Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Khadmus 10-22-07, 08:12 PM	Though I'm not sure if this is allowed, I see no reason why it shouldn't be... There was a thread with a similar name to this one that (apparently) degenerated into quite an ugly debacle and was closed by Wizo Brak. I hope to start off this version on a more civil note. Well, first off, there's the classic "I'm Chaotic Neutral!" For a variation on that theme, I once had a DM accept "My alignment is Chaotic Douchebag" as an excuse. I swear.
Mock26 10-22-07, 08:42 PM	The lamest excuse I have ever heard is the tired old, "It is what my character would do!" Now, to clarify, that phrase can be very truthful and used in a good way. What I'm talking about is when a player has his character do something that is very disruptive or detrimental to the group and then pulls out that excuse to justify his actions.
The_Wild_King 10-22-07, 08:53 PM	I had a CG fighter one time who was confronted by the BBEG from across a crowded city square. I set it up on the mat and he said, "Hey, if i use cleaving charge on the commoners, could i reach him in one turn?" Me: Dude, you'd be killing, like, 12 people to get to him. Him: Well, they are dying for a greater cause... Me: ...You know you're gonna be bumped to neutral at the least, right? Him: What?! But i'm Chaotic! i should totally be allowed to do that! Me: :uh-huh: Yeah...
LCD2YOU 10-22-07, 09:06 PM	There should be an "Excuses DMs make" thread as well. My personal favorite is when a player in my game went up to a keep and tried to walk through the front door. Actually it was the main gate but I digress. When his character was quickly surrounded by armed guards, he protested saying, "How do they know I'm not supposed to be here!?"
Guardian1 10-23-07, 12:30 AM	The lamest excuse I have ever heard is the tired old, "It is what my character would do!" Now, to clarify, that phrase can be very truthful and used in a good way. What I'm talking about is when a player has his character do something that is very disruptive or detrimental to the group and then pulls out that excuse to justify his actions. Oh, don't I know that. That phrase, along with "Fire in the hole" (WOW campaign, long story, don't want to talk about it, don't ask) have spawned numer bad gaming moments.
AffableDoomwalker 10-23-07, 01:06 AM	"I hate orcs, and I hate Grummsh, so I really hate Joe's Half-Orc, so I attacked him..." "... well how was I supposed to know he didn't worship Grummsh?!" ^- Excuse used after an attempt to PK another PC's barbarian due to out of game conflicts.
Shadowhowler 10-23-07, 01:09 AM	I feal that RAW is used as an excuse too often to do things that common sense should tell people is not right. A lot of lopholes slip threw the cracks... and some people delight in finding ways to use those loopholes for character power. Bugs me.
CCS 10-23-07, 02:29 AM	Me (as DM): What?! why? Player: I'm Cid. Cid was the players nickname in real life. And in real life Cid was as chaotic-stupid as you could get. I acctepted his excuse. Afterall, I KNEW Cid would have done exactly what he'd just told me his character was doing. So it was 100% plausable that a fantasy vesion of Cid would as well.... Anyways, as the DM my jobs to simply apply the consequences.... He may well not have suffered in the real world, but that's not the case in MY realm. :)
albinomonkeyking 10-23-07, 02:59 AM	Ya know... this isn't about in game but it was a Player and he was addressing me as the DM. We took a short break (at my house) and I got up to get myself some food. As the break started I jumped up and said, "Chip time!" and went to get myself a snack. (We have a rule of not eating each others food on a regular basis because it can get so costly.) So I get a big bowl of Doritos and set it on the table to play. As I pick up my papers and reassess where we were I see one of my players shoveling my Doritos into his mouth. Me: HEY! What the hell are you doing? He stops with another Dorito in front of his mouth and says innocently, "But you said it was chip time." I have never gone so quickly from anger to laughter.
Mock26 10-23-07, 03:54 AM	Oh, don't I know that. That phrase, along with "Fire in the hole" (WOW campaign, long story, don't want to talk about it, don't ask) have spawned numer bad gaming moments. I think what I hate most about "It is what my character would do" is that so many people who say this honestly don't see that even if it is what their character would do that they themselves are ultimately responsible for everything that their character does.
