Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Keiichi_m 07-22-07, 08:49 PM	Alright so heres my deal. I have a level 12 cleric, who's out shining the rest of the group. I "Optimize" in that I don't take things that will disadvantage my character. If it looks like it fits the character and would help him out I take it. the rest of my group kinda plays sub-optimally, some intentionally some just aren't very good (it's what they enjoy so who am I to argue) but because of this discrepancy I started out out-shining them and just out preforming. It gets worse though; My character is NE so he's kinda out for himself and his god. So my character slay livinged a boss first round and said "I killed him solo I get his loot. I was expecting a bit of a grumbling acceptance but no grumbling at all just "well you deserve it cool." fast forward to the last boss, I charge in cause one of the other party members and my characters only friend was just killed by a trap set by the last boss. Everyone else stays back and debates joining me for a round and then one of them joins the other stays back for an additional 3 rounds. long story shot I wind up killing him with no help at all save for my cohort. So again my character says "I did the work I'm ripping this man limb from limb and nailing him to the dungeon walls (I was ******) and then I'm looting his remains. I expected a "Dude, one boss okay, but two?" but again nothing, they just said "Cool" so about 80, 000 gold worth of loot discrepancy later I'm WAY too good for my level. Not only that but group cohesion is down the tubes since the surviving characters were only created last session (Old players new chars) my character has no lasting bond with them yet, one of them lied to him (and I made my sense motive) and so my trust in these guys is low. So I'm stealing the spotlight now too powerful and the group isn't meshing because the only character tie died last session. How can I bridge the gap and get them doing more so that I can not be "that player" and have everyone ****** at me. This is kinda their fault, but it's mine just as much, so please don't say "Well it's their fault they should have said something" I need some real ideas as to how to rebalance the group. once that happens the rest will fall into place with role play (When I actually have to rely on them a bond will grow)
Paladin_Hiroshi 07-22-07, 09:15 PM	Talk to the guys IC, role play an evening round a campfire telling people who you are, your history or even just bragging deeds. Then to create trust, get everyone to empty out their coins into the centre, assuming they have roughly the same value of equipment, and divide it equally between everyone. This should gain you their happiness and lay foundations for further trust building... :)
DarkNick 07-22-07, 09:17 PM	Create a new character.
Kuruk 07-22-07, 09:30 PM	Remember, "It's what my character would" is no excuse for anything. You always have the option to say "Hey guys, check out all this gold, I need some help carrying it." regardless of your alignment. I'm actually a fan of the NE alignment. What you need to remember is that the best way to look out for yourself is to keep some close friends who can at least act as meatshields. Evil doesn't necessarily have to be selfish. With all that gold, you could have gone out and bought them some magic weapons or armor, or some random wondrous items (If you have "magic shops" in your world.) Thats one way to bring characters up to par. Does the rest of the group ever get involved in combat? Are they in it more for the roleplaying? Do they think optimizing is evil? Do they really want to be playing D&D? Could you give us a rough breakdown of the group? What you could have done is simply make a new character along with the rest of them. This could give you an actual reason to adventure with them. If you really don't want to ditch the character, start playing him a bit differently. Don't hog the loot, distribute it evenly. Don't go in and solo bosses. Encourage the group to follow in combat and try to nudge them into the spotlight. Just ease up and take a breather. By the way, is the DM allright with all this? He made no protests when you declared you were taking all the loot? Does he try to bring the other characters into the spotlight?
Keiichi_m 07-22-07, 09:42 PM	Remember, "It's what my character would" is no excuse for anything. You always have the option to say "Hey guys, check out all this gold, I need some help carrying it." regardless of your alignment. I'm actually a fan of the NE alignment. What you need to remember is that the best way to look out for yourself is to keep some close friends who can at least act as meatshields. Evil doesn't necessarily have to be selfish. With all that gold, you could have gone out and bought them some magic weapons or armor, or some random wondrous items (If you have "magic shops" in your world.) Thats one way to bring characters up to par. whoops I meant 80, 000 gold worth of discrepancy, that's all worth in magic items. I know evil doesn't have to be selfish, but he's kind of out to raise power to his god and he's doing that by getting himself the power to change things as he see's fit, makes him a little selfish in trying to gain that power. Does the rest of the group ever get involved in combat? Are they in it more for the roleplaying? Do they think optimizing is evil? Do they really want to be playing D&D? Could you give us a rough breakdown of the group? What you could have done is simply make a new character along with the rest of them. This could give you an actual reason to adventure with them. If you really don't want to ditch the character, start playing him a bit differently. Don't hog the loot, distribute it evenly. Don't go in and solo bosses. Encourage the group to follow in combat and try to nudge them into the spotlight. Just ease up and take a breather. Yes, yes and no, no, yes, and it's a cleric3/wizard3/true necro 6, a fighter/dervish (not sure on the levels but ecl 12) and a bard/dirgesinger/seeker of the song ECL11. And the reason that making a new character with them didn't work is cause it was a group of three, then 2 joined then the other to originals died 1 and then later the other. so it's just been a flow of characters not just a solid wall of re-writes and the DM is working on it now, he was okay with it before my power got way too out of whack, and he's trying to bring me back in line with the rest.
