature" insanity the Druid displays, but for the greater harmony of the party, you choose to hold your tongue until his actions or suggestions threaten the due process of law or the greater good. When pressed, you will make your opinions known, if you feel it will change things. But as long as you goals are aligned, you'll stay silent. It is more likely that you will silently leave the party if they stray too far on the road to chaos, although if anyone started to display traits of callousness or outright evil, you will be there to persuade them otherwise. If you can save someones soul through sheer force of example, that is your preferred method. However, well chosen arguments and direct (even violent) intervention are still weapons in your arsenal, and you are self-confident enough to use them without hesitation.

Whatever you try - put your back into it.
eRaz0r
03-01-04, 09:14 PM I'd like to add, if you're a wimp, then perhaps you've played the wrong class. Are you afraid to lose the character ? Why ? Are you invested emotionally in him ? I hate to lose a character who I've put a lot of effort into - who has a history etc. But it sounds to me like you don't really care about him... Why play him so cautiously ?
Are you being cautious because you hate to "lose" encounters etc ? Its a sort of pride thing for me - I hate being defeated tactically or strategically because it calls into question my own "mastery" of the skill of combat strategy in roleplaying games...

It sounds like there's two problems here.
1/ Your DM encourages insane behaviour. Really, attacking a dragon from inside isn't really very viable, from a "reality check" perspective. In some games this would spell an instant death sentence.
So it's a style issue. You sound like your a bit of a tactical thinker. Forget it. You don't have to be suicidal to be heroic. You could play him very cool. I know a character in a game who had a sort of Berserk curse. After many years of this affliction he had it far enough under control that he would walk effortlessly through a battlefield, cutting down foes left and right without pause. But he wasn't foaming at the mouth anymore. He was the picture of calm - a combat angel. He was very strategic - picking his ultimate targets, but he was almost unstoppable by the riff-raff between him and the BBEG. It was the most frightening thing many of his foes had ever seen..
I digress.

2/ You're afraid.
I don't know if you're afraid of your characters death - or of a pointless one. Either way, you're wimping out.. why ? The character could be so cool. He's a Paladin. He's immune to fear. The dragon should have had everyone else cowering from his fear effect. Whiffling at his ankle is something you chose to say. Do you describe his actions like this in the game ?
I mean - what's the difference between "ankle" and "hamstring" ? You could have said .. "Ignoring the overpowering fear this wyrm stirs in the hearts of normal men, I charge towards the creatures hindquarters, slashing my greatsword across its rear legs and hamstringing it. I'm continuing my unstoppable assault by running between its legs towards its less protected underbelly, holding my sword high I open up its guts to the air and become drenched with its entrails."
So that's like, 2 rounds of boring "Whiffling at the ankles" completely reworded. You didn't do anything special except make a charge attack from behind, but I bet your DM (and group) would not think it was wimpy.