LCD2YOU 10-23-07, 10:27 AM	Is it just my experience or is the phrase, "It is what my character would do", come from CN characters (who are more CE - but that's another thread) or players who are of the same alignment?
Drag0nUL 10-23-07, 11:56 AM	I think what I hate most about "It is what my character would do" is that so many people who say this honestly don't see that even if it is what their character would do that they themselves are ultimately responsible for everything that their character does. Indeed. But many people don't play characters that mirror their real life personalities. Not too many of the guys that have played CE serial killers are serial killers themselves. The problem is that quite a few people, especially inexperienced players, don't always make the difference between player personality and character personality. And this is when 'that's what my character would do' becomes necessary to explain things. For example, I think my real life actions would be worthy of a CG in D&D terms (I usually make efforts to keep everyone happy and have a well-known disrespect for rules; rules that are not enforced in any significant way that is.). This time I was playing somewhat of an avatar of lawfulness, (his alignment was just L, not LG,LN or LE as he would do absolutely anything his superior authority would ask him to regardless of moral implications, from feeding stray kittens to butchering women&children)an ex-paladin that had sacrificed everything for his king and country, and now only lived to serve them. One of my best friends had just been introduced to the game and was playing a CG elf cleric. We had a disagreement upon the fate of a magic item. He had been sent by his church to retrieve it, while I was on a mission to just kill the guy that owned it. As things came to pass, we had to take shelter into a castle belonging to the kingdom I was serving. The lord(who was technically the military superior of my paladin) decided to keep the said magic item as he thought it was quite valuable for the good of the kingdom(a false assumtion, but he couldn't be talked out of it). The elf, knowing that in real life I would let it pass, as a solution that pleased everybody, made himself scarce with the item during the night. He later sent my character a message where they could meet, and he was very surprised when my character came with a significant number of soldiers and dragged him back in chains.
eue 10-23-07, 12:36 PM	"Because they are kobolds!" That's quite an argument don't you think. Just after he attacked a group of peaceful kobolds chatting with one another as soon as the rogue opened the door to their hall. LG exalted character.... Oh, kobolds! Let's take them down!!! Yupeee!
Mock26 10-23-07, 01:22 PM	Indeed. But many people don't play characters that mirror their real life personalities. Not too many of the guys that have played CE serial killers are serial killers themselves. The problem is that quite a few people, especially inexperienced players, don't always make the difference between player personality and character personality. And this is when 'that's what my character would do' becomes necessary to explain things. For example, I think my real life actions would be worthy of a CG in D&D terms (I usually make efforts to keep everyone happy and have a well-known disrespect for rules; rules that are not enforced in any significant way that is.). This time I was playing somewhat of an avatar of lawfulness, (his alignment was just L, not LG,LN or LE as he would do absolutely anything his superior authority would ask him to regardless of moral implications, from feeding stray kittens to butchering women&children)an ex-paladin that had sacrificed everything for his king and country, and now only lived to serve them. One of my best friends had just been introduced to the game and was playing a CG elf cleric. We had a disagreement upon the fate of a magic item. He had been sent by his church to retrieve it, while I was on a mission to just kill the guy that owned it. As things came to pass, we had to take shelter into a castle belonging to the kingdom I was serving. The lord(who was technically the military superior of my paladin) decided to keep the said magic item as he thought it was quite valuable for the good of the kingdom(a false assumtion, but he couldn't be talked out of it). The elf, knowing that in real life I would let it pass, as a solution that pleased everybody, made himself scarce with the item during the night. He later sent my character a message where they could meet, and he was very surprised when my character came with a significant number of soldiers and dragged him back in chains. I'm not talking about something like a player running a character of Chaotic Evil alignment or doing something that that player would never do in real life (such as stealing something or stabbing someone in the back and murdering them). As I said in my first post there are times when the phrase is perfectly acceptable. What I am talking about are those times when the character does something very disruptive or detrimental to the group dynamics and then pulls out that phrase. For example, I was once in a group where one of the players created a dwarf who's background story included his family being killed by marauding orcs and that this dwarf would kill all orcs on sight. At one point we came across an orc who was dressed all in white robes, had a VERY large symbol of Lathander embroidered on the front of this robes, and was leading a procession of similarly dressed humanoids, most of whom were human but some of whom were dwarves and elves. They were all unarmed. The orc eloquently hailed the group in common. Well, the dwarf attacked and killed the orc cleric (they were all first level). When the entire group of players complained, the player merely said, "It's what my character would have done." The cleric in our group was a follower of Lathander so the dwarf would have known what the symbol meant. To this day the player still refuses to take responsbility for his actions. Yes, his character is the one who committed murder, but the player is the one who decided that the character would kill the orc and the player needs to take responsibility for that. And, No, I'm not saying the player is a murderer or has the mentality of a murderer. He just did something really stupid that was detrimental to the group dynamic, both that of the characters and that of the players, and he needs to accept that it was his actions, not that of the character, that caused the problem.