Roog 07-22-07, 10:28 PM	Simple suggestion (and NE appropriate): Buy their continued loyalty with gifts. Give them 25-50% of what you gain (if they do not get a share).
Mock26 07-22-07, 10:35 PM	You, the player, have complete and total discretion as to the actions of your character. You, the player, didn't have to state that you were taking all of the loot. Yes, I understand that it is "what your character would do," but that is often just an over-used (and very weak) excuse to justify a player's actions. Yes, I said player's actions. You, the player, are also the character. You have to remember that D&D is about playing as a group of people as well as about playing as a group of characters. Your character is with the group for some reason. He has to have some reason for working with them as a team or else he wouldn't be with them. Given the attitude your character put on in regards to basically "demanding" all the loot from two bosses you are playing a character who probably wouldn't be working with a group of fellow adventurers. So, you have two options. You can retire the character and create a new one who is more likely to be a team player or change your character and make him more of a team player. I'm not saying to give up your alignment or make him 100% of a team player. But, ideally, every character should be enough of a team player so that all of the characters will accept him, even if it is grudgingly. In other words, don't have your character intentionally alienate the other characters. As I said, you do have the "right" to play the character that you want. But, with that "right" also comes an obligation to create a character that won't ruin the game for the other players in your group. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
Krusk 07-22-07, 10:44 PM	attempt a conversion, spend a night preaching about how because of your god you have managed to aquire an impressive ammount of wealth. If they were to join your cause you could be pursuaded to share some of it with them, and they would then be able to possibly become as powerful/wealthy as you.
Keiichi_m 07-22-07, 10:50 PM	attempt a conversion, spend a night preaching about how because of your god you have managed to aquire an impressive ammount of wealth. If they were to join your cause you could be pursuaded to share some of it with them, and they would then be able to possibly become as powerful/wealthy as you. Oooooh perfect, I haven't done the preaching thing in a whole nor to these guys, that's perfect (that won't buy into it but still it's a start) thank you very much kind sir.
KillerGM 07-23-07, 12:05 AM	You, the player, have complete and total discretion as to the actions of your character. You, the player, didn't have to state that you were taking all of the loot. Yes, I understand that it is "what your character would do," but that is often just an over-used (and very weak) excuse to justify a player's actions. Yes, I said player's actions. You, the player, are also the character. You have to remember that D&D is about playing as a group of people as well as about playing as a group of characters. Your character is with the group for some reason. He has to have some reason for working with them as a team or else he wouldn't be with them. Given the attitude your character put on in regards to basically "demanding" all the loot from two bosses you are playing a character who probably wouldn't be working with a group of fellow adventurers. So, you have two options. You can retire the character and create a new one who is more likely to be a team player or change your character and make him more of a team player. I'm not saying to give up your alignment or make him 100% of a team player. But, ideally, every character should be enough of a team player so that all of the characters will accept him, even if it is grudgingly. In other words, don't have your character intentionally alienate the other characters. As I said, you do have the "right" to play the character that you want. But, with that "right" also comes an obligation to create a character that won't ruin the game for the other players in your group. QFT. Rather than thinking it was the other players' faults for not having their characters speak up (as you assumed), I was actually thinking it was your character that was the problematic one as I read your post. I'd suggest retiring the character, or shifting how you play him - the conversion and/or buying loyalty are good suggestions. Also, if you just want to rebalance the treasure/gold, you could give your "excess" gold to your god - since you're evil, I'm assuming your god would be. I'm sure s/he would be delighted with such a gift. That way, you get rid of the treasure in a way suiting your character, and you can work on meshing with the characters without the "unbalancing" treasure. Hope it helps! :D
LadyAlaria 07-23-07, 12:09 AM	I dislike the conversion idea. You are already hogging the spotlight. How much more will you hog it if they all join your little cult? Retire. Get a new character. Make it a class that doesn't optimize well - Bard comes to mind. Give him a backstory and a motivation besides the accumulation of wealth and power. You'll fit in the group a lot better, and get to enjoy a new way to play the game. Or, retire and find a whole new group of players.
trapspringer 07-23-07, 12:16 AM	Retire the character. He's clearly way better than these losers. Why should he hang around with them when he could do better without them slowing him down? Talk to the DM about sending your current dude off to take over a small country via some excruciatingly brilliant "drown the economy in gold" scheme. Roll up a new, party oriented character. This is good for a couple of reasons. The first is that it'll earn you the respect of all the people in your group in a way that being better than them at power gaming never will. The second is that it will improve the quality of the game for everyone involved. The third is that it will enable your character to retire undefeated (which the right way to go out). The last reason is that your character, who is clearly awesome, will see a suitably noble end as the power-house of a rich and prosperous nation.