You don't have to be lawful stupid to grow a pair of balls.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DamianRaider 03-01-04, 08:29 PM	I've been playing a paladin, only because all my other favorite classes were taken. So, I decided to take paladin. But I've recently been playing him rather submissive and quiet, and it's been getting on people's nerves when the chaotic neutral druid is doing more heroic things than I am. My question is, should I: A. Change him into lawful stupid(bad). Start lashing out at anything I see as evil without even casting 'detect evil', get really uptight, and so on, and annoy the hell out of the DM. B. Keep playing him submissive, and be the backup guy everyone depends on, and annoy the hell out of everyone. C.(My favorite) Change him to lawful stupid(good). Run into rooms yelling 'JIHAD!', donate large sums of treasure to churches, treat everything not directly evil as cute and harmless, be patronizing, speak in an old english accent, and annoy the hell out of everyone trying to take the campaign seriously.
eRaz0r 03-01-04, 08:32 PM	Umm.. Why ? or are you a troll ? You can play the strong silent type and still be LG you know. Why are the other players bothered ? Why do you hang out with louts like this anyway ? CN Druids ? Maniacs, I say. Let them hang in the woods with the hippy elves, I'll sit here quietly contemplating my role in the universe.
DamianRaider 03-01-04, 08:38 PM	No, not just quiet. I've been a wimp. Using cover to cast random spells from my Rod of Wonder, cautiously coming in at the last minute only, running around, and such. The problem is, I've had divine intervention save my ass twice. In the same encounter, because it wasn't tactical, it was wimpy. A guy jumped down dragon's throat to try and kill it from the inside. I was slashing at it's ankle. Whenever we see anything new, I automatically fall back and use detect evil. I've played him with the flair of a field mouse. So I figured, everyone else has their flair(Suicidal fighter, tactical fighter, leading druid, quiet ranger, crazy-tactical monk, and raging barbarian), I figured I should make my own niche, instead of being a no-persona character.
eRaz0r 03-01-04, 08:52 PM	I know I suggested (in a previous post) that someone play Lawful Stupid. But that was in a game already gone to the dogs. Do you hate your game and character ? Does your party give you crap because you aren't the take-charge kind of guy they were expecting from a high-CHA Paladin type ? (Does your character even have a really high CHA ?) Anyways - I'd advise against all of those options unless you're just looking to shake things up. A = annoyed DM AND players. B = annoyed players (I still don't understand why they hate you). (EDIT : - ok , I get why they hate you now..heh, this was still being written before you replied to my last post) C = dead game if the general mood of the game is more somber and serious than fun and silly. I would suggest D = Make a damn effort at playing a real character... not a pale imitation of a caricature. For example : You're serious and quiet, not brash and loud. You're the quiet achiever. You don't have to be a glory hound hero running around screaming "Look at ME - I'm a damn HERO ferchrissakes". You don't have to charge in first. You can be analytical. You can quietly go around cleaning up messes. The carousing characters awake with a hangover after celebrating their latest victory to find you gone. Come to think of it, you slipped out early from the celebrations as well. Where'd you go ? Perhaps you were simply grooming your horse, and helping out at the stables so the stableboy could have a good time. Perhaps you were donating your share of the loot to the nearby church - or helping the pastor patch that hole in his roof before the rains came. Whatever you do - you do it calmly and quietly and seriously. You do good everywhere and sometimes anonymously. You aren't in it for the glory - but for the good. You can be stern and unwavering, especially in the face of evil. You have little tolerance for the raw "force of nature" insanity the Druid displays, but for the greater harmony of the party, you choose to hold your tongue until his actions or suggestions threaten the due process of law or the greater good. When pressed, you will make your opinions known, if you feel it will change things. But as long as you goals are aligned, you'll stay silent. It is more likely that you will silently leave the party if they stray too far on the road to chaos, although if anyone started to display traits of callousness or outright evil, you will be there to persuade them otherwise. If you can save someones soul through sheer force of example, that is your preferred method. However, well chosen arguments and direct (even violent) intervention are still weapons in your arsenal, and you are self-confident enough to use them without hesitation. Whatever you try - put your back into it.
eRaz0r 03-01-04, 09:14 PM	I'd like to add, if you're a wimp, then perhaps you've played the wrong class. Are you afraid to lose the character ? Why ? Are you invested emotionally in him ? I hate to lose a character who I've put a lot of effort into - who has a history etc. But it sounds to me like you don't really care about him... Why play him so cautiously ? Are you being cautious because you hate to "lose" encounters etc ? Its a sort of pride thing for me - I hate being defeated tactically or strategically because it calls into question my own "mastery" of the skill of combat strategy in roleplaying games... It sounds like there's two problems here. 1/ Your DM encourages insane behaviour. Really, attacking a dragon from inside isn't really very viable, from a "reality check" perspective. In some games this would spell an instant death sentence. So it's a style issue. You sound like your a bit of a tactical thinker. Forget it. You don't have to be suicidal to be heroic. You could play him very cool. I know a character in a game who had a sort of Berserk curse. After many years of this affliction he had it far enough under control that he would walk effortlessly through a battlefield, cutting down foes left and right without pause. But he wasn't foaming at the mouth anymore. He was the picture of calm - a combat angel. He was very strategic - picking his ultimate targets, but he was almost unstoppable by the riff-raff between him and the BBEG. It was the most frightening thing many of his foes had ever seen.. I digress. 2/ You're afraid. I don't know if you're afraid of your characters death - or of a pointless one. Either way, you're wimping out.. why ? The character could be so cool. He's a Paladin. He's immune to fear. The dragon should have had everyone else cowering from his fear effect. Whiffling at his ankle is something you chose to say. Do you describe his actions like this in the game ? I mean - what's the difference between "ankle" and "hamstring" ? You could have said .. "Ignoring the overpowering fear this wyrm stirs in the hearts of normal men, I charge towards the creatures hindquarters, slashing my greatsword across its rear legs and hamstringing it. I'm continuing my unstoppable assault by running between its legs towards its less protected underbelly, holding my sword high I open up its guts to the air and become drenched with its entrails." So that's like, 2 rounds of boring "Whiffling at the ankles" completely reworded. You didn't do anything special except make a charge attack from behind, but I bet your DM (and group) would not think it was wimpy. You don't have to be lawful stupid to grow a pair of balls.