Dog_O_War 10-23-07, 02:07 PM	Originally posted by Mock26 I'm not talking about something like a player running a character of Chaotic Evil alignment or doing something that that player would never do in real life (such as stealing something or stabbing someone in the back and murdering them). As I said in my first post there are times when the phrase is perfectly acceptable. What I am talking about are those times when the character does something very disruptive or detrimental to the group dynamics and then pulls out that phrase. For example, I was once in a group where one of the players created a dwarf who's background story included his family being killed by marauding orcs and that this dwarf would kill all orcs on sight. At one point we came across an orc who was dressed all in white robes, had a VERY large symbol of Lathander embroidered on the front of this robes, and was leading a procession of similarly dressed humanoids, most of whom were human but some of whom were dwarves and elves. They were all unarmed. The orc eloquently hailed the group in common. Well, the dwarf attacked and killed the orc cleric (they were all first level). When the entire group of players complained, the player merely said, "It's what my character would have done." The cleric in our group was a follower of Lathander so the dwarf would have known what the symbol meant. To this day the player still refuses to take responsbility for his actions. Yes, his character is the one who committed murder, but the player is the one who decided that the character would kill the orc and the player needs to take responsibility for that. And, No, I'm not saying the player is a murderer or has the mentality of a murderer. He just did something really stupid that was detrimental to the group dynamic, both that of the characters and that of the players, and he needs to accept that it was his actions, not that of the character, that caused the problem. I don't know how the actual situation went down, but dwarven hate of orcs runs longer and deeper than their trust in newly found adventuring comrades. This situation sounded pretty justified actually; might have sucked for the game - but the one who needed to know that he would kill orcs on sight still threw this situation in there. That's like asking the player mid-game if he'd change his character's persona and alignment because it suited the story. Originally posted by General Akbar It's a trap! hehe but that's just my opinion. disregard as often as needed.
RobbyPants 10-23-07, 02:47 PM	Actuall, the worst excuses I tend to see are out-of-game. Typically it has something to do with that players not taking time to level their PC during the entire week between sessions. Somehow, as a DM, I manage to find time to write a freaking adventure! Thus, I tend to have no sympathy (and thus not care about any excuse) for players who didn't level their PC.
Mock26 10-23-07, 04:41 PM	I don't know how the actual situation went down, but dwarven hate of orcs runs longer and deeper than their trust in newly found adventuring comrades. This situation sounded pretty justified actually; might have sucked for the game - but the one who needed to know that he would kill orcs on sight still threw this situation in there. That's like asking the player mid-game if he'd change his character's persona and alignment because it suited the story. My example was just one example. Another could be if a player decides, for no reason at all, that his character hates halflings. Or, a player gives his paladin a fear of horses. Or, a player creates a character who is a Chaotic Evil serial killer who then kills off sleeping party members. Or, any just about anything else. Given that nearly every single aspect of the character is created/decided upon by the palyer and given that monsters can now be played not only as characters but with alignments different from the rest of their species, the "traditional" hatred that dwarves have towards orcs does not have to be part of the character's background. My point is that every single action of the character is decided upon either directly or indirectly by the player. And if it is an aspect that is considered "traditional" or "normal" per the rules or the game setting (such as dwarvish animosity towards orcs) the player still has to "agree" to accept that aspect of his character and is therefore ultimately responsible what that aspect manifests itself during a game.