Caelic 07-23-07, 12:23 AM	Actually, sometimes having one character step out in front and say "I'm calling the shots" can work well. I recall one campaign in particular where the party had little cohesion and there was a lot of bickering. The group's Paladin basically said, "I'm leaving the group to start my own. Any of you who want to are welcome to come with me, but let's get one thing straight: I will be in charge, I will be giving the orders. I'll be outside when you decide." The player expected to have to make a new character. Instead, the entire group promptly signed up, grateful for someone willing to actually step up and lead. The campaign, which had been floundering up to that point, took off. In our current campaign, a number of players recently brought in new characters. As two of the current, ongoing characters are landowners with rank, we set this up as a hiring fair. Both of us are short of skilled manpower, and both of us particularly wanted to recruit exceptional associates. Naturally, the new PCs were the pick of the crop, and with two of us seeking to hire, the bidding got pretty fierce and the new characters were able to negotiate very nice terms for themselves. :)
Dag 07-23-07, 12:26 AM	I agree with Lady Alaria. Making the group into followers of your faith would only brighten the spotlight on you. It sounds like you're playing with a group of players who frankly dont care anymore. They've reached the understanding that your character can and does do everything without failure so they stopped even trying to keep up. Sounds like a lame game for the rest of them. Glad you're enjoying yourself though. Evil and selfish characters are oodles of fun for other players who just want to play a cooperative, group-oriented campaign. If that is where the other players are at and your actions are preventing it then you should feel like an ass.
Alyri 07-23-07, 12:42 AM	You, the player, have complete and total discretion as to the actions of your character. You, the player, didn't have to state that you were taking all of the loot. Yes, I understand that it is "what your character would do," but that is often just an over-used (and very weak) excuse to justify a player's actions. Yes, I said player's actions. You, the player, are also the character. You have to remember that D&D is about playing as a group of people as well as about playing as a group of characters. I'll not fully agree with this point. The player is not the character, he may act out the the character's part but he is not the character. It is a fine line to walk, but the rewards are far more pleasing than the other. Way back in the day I was into my Gem Dragon phase. I was playing a Cavalier and finally got up to a dragon mount. I was all hyped cuz I knew exactly which gem dragon I wanted and then the Dm sends me a Brass Dragon. I was like what the...? and he explained to me (paraphasing)"You are not your character, that character is not you walking around in a tin suit slaying the baddies. The character has his own thoughts and dreams outside of what you want" I had to sit and think about that for a bit. I think that is one of the biggest issues that we role players have.
Keiichi_m 07-23-07, 12:46 AM	I agree with Lady Alaria. Making the group into followers of your faith would only brighten the spotlight on you. It sounds like you're playing with a group of players who frankly dont care anymore. They've reached the understanding that your character can and does do everything without failure so they stopped even trying to keep up. Sounds like a lame game for the rest of them. Glad you're enjoying yourself though. Evil and selfish characters are oodles of fun for other players who just want to play a cooperative, group-oriented campaign. If that is where the other players are at and your actions are preventing it then you should feel like an ass. Actually the problem is that they are always like this. and I mean always, my underpowered naked (literally) gearless shaman in another campaign wound up doing all the work, my Pally, my night, my battle dancer, my wizard, my fighter, every time I wind up doing all the work, this is just the first guy who said "I'm doing to dirty work I get the benefits" remaking the character wouldn't help cause then I'd just be a less powerful character doing all the work. I'm looking for ways to balance things as they stand now. Also to those of you who said "You as the player made the choice it's your fault" thanks but read to the end of my post before you reply "This is kinda their fault, but it's mine just as much" takes two to tango, they're at fault for letting it happen I'm at fault for assuming and instigating.
Saurus33 07-23-07, 01:49 AM	Trapspringer has the right idea. This guy might actually do something like what he's describing. Although the suggestion about buying their loyalty with gifts in order to protect yourself sounds like a good one too. As for the wider problem, talk to your group OOC about it, it generally helps. Other people: Why are you sandbagging the OP? Most of the time it would be the DM or another character in the group who would come and complain about it, but the Op has taken a step forward and asked how he can correct it himself.
Kuruk 07-23-07, 07:14 AM	Alyri, You are not your character, that character is not you walking around in a tin suit slaying the baddies. The character has his own thoughts and dreams outside of what you want That is more of an issue with you and your DM. YOU have ultimate control over your character. The DM should not be the one deciding what your character feels and what your hopes and dreams are. The problem with the phrase, "It's what my character would do." is that it is often used to justify irrational or disruptive actions in a group, as Mock26 said. You may not be playing your own character in the game, but you still have final say over what your character does.
draco1119 07-23-07, 07:27 AM	...YOU have ultimate control over your character. The DM should not be the one deciding what your character feels and what your hopes and dreams are. The problem with the phrase, "It's what my character would do." is that it is often used to justify irrational or disruptive actions in a group, as Mock26 said. You may not be playing your own character in the game, but you still have final say over what your character does. In general, I agree whole-heartedly with this argument, Kuruk. In this particular case, however, I think it's a non-issue. When I read the OP, it read to me like he was surprised that his group said yes. Yes, he (as his character) was overly greedy, but I don't think he intended to push it. I think he expected somebody to say no, at which point he would have acquiesced.