Naze 10-23-07, 04:58 PM	Player is too cocky out-of-character, and thinks that because his character is well optimized, he can take anything I, as DM has set up (there's a reason there is a party, after all). He charges in or makes an idiot choice, I follow through with it, then he ends up in a jam and needs help, and/or almost dies. Subsequently, he cries: "That's ridiculous! That wouldn't happen!" Similar story: he thinks he knows the motives and methods of every other member of the party to the letter. Thus, when he gets into a fight with the CE halfling cleric for reasons of in-character resentment, he complains when another character intervenes and breaks up the fight (most of the time through knocking out one or both of the combatants). "That wouldn't happen!" "Uh ... yes, it kind of just did happen."
Con 10-23-07, 05:20 PM	Though I'm not sure if this is allowed, I see no reason why it shouldn't be... There was a thread with a similar name to this one that (apparently) degenerated into quite an ugly debacle and was closed by Wizo Brak. I hope to start off this version on a more civil note. Well, first off, there's the classic "I'm Chaotic Neutral!" For a variation on that theme, I once had a DM accept "My alignment is Chaotic Douchebag" as an excuse. I swear. *holds up Hand* I'm chaotic nuetral... I'm not a douche though, I just tend to sway in opinions on things... like killing and stuff... anyways, on topic, my friends a douche, and we were having a player V Player Moment, we wanted to see whose char. was stronger... well, we pulled out one of my maps at random, and I started with a wolf (Druid) and he saw it as not right that I get a partner... we argued for ten minutes about the animal Companion thing...
jradd777 10-23-07, 06:26 PM	"I'm Chaotic Neutral!" If this is coming from people who have been playing for a while... well, that's just disappointing. But... speaking from the perspective of someone who only recently started playing, I think I understand why newer players use this excuse so liberally. It's the "poor" choice of diction in description of alignments. Newer players will automatically relate Chaotic alignment to chaotic patterns of action. They don't realize that the word is just a marker for the opposite end of that Lawful/Chaotic spectrum... it took me a good while to master that understanding (luckily, I started playing as a LG and figured it all out by the time I tried anything else). In the case of characters who explain things based on "what their character would do." I agree with what someone else said (if this is what they meant) even if it's overall "bad" for the adventuring party, I would consider it bad RP to set a major personality characteristic and not follow through with it at every moment that presents itself, especially for a CN character (because they already flagrantly disobey common law/courtesy and have no inclination toward either good or evil). To me, it cheapens the experience for a C, N, E, character to be overruled by the player simply because the player is generally good and/or lawful and wants to promote good relations between players. If other players can't be in such a party then house-rule a restriction on alignment. Now, since the party members and the DM should already be somewhat aware with some of their attributes because they've adventured some together anyway, they should know or think up ways to stymie such negative developments before they get full-fledged out of hand. We had a guy that was a LG Cleric that hated undead, in a party with a Necromancer (technically no one knew he was a necromancer, and he always hid his alignment). When the Necromancer summoned an undead (that helped the Cleric fight other undead, and I suppose he chose to ignore that for RP character related reasons), he of course attacked it, causing the Necro to be upset, so our Bad just fascinated the both of them and stopped the fight before anyone died, later, the situation was explained and the Cleric stopped attacking the Necro's minions. No big deal, everyone's happy. I can see situations where you might be justified to dislike such an excuse but even in this case, I think it can be somewhat justified.
Mock26 10-23-07, 07:18 PM	In the case of characters who explain things based on... I feel that it is the responsibility of the players, not the DM, to work towards group harmony, both as players and through their characters. Characters have to want to stay together as a group. Therefore, in my opinion, it is up to the players to try and work as a harmonious team (or as close to harmonious as they think is necessary). If the majority of the group is going with good alingments then I think it is sign of disrespect and immaturity when someone deliberately chooses to play an alignment such as chaotic evil knowing full well that that character wouldn't fit in with the rest of the group. And, if you read my above posts, I have said that in general I don't have a problem with the phrase "it is what my character would do." What I have been saying is that I have a problem with it when players use it as an excuse so as to not take responsibility for their actions. In my above example of the dwarf and the orc priest of Lathander, the player could have easily decided that since his character adventured with a cleric of Lathander that this orc wearing the symbol of Lathander (who was also surrounded by other priests of Lathander, including some dwarves) is more than likely good and he shoudn't kill it. Sure, he can be surly and rude and hurl insults at the orc, and that would still fit in with his character, but deciding not to kill this particular orc would in no way diminish the background story of the character, nor in my opinion would I consider it bad roleplaying. Of course, I consider it really BAD roleplaying to put such broad traits into their characters ("My character will kill all orcs on sight" is, in my opinion, a bad character trait, but "My character hates orcs" is a much better one.) There is a huge difference between good roleplaying (and sticking to your background story and personality) and deliberately using your background story and personality as a tool that is disruptive to the group. All participants in the game of D&D have to make some compromises in order to ensure that the game goes as smoothly as possible. Those who chose not to are, in my opinion, just being rude, disrespectful, and immature. Again, the phrase "it is what my character would do" can be and is often used to good effect. I have no problem with that. I don't have a problem with the phrase in general. My problem is when people use it as an excuse to justify their disruptive and disrespectful and use it as a reason to not accept responsibility for their actions.
albinomonkeyking 10-23-07, 07:41 PM	I was guilty of this when my friend confront me. My fighter had mercilessly mocked his character (pushing him around and calling him useless) low level and he had brought it up later in the campaign as we were discussing his character being nicer to mine. Him: You don't remember that? You don't remember constantly talking about how weak I was and mocking me because I have like an 11 strength and calling me gay? So why is it your character is allowed to do that but mine isn't now that he is strong? Me:....Yeah, but it was different when I did it. Him: How so? Me: My character is cool.
Salla 10-24-07, 12:03 AM	If "Because it's what my character would do" is your excuse to screw up the game, you're playing the wrong character. :)
jradd777 10-24-07, 12:06 AM	My problem is when people use it as an excuse to justify their disruptive and disrespectful and use it as a reason to not accept responsibility for their actions. I understood all that, which is why I didn't spout out all the situations in which it does work. Obviously, though, we do come from two different enough concepts of this aspect of RP that we will probably just never agree. I don't think that it is solely the DM's responsibility either, what I'm saying is that if other players can't put up with one or two "disruptive and disrespectful" players and/or characters, find some way to work out these issues well, through realistic role-playing, then the fault doesn't only rest on those one or two annoying jerks. When the LG Cleric attacked an undead and the Necromancer defended his creation, they were both doing exactly what their character would do and BOTH of them were being disruptive (however both of their character works well in the group up until this one situation, with these built in generalizations). Our whole party responded to stop the disturbance, the first one to be quickly successful was the Bard who fascinated them, but really, everyone was ready to help the situation and it was resolved in an extremely realistic manner, without meta-gaming a real-life need to "keep the group together." You're not supposed to be you as a player at the table, you're supposed to BE your character. True, it's not a great idea to play the one CE thief in a group of a paladin, cleric, and favored soul who are all LG. But all of them can act completely true to their alignment in functional ways, without resorting to their players' personalities "stepping in" to get along for the good of the gaming group. Again, I completely understand what you're saying... I just disagree on the grounds that I think that what you are doing is a form of meta-gaming. If it works for you great! But it cheapens my experience for people to do that at my gaming table, which could also be viewed as "disruptive and disrespectful." I'm just trying to point out a point of view that I haven't really seen represented much in this thread... Does no one else see such actions, as downplaying your character's true personality, as meta-gaming? Geez, I could write so much more on this subject but I'm deleting it, I don't want to get preachy... like I said, I just want to show an important reason to defend that particular excuse in a couple of the situations that you are saying it is a bad excuse. I could name several situations where it is just a bad excuse but some of the ones you are talking about, wouldn't be, IMO. I will at least acknowledge that I'm most assuredly wrong from your idea of RP and meta-gaming, though. Fortunately, your opinion of those aren't the only one out there.
Saiyamantis 10-24-07, 01:17 AM	You're not supposed to be you as a player at the table, you're supposed to BE your character. Quoted for truth. I had a fellow player in a Ravenloft game whose character was basically a halfling duplicate of herself and fled from anything that was icky, undead or rodentlike on the grounds that it might look at her. Even docking her XP didn't convince her to participate in combat. Needless to say, she didn't stay in our group for long.