Phrennzy 07-23-07, 08:59 AM	Does the rest of the group ever get involved in combat? Are they in it more for the roleplaying? Do they think optimizing is evil? Do they really want to be playing D&D? Could you give us a rough breakdown of the group? Yes, yes and no, no, yes, and it's a cleric3/wizard3/true necro 6, a fighter/dervish (not sure on the levels but ecl 12) and a bard/dirgesinger/seeker of the song ECL11. Maybe I am reading these answers wrong, but it seems you are saying that the group does not want to be playing D&D. Perhaps you need a new group, or the group needs a hiatus away from D&D for a bit - board games or another RPG.
Stumm_Dolch 07-23-07, 10:24 AM	I think it's time to NPC the character. Why would your character, afterall, continue running with people that cower when the tough fights come? Wouldn't you be better spending your time rolling with like-minded cultis... I mean cohorts? I hope you guys are friends IRL, cause if not, I'd worry about you place at the table. If the type of game they're playing interests you, perhaps roll something that will fit in a bit better (or atleast not clash) with them.
Malchius 07-23-07, 10:45 AM	The Bosses seem a bit underpowered and a bit relaxed, you shouldn't really be able to kill them all on your lonesome and maybe it's a good idea for the GM to have them attack one of the characters out of the spotlight and get them involved or give some people circumstances where they get the advantage over the other characters. for instance having the main fight a group of people roughly the same levels as yous but close together giving the Dervish the spotlight for that battle or something along those lines.
archerpwr 07-23-07, 10:51 AM	I think it's time to NPC the character. Why would your character, afterall, continue running with people that cower when the tough fights come? Wouldn't you be better spending your time rolling with like-minded cultis... I mean cohorts? I hope you guys are friends IRL, cause if not, I'd worry about you place at the table. If the type of game they're playing interests you, perhaps roll something that will fit in a bit better (or atleast not clash) with them. I agree. IC you have no reason you should be putting up with a bunch of cowards. When they failed to help you against the second boss you should have been IC ****** off. They completely let you go solo and didn't give any help. Your character has no reason to be adventuring with a bunch of cowards. Retire the character or take a firm lead as the leader and act the cultist trying to convert them. Either they will be meatshields or you don't need to put up with them. OOC you solve the problem by either retiring the character (fixing the loot discrepancy) or rewarding your followers with loot so that the wealth balances out.
DrMorganes 07-23-07, 11:13 AM	Actually the problem is that they are always like this. and I mean always, my underpowered naked (literally) gearless shaman in another campaign wound up doing all the work, my Pally, my night, my battle dancer, my wizard, my fighter, every time I wind up doing all the work, this is just the first guy who said "I'm doing to dirty work I get the benefits" remaking the character wouldn't help cause then I'd just be a less powerful character doing all the work. I'm looking for ways to balance things as they stand now. Also to those of you who said "You as the player made the choice it's your fault" thanks but read to the end of my post before you reply "This is kinda their fault, but it's mine just as much" takes two to tango, they're at fault for letting it happen I'm at fault for assuming and instigating. It's nobody's "fault". What you're dealing with is a difference in preferred playing styles. You strike me as the power gaming sort: by your own admission you "optimize" your characters and have a history of "doing all the work". The rest of your current group, however, seems a bit less interested in the "kill, loot, level" cycle of things. Making another character isn't going to help, either. It's how YOU play the game with these people that's the issue. From what I see, you should give some thought to how you can adjust your playing style to better mesh with the rest of the group. That, or find a group better suited to your playing style.
Mock26 07-23-07, 01:24 PM	I'll not fully agree with this point. The player is not the character, he may act out the the character's part but he is not the character. It is a fine line to walk, but the rewards are far more pleasing than the other. Way back in the day I was into my Gem Dragon phase. I was playing a Cavalier and finally got up to a dragon mount. I was all hyped cuz I knew exactly which gem dragon I wanted and then the Dm sends me a Brass Dragon. I was like what the...? and he explained to me (paraphasing)"You are not your character, that character is not you walking around in a tin suit slaying the baddies. The character has his own thoughts and dreams outside of what you want" I had to sit and think about that for a bit. I think that is one of the biggest issues that we role players have. Look at the movie Top Gun. Is that not Tom Cruise playing the role of Maverick? Or, is Maverick a seperate person? It is Tom Cruise. If you want to get technical, it is Tom Cruise in the role of the character of Maverick. But, at the end of the day, it is still Tom Cruise. The same applies to D&D. There is no external force or being or power that is controlling the actions of your D&D character. When the character says, "I killed the boss guy all by my self so I get all the treasure" it is the player who says this. Yes, the player is, for all intents and purposes, acting out the role of his character. And, yes that character has a fictitious background that influences the person portraying that character, but at the end of the day it is still the player who is responsible for every single action of the character. To have your character do something and then absolve yourself from all responsibility by declaring that it is what your character would do is a crock of dragon dung. Given that you, as a player, had to consciously decide that this is what your character would do, you, the player, are responsible for the actions of your character. Unless there is some outside influence such as a charm person or geas spell, EVERY SINGLE ACTION OF A CHARACTER IS DECIDED BY THE PLAYER. Therefore, the player is responsible for every single action of the character. I completely understand the desire by some to really get into character. It truly does make the game more enjoyable. But, anyone who gets into character to the extent that they actually think that the character is making decisions probably shouldn't be playing this game and should seek professional psychiatric help as soon as possible.