Suzaku455 10-24-07, 01:55 AM	Quoted for truth. I had a fellow player in a Ravenloft game whose character was basically a halfling duplicate of herself and fled from anything that was icky, undead or rodentlike on the grounds that it might look at her. Even docking her XP didn't convince her to participate in combat. Needless to say, she didn't stay in our group for long. If it happens to be undead I would have the party leave the area and not come back. However if the DM wants an undead campaign I would not bother with a rogue even if the area is filled with traps. Wait never mind if I can get weapons that functions like grave strike on each hit.
Mock26 10-24-07, 02:14 AM	You're not supposed to be you as a player at the table, you're supposed to BE your character. That is very true. But, in my opinion, you cannot fully seperate the two. When you get right down to it even if you ARE the character while at the table the player is still there and that player is still responsible for all actions of the character.
bobothechimp 10-24-07, 02:25 AM	I've dropped "It's what my character would do" or "It's in character" a bunch of times, usually when my completely ridiculous should-be-a-paladin-but-couldn't-because-he-attacks-too-many people-for-doing-things-he-considers-evil psychic warrior attacks someone for doing things he considers evil. I have no idea why he hasn't died yet.
Thecolorblue 10-24-07, 03:14 AM	"If you see someone in a tree, don't say hi, we're in hostile territory" Said when my half-orc (played simple minded, with occasional flashes of insight so I have a good in-game reason to NOT do something stupid) greeted a humanoid figure in a tree. Seriously, did the group think he didn't see us? What harm would it do to say hi when he obviously was on watch. At worst it would have alerted the rest of the group that didn't make the spot check. At best it would have lead to a new ally.
jradd777 10-24-07, 03:29 AM	That is very true. But, in my opinion, you cannot fully seperate the two. When you get right down to it even if you ARE the character while at the table the player is still there and that player is still responsible for all actions of the character. Right... I understand your argument... I, personally, see that mentality as irrelevant at the sessions I've played with my group. Our characters take full responsibility for their actions because that's who the players are while they play (ipso facto, the players take responsibility). The way I play, that way of thinking is arbitrary, the middle man is cut out. To add that extra dimension, of us still being ourselves separate from the characters, only makes the fantasy experience less rich. It's a different approach, mutually exclusive from yours (apples and oranges, pal), which, as I have said, I understand and agree that it must be what is best for your group. I and my group just don't like it and don't need it to have a good functional game. I'm just trying to make sure that other people aren't thinking that your way is the only way. Good day, sir.
Drag0nUL 10-24-07, 06:52 AM	You're not supposed to be you as a player at the table, you're supposed to BE your character. True, it's not a great idea to play the one CE thief in a group of a paladin, cleric, and favored soul who are all LG. But all of them can act completely true to their alignment in functional ways, without resorting to their players' personalities "stepping in" to get along for the good of the gaming group. I think this breaks down to 2 things: 1. It is usually pretty bad to bring to the table a character who has one or more traits that would be disruptive to the party. You can very well play a CE rogue in a group of paladins, I even saw thins done; the guy was manipulating everyone (in game) into doing what he wanted; lying, forgery, stealing, planting fake evidence etc. and he was smart enough not to get caught. However, bringing a dwarf who hates orcs in a game where you know 3 people would play orc characters is just bad IMHO. 2. If you have a character that has several disruptive traits, downplaying them without a good in-game reason just for the sake of the aprty is bad roleplaying.
Infernostrider 10-24-07, 09:11 AM	The lamest excuse I have ever heard is the tired old, "It is what my character would do!" Now, to clarify, that phrase can be very truthful and used in a good way. What I'm talking about is when a player has his character do something that is very disruptive or detrimental to the group and then pulls out that excuse to justify his actions. neutral evil doesn't NEED to disrupt groups, and if roleplayed correctly a paladin can function quite well in an all evil group :o
Drinkie 10-25-07, 12:06 AM	Pirate: *while holding cutlass to unconscious Duskblade's throat* Drop the weapon or your friend is toast! Paladin: (OoG: He's bluffing, I'd be able to kill them all even if he does that, and he knows it.) *slashes at the pirate next to him again* Pirate: *coup de grace* DM: You just lost all your paladin abilities. >_> Paladin: WHAT?!?! Bull****! How was I supposed to know he was for real?! Duskblade: That's what sense motive is for, you douche.
Slivvy Gaidin 10-25-07, 10:45 AM	my players' general responses are -after killing some monsters/warriors/innocents "They were coming right at us!" -after causing wanton mayhem "Its OK - we're adventurers"
Prator_The_Golden 10-25-07, 08:42 PM	"You all saw it! That orphanage attacked me!"
Enmarnacu 10-25-07, 10:03 PM	A variation on the "It's what my character would do!" "It's what my character would do, according to RAW." Oh, and the bane of the DM when players discover fancy powers, like controlling three times your HD in undead minions, indefinitely: "Because I can."
Alter_Boy 10-26-07, 12:30 AM	Indeed. But many people don't play characters that mirror their real life personalities. Not too many of the guys that have played CE serial killers are serial killers themselves. From my experience, most of these people would be serial killers if it had better pay and job security than Burger King. At least your players make excuses. I've had PCs do things to NPCs found in the Book of Vile Darkness, and ask me MY excuse for why that can't do it.
Cartigan 10-26-07, 12:46 AM	"You all saw it! That orphanage attacked me!" If that was real, I bet there was a pretty good story that that is the punchline of.
Ysara 10-27-07, 01:46 AM	If that was real, I bet there was a pretty good story that that is the punchline of. http://www.lfgcomic.com/ The quote is tangential (I think it's actually from an ad for one of the dead tree versions), but Richard is hilarious. Chaotic evil the way its supposed to be done.
Enmarnacu 10-27-07, 03:35 PM	http://www.lfgcomic.com/ The quote is tangential (I think it's actually from an ad for one of the dead tree versions), but Richard is hilarious. Chaotic evil the way its supposed to be done. Richard makes me want to play a CE character sooo badly. "We never do what I want to do."
Dei 10-27-07, 08:53 PM	This was actually an excuse made in character from the scout to the paladin. The Scout: "I've no idea what it was but I could taste the evil around it. It seemed like it had just eaten, I saw what looked like the remnants of a battle around it. Probably the flashes we saw earlier." The Paladin: "It had just commited acts of murder and you let it escape to return here? Why did you not at least lure it to us?" The Scout: "Because it was fifteen feet tall, had red scales, horns and was carrying a sword bigger than me plus I'm pretty sure it was breathing acid, that's why!" Paladin's response was pretty much: "Fair enough, I'll give you that one." As for player excuses: "My character's a mercenary, if this guy wants to bribe him, he's all ears." Of course the guy in question was a devil (which the player and character were both aware of) so... yeah... that ended well for him.
Uchiha_Arthas 10-28-07, 01:32 PM	I dont have a story as a DM but I do have a story of a CN Elven Beguiler that I played. My Char and his party got plane shifted to Greyhawk, so the Beguiler went wondering around the city by his lonesome. He started feeling hungry and noticed that a nearby chapel of St. Cuthbert was handing out food. (They were handing out food to the poor.) So in he went and asked for food. They looked him over (he was wearing rich merchent/Noble clothes) and refused to give him food. Even when he offered a gold piece in exchange. The elf got annoyed, muttered something about stupid humans and said that they could feed 10 people for the single gold coin he was offering for a bowl of what was basically slop. St. Cuthbert Priests were un-amused and refused again. At this point the CN Elf offered 10 gp in exchange for a bowl of slop to first person who accepted. Un-surprisingly he almost got stampeded. Anyway he accepted a bowl, gave the money to first person and left. On the way out he gave the bowl to the last poor person in the line to get in. Muttering how his appatite was gone from dealing with stupid humans who didn't seem to make any sense. My DM described that there seemed to be some sort of fight going on in the church (the guy with the gp was getting mugged and the Priests were trying to stop it.) and also said if by some miracle the guy wasn't mugged when he left the chapel, he would probably die from all the booze he would buy. I replied if that was the person's choice then so be it.