Manic Man 07-23-07, 01:29 PM	My character is NE so he's kinda out for himself and his god. Your choice of alignment says it all. Please don't say that you chose NE for RP reasons because that is just an over used excuse. Simplest solution? Switch alignments, learn to share and learn to work as a team.
Rumple_Cragstan 07-23-07, 09:06 PM	deleted for Wrong poster
Keiichi_m 07-23-07, 09:07 PM	Your choice of alignment says it all. Please don't say that you chose NE for RP reasons because that is just an over used excuse. Simplest solution? Switch alignments, learn to share and learn to work as a team. I chose NE for RP reasons. Cheifly I wanted to play an evil character and really have fun with being evil because I'd never tried the alignment in about 20 characters. please not the entire party is either A) evil or B)leaning toward it from neutral.
Lady_Dragon 07-23-07, 10:17 PM	I think you have two choices. 1)Like other posters have suggested...retire. 2)Nerf your PC. The next tough fight you get in, put yourself in a bad position and die. So then you're dead unless they raise you. Decide to come back with one less level (assuming they true rez you) or have him "forget" some of his skills in battle. Heck, maybe have him have a slight alignment shift as a result of "seeing God" or something of that nature. Now that you're less powerful, the other PC's will have to pick up for the slack you were making up for them before and they'll have no choice but to participate more in battles. Well, it's an idea anyway.
Thegans 07-23-07, 10:43 PM	Look at the movie Top Gun. Is that not Tom Cruise playing the role of Maverick? Or, is Maverick a seperate person? It is Tom Cruise. If you want to get technical, it is Tom Cruise in the role of the character of Maverick. But, at the end of the day, it is still Tom Cruise. The same applies to D&D. There is no external force or being or power that is controlling the actions of your D&D character. When the character says, "I killed the boss guy all by my self so I get all the treasure" it is the player who says this. Yes, the player is, for all intents and purposes, acting out the role of his character. And, yes that character has a fictitious background that influences the person portraying that character, but at the end of the day it is still the player who is responsible for every single action of the character. To have your character do something and then absolve yourself from all responsibility by declaring that it is what your character would do is a crock of dragon dung. Given that you, as a player, had to consciously decide that this is what your character would do, you, the player, are responsible for the actions of your character. Unless there is some outside influence such as a charm person or geas spell, EVERY SINGLE ACTION OF A CHARACTER IS DECIDED BY THE PLAYER. Therefore, the player is responsible for every single action of the character. I completely understand the desire by some to really get into character. It truly does make the game more enjoyable. But, anyone who gets into character to the extent that they actually think that the character is making decisions probably shouldn't be playing this game and should seek professional psychiatric help as soon as possible. I am not sure what suggestions I would make but I think part of this is a bad example. An actor in a movie does not decide what the character will do that is the role of the director, producer, and script writter. The Mavrick is not a creation of Tom Cruise but of the person who came up with the concept of the movie and his lines are not the lines of the actor but of the script writter. Other than that I partially agree. Well mostly but there are situations that I could see where its what the character would do could be justified. Lets say the DM decides that he's going to let the players play as any reasonable race they want and they get two humans and a kobold and a fourth player that comes up with a character later and even though there is a kobold in the party the player creates a gnome. Or even if they both make the characters with out knowing what the other will be. A typical gnome and a typical kobold will not get along.
Mock26 07-23-07, 11:12 PM	I am not sure what suggestions I would make but I think part of this is a bad example. An actor in a movie does not decide what the character will do that is the role of the director, producer, and script writter. The Mavrick is not a creation of Tom Cruise but of the person who came up with the concept of the movie and his lines are not the lines of the actor but of the script writter. Other than that I partially agree. Well mostly but there are situations that I could see where its what the character would do could be justified. Lets say the DM decides that he's going to let the players play as any reasonable race they want and they get two humans and a kobold and a fourth player that comes up with a character later and even though there is a kobold in the party the player creates a gnome. Or even if they both make the characters with out knowing what the other will be. A typical gnome and a typical kobold will not get along. Using film isn't a perfect example simply because there really isn't anything quite like fantasy roleplaying in the real world. Maybe Robin Williams playing Mork would have been a better example because most of what he said was never scripted, he was allowed to ad lib a lot. But, I think that the film analogy comes close enough to be a good example. As for a typical gnome and a typical kobold not getting along, yes, that is true. But, for players and their characters, it is different. Any such set of "codes" or "guidelines" that dictate what a character would do are decided upon by the player of that character. Even if it is something predefined such as the natural animosity between gnomes and kobolds or between dwarves and orcs, the player is still accepting such predefined characteristics. Therefore, the responsibility is that of the player. Remember, after all, that characters are not your typical representations of their race, which means that you can gave good aligned examples of monster races that are traditionally evil. At the end of the day, the player is responsible for every single aspect of a character, whether it be something very specific such as wearing black leather boots or favoring a warhammer to something very broad such as hating all forms of trees or something that is a traditional "stereotype" of the game such as dwarves hating orcs. It doesn't matter if the player actually chooses something or accepts something that is already defined, he is responsible of such acceptance. Therefore, he is responsible for all actions of the character.