LCD2YOU 10-29-07, 07:31 PM	Pirate: *while holding cutlass to unconscious Duskblade's throat* Drop the weapon or your friend is toast! Paladin: (OoG: He's bluffing, I'd be able to kill them all even if he does that, and he knows it.) *slashes at the pirate next to him again* Pirate: *coup de grace* DM: You just lost all your paladin abilities. >_> Paladin: WHAT?!?! Bull****! How was I supposed to know he was for real?! Duskblade: That's what sense motive is for, you douche.WTF is that? Another favorite that I overheard (but I have heard previously) from players: "How did I know that the <insert treasure here> was guarded by <insert some guardian, trap, widget or other protector> that could only be defeated by the use of <insert fantastic weapon, sprig of parsley, bat guano, etc here>? Would you believe lucky guess?"
TarlSS 10-30-07, 01:42 PM	A player takes responsibility for what his character does in as much a writer takes responsibility for what he writes. JK Rowling writes Harry Potter. Dumbledore is gay and there's a big controversy. Is that Dumbledore's fault? No, Dumbledore is a fictional construct. It's JK Rowling who takes all the blame (Or credit). Same thing. Your character does something douche. It ruins the game in the real world. Does that mean your character takes responsibility for it? No, it means you do. You cannot assign blame to something that is a fictional construct, that would be like blaming Anakin Skywalker for making the Star Wars prequals suck. No, it was George Lucas, not Anakin Skywalker. Fiction is not a shield, as much as you wish it to be. You are not supposed to "BE" your character, D&D is not method acting, and even method actors need to take responsibility for making the movie suck. People get unhappy because the game bites, not because of events inside the game. If unfortunate things occur and they're accepted, that's because they were done well.
NightHawkFalconis 10-30-07, 01:55 PM	Here's one I got a while back: "Well, according to [player's name]'s brother, who's a physicist and chemist, ANYTHING is literally possible because of this stuff called 'strange matter.' So, even though the gnome wizard watched the rogue remove the wizard's belongings from the drawer and put them in his pocket, the rogue should still get a bluff check to make the wizard believe he had not just seen what he had, in fact, just seen." Another pair of favorites in my current campaign: "But my Bluff modifier is a +74." "But my Diplomacy modifier is a +28." Lesson of the day: when you get something factually wrong in a lie, you pretty much fail at life. Lesson of the day #2: yes, he's friendly, but he will not just give you a 4000 gp value cloak out of the goodness of his heart.
Jarsallen 10-30-07, 03:29 PM	Off topic in a fashion because it's not actually something funny players say, but... "Another pair of favorites in my current campaign: "But my Bluff modifier is a +74."" ...Lesson of the day: when you get something factually wrong in a lie, you pretty much fail at life. I feel like, as written, the bluff skill is meant to be used in lieu of roleplaying, and not as a supplement for it. What I mean is that if I'm playing a sneaky rogue who walks up to a total stranger and I roleplay a long spiel about how the sky is actually green, and why it is green as a result of X and Y, and how the stranger perceives as blue due to an illusion, etc etc, and then the DM calls for a bluff check, I'm no better off than if I walked up to an NPC and looked my DM in the eye and said "I'm bluffing him so that he thinks the sky is green." Likewise, the fighter who elaborately describes his attack, referencing the arc of his blade, and his stance, and how he moves just so in order to strike like a master, etc etc still has to roll an attack roll. So really the question with a bluff check isn't 'How are you doing that?', because the answer always is 'The way a person with a +26 bluff would? I'm not a good liar. My character is.'. The question is only what DC the player needs to make in order to fool the mark. Convincing an NPC that the sky is actually green may well be a DC 50 check (plus the Sense motive of the mark). But it's a DC. If a PC tweaks out his character to a +78 bluff, then when he lies he so effectively gets in his mark's head that the mark has no idea which way is up- like Hannibal Lecter convincing the guy in the cell next to him to commit suicide, a person with a +78 bluff warps a person's view of reality with his words and mannerisms. Any other reading of the skill imposes a strange double standard on it, such that though a DM will never ask a PC to describe how he's tumbling around a square threatened by an ogre, or what a PC is doing to heal a poisoned wound, they will ask a player precisely how he's convincing a stranger that he's actually a red dragon and the stranger should give up his daughter lest the character burninate the whole familiy.