Generic_Paladin 07-23-07, 11:23 PM	I would suggest using the 80,000 gold in profits that you just turned over to buy these guys some ridiculous weapons. High enhancement bonuses, exotic materials, magical or psionic properties, the whole nine yards. Or maybe get them some crazy wondrous items, something in the high end of the medium chart. Make a big show of presenting them with their newfound might, then explain it as your penance for upstaging the crap out of them all. Of course, since your character is evil, you might consider cursing the gifts to disintegrate if they are used against you. Just a thought.;)
Vaelan 07-23-07, 11:59 PM	The issue of the depth of one's roleplaying is subjective. Stop trying to force your opinions on others. Thanks. As for the problem at hand, be Evil. Is it to your benefit to hang around with people who might resent you over the fact that you cheated them out of their earnings? No? Then kill them so that they can't come after you later or make it up to them. Evil is about your well-being and your well-being is best served by cooperation.
Count_Chumleigh 07-24-07, 12:12 AM	Meh, the fact that you feel like an ass means, in all likelihood, that you aren't one. If you think your character is too powerful, though--and I think he is, at least compared to the group--then what I would do is talk to the DM and ask how you can even things out among the group. I suggest having your character die, retire, or get called off to the Outer Planes to do some serious kick-ass stuff, while you bring in a lower-powered replacement, preferably one who specializes in making other characters better. It doesn't have to be a bard who wants to play cleric, but as that is my favorite type of character to play, I will unabashedly tell you to play one. For I am infallible, clearly. Please be able to detect sarcasm, oh please. Loot ... well, loot is always a tricky thing to do, but if everyone's got new characters, then this problem ought to solve itself. Unless the DM plays with odd starting loot rules, in which place I can't help you. I hope this makes as much sense as I wanted it to. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
Mock26 07-24-07, 12:28 AM	Not opinion. Fact.
Thegans 07-24-07, 01:39 AM	Using film isn't a perfect example simply because there really isn't anything quite like fantasy roleplaying in the real world. Maybe Robin Williams playing Mork would have been a better example because most of what he said was never scripted, he was allowed to ad lib a lot. But, I think that the film analogy comes close enough to be a good example. As for a typical gnome and a typical kobold not getting along, yes, that is true. But, for players and their characters, it is different. Any such set of "codes" or "guidelines" that dictate what a character would do are decided upon by the player of that character. Even if it is something predefined such as the natural animosity between gnomes and kobolds or between dwarves and orcs, the player is still accepting such predefined characteristics. Therefore, the responsibility is that of the player. Remember, after all, that characters are not your typical representations of their race, which means that you can gave good aligned examples of monster races that are traditionally evil. At the end of the day, the player is responsible for every single aspect of a character, whether it be something very specific such as wearing black leather boots or favoring a warhammer to something very broad such as hating all forms of trees or something that is a traditional "stereotype" of the game such as dwarves hating orcs. It doesn't matter if the player actually chooses something or accepts something that is already defined, he is responsible of such acceptance. Therefore, he is responsible for all actions of the character. Like I said I mostly agree and I used the gnome and kobold example mainly because the gnomes racial bonus against kobolds and because of the myth in Races of the Dragon. I agree they should get along but even if they were atypical I would expect them to have some hatred of each other even if its just a bitter rivalry. Still like I said I mostly agree but it sort of seems like the original poster didn't originally plan on keeping the treasure but basically wanted to see what would have happened. Now that I think about him and the group do seem to have a slight compatablity problem if his characters are always doing everything. Perhaps the best move would probably be to force the other players to have there characters take on a more active role. Actually the problem is that they are always like this. and I mean always, my underpowered naked (literally) gearless shaman in another campaign wound up doing all the work, my Pally, my night, my battle dancer, my wizard, my fighter, every time I wind up doing all the work, this is just the first guy who said "I'm doing to dirty work I get the benefits" remaking the character wouldn't help cause then I'd just be a less powerful character doing all the work. I'm looking for ways to balance things as they stand now. From the way I see things that is the main problem and underpowered bosses but in a way having his character say that seems to make sense to me mostly because the other players, from what I know, seem to basically just have his characters do everything. As you said the player is responsible for the characters actions but doesn't that mean they are also responsible for the innactions of the character. In theory even if he didn't use the its what my character would have done excuse the other players are litterally giving him a reason to do it since even if he split the treasure evenly he would still be the one doing everything.
Derren S. 07-24-07, 06:47 PM	There are only 2 reasons I can think of why the other players behave the way they did. 1. They don't like D&D or the current playstile (I assume its more Hack&Slay?) If yes then you need to find a other group or to convince your DM to play differently 2. Your characters are always so optimized that the others have given up hope of rivaling your character. That you have taken leadership seems to support this point (the most powerfull feat in D&D). If that is the case then it is your fault and you need to make characters which are more reasonable/in line with the other players. SO you best retire your cleric and make a new character.
WizO_Cat 07-24-07, 10:47 PM	Ok, just a reminder: let's keep the discussion to the topic of the thread, not other guests. Thanks.
Volafor 07-24-07, 10:52 PM	Your character is devoutly religious, you said. So one option that has not been offered: first, go through all your gear, setting aside a few favorite or necessary items, so that when you've finished, you have about the same amount of stuff as everyone else. Make sure to keep some liquid assets, not just items. Then give the rest to your church--every last copper piece and candle end. Then talk with the rest of the players out of game. Ask them what the problem is: are they tired of gaming? Are they annoyed with you, the DM, or one another? Do they want to be playing something else? It sounds to me like there's probably something going on "under the surface," if you will. Good luck, friend. I hope you find the solution. ^_^
Vaelan 07-25-07, 01:01 AM	Believe it or not, I have read the explanation before. You are creating a link between causation and blame. No link between causation and blame is objectively true. The link between causation and blame is purely a matter of the group's social contract. You are, in essence, telling everyone who thinks differently that they're playing the game wrong.
Mock26 07-25-07, 02:34 AM	Believe it or not, I have read the explanation before. You are creating a link between causation and blame. No link between causation and blame is objectively true. The link between causation and blame is purely a matter of the group's social contract. You are, in essence, telling everyone who thinks differently that they're playing the game wrong. No, I am not telling anyone that they are playing the game wrong. Nor am I saying that they are roleplaying wrong. Even if you have read what I have written, you seem to have rolled a natural 1 and missed the point. I am merely stating that at the bottom of it all, everything that a character does is done because the player decides that the character should do it, be it directly or indirectly. There is nothing wrong with having a code to follow, be a code of ethics, a code of honor, or a set of beliefs that your character would follow. I have never said that there was anything wrong with doing such. In fact, I firmly believe that a key to good roleplaying is being able to get into you character and be able to act in such a way that it is what the character would do. However, even if that is what the character would do, everything that defines the character is decided by the player. Therefore, all of a character's actions are decided by the player, either directly or indirectly. Many a time I have been in character and chosen to have my character do something because, in that given situation, that is what he would do. But, as I said, I am the one who defines what that character would have done in that situation. So, in that situation, I indirectly controlled the character's actions. Can you please provide me with an example of an "it is what my character would do" type of a situation that does not involve an "outside" influence (such as charm person, dominate, etc.) that would refute my statement?
Mock26 07-25-07, 04:31 AM	Like I said I mostly agree and I used the gnome and kobold example mainly because the gnomes racial bonus against kobolds and because of the myth in Races of the Dragon. I agree they should get along but even if they were atypical I would expect them to have some hatred of each other even if its just a bitter rivalry. But whatever the degree of cooperation and/or hatred that exists between the two races has to be accepted by the player. It doesn't matter if the hatred is something out of the rules books or something that was decided upon by the DM (such as having elves and orcs typically being allies), the player still has to accept such aspects of his character. Therefore, if the player has his gnome cheat the kobold out of some treasure and says, "It is what my character would do," why is that what the character would do? The player of the gnome has decided and/or accepted that the gnome and kobold characters are atypical and that they would get along, but he also decided and/or accepted that the gnome would have a bit of animosity left over and as such would try to cheat the kobold out of some of the treasure. Is this what the gnome would do? Yes. But, that is only because the player decided that that is what the character would do.
s4ndm4n 07-26-07, 10:45 AM	Switch from solo player to buffer-supporter, and let them do the job.Its easy with a cleric.Sry if some1 else said the same thing, couldn't read all of the posts... have fun man
Rumple_Cragstan 07-26-07, 04:16 PM	Ok, I'm the DM of said campaign, and thus I can also shed some light on the party and the happenings within. It sounds like you're playing with a group of players who frankly dont care anymore. They've reached the understanding that your character can and does do everything without failure so they stopped even trying to keep up. You know, that sounds about right, to be honest. Only 2 of the 4 other players even bother trying to par the Cleric; one of them is new to the group so he hasn't really seen all the issues being discussed here, and the other is just trying to keep up to the cleric without actually expecting to be able to. Glad you're enjoying yourself though. Evil and selfish characters are oodles of fun for other players who just want to play a cooperative, group-oriented campaign. As a DM, I'd have to agree with this to some degree.... I personally enjoy seeing the party as one complete unit, and this group isn't really working towards that. However, its not just his fault... the entire party isn't really working on it as a whole. However, that could possibly be because of the above quote; they've just given up and aren't trying because they don't expect to succeed. Actually the problem is that they are always like this. and I mean always, my underpowered naked (literally) gearless shaman in another campaign wound up doing all the work, my Pally, my night, my battle dancer, my wizard, my fighter, every time I wind up doing all the work, this is just the first guy who said "I'm doing to dirty work I get the benefits" remaking the character wouldn't help cause then I'd just be a less powerful character doing all the work. I'm looking for ways to balance things as they stand now. Its all in the RPing style; you always *seem* to be the one doing all the work because you put yourself into that situation. Its become a fight for the limelight, and nobody really seems to understand that its big enough for the whole party; even worse, nobody seems to understand that the cleric is beatable in that sort of spotlight competition. What you're dealing with is a difference in preferred playing styles. You strike me as the power gaming sort: by your own admission you "optimize" your characters and have a history of "doing all the work". The rest of your current group, however, seems a bit less interested in the "kill, loot, level" cycle of things. No, the rest of the group is pretty interested in that sort of thing; they all love combat. The issue at hand is that one character is dominating combat and the others don't have a chance. The first dungeon I ran in this campaign literally wound up being breezed through by the cleric damn near alone; more than half of the combats ended before half the party even got thier turn in init. The last dungeon, which I designed to be difficult and balls-to-the-wall (and it was, I killed 2 PCs and almost a third (twice) by the end of it) and the cleric still managed to take down the end boss with nothing but the help of his cohort. The end boss? 2nd level Fighter Ultraloth (who made use of *all* his spell-like abilities and even switched his quicken spell-like ability to Scorching Ray. And a 11th level cleric/stormlord with a fighter/Pious Templar cohort managed to take him down. Making another character isn't going to help, either. It's how YOU play the game with these people that's the issue. From what I see, you should give some thought to how you can adjust your playing style to better mesh with the rest of the group. That, or find a group better suited to your playing style. This does sound pretty right for the situation; and changing game styles a bit wouldn't be overly hard. Its just a lack of willingness to change for the sake of other people. 1. They don't like D&D or the current playstile (I assume its more Hack&Slay?) If yes then you need to find a other group or to convince your DM to play differently As stated above, this is not the case. Its just a situation where one character dominates combat above all others. 2. Your characters are always so optimized that the others have given up hope of rivaling your character. That you have taken leadership seems to support this point (the most powerful feat in D&D). If that is the case then it is your fault and you need to make characters which are more reasonable/in line with the other players. So you best retire your cleric and make a new character. QFT. And now, for my 2 cents on the issue at hand, personally. What it really, really comes down to is a difference in how seriously the game is taken. Most of the party are hobbyists; they don't take the books home with them, and alot of them don't even own any D&D books. They play D&D to relax, and to get away from the mundane world; in short, they play D&D as a game, and just a game. Nothing wrong with that. However, Keiichi_M is much more of a serious gamer... his job is boring (call centre) and he has lots of free time to kill while there.... so he brings his books (and mine, as we're roommates and pretty much have free access to all the books in the house) to work and reads through them when he has time. He puts actual effort into, as he puts it, "making his character not suck". As a player and a DM, I fit in between these two playstyles, and I understand them both. There's nothing wrong with either one, and I've enjoyed campaigns that were heavy in one or both styles. The ENTIRE problem stems from our party having a bunch of weekend warriors, and one career soldier. Couple that with everyone having cooperation, coordination, and communication issues with one another, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Hack and Smasher 07-27-07, 06:05 AM	I suggest raising them as skeletons.
unundindur 07-27-07, 11:54 AM	Simple suggestion (and NE appropriate): Buy their continued loyalty with gifts. Give them 25-50% of what you gain (if they do not get a share). I like this one, typically my sort of character :rolleyes:
Keiichi_m 07-27-07, 10:54 PM	Alright, we can end this thread by the way, I've already god my plan in gear to balance my PC and do it in character, thank you all for your advice I'm using quite a bit of it. hopefully you'll see threads of our party working together well in future. bragging instead of *****ing
Me, Myself, & 101 others 07-28-07, 04:01 AM	So my character slay livinged a boss first round and said "I killed him solo I get his loot. I was expecting a bit of a grumbling acceptance but no grumbling at all just "well you deserve it cool." fast forward to the last boss, I charge in cause one of the other party members and my characters only friend was just killed by a trap set by the last boss. Everyone else stays back and debates joining me for a round and then one of them joins the other stays back for an additional 3 rounds. long story shot I wind up killing him with no help at all save for my cohort. So again my character says "I did the work I'm ripping this man limb from limb and nailing him to the dungeon walls (I was ******) and then I'm looting his remains. I expected a "Dude, one boss okay, but two?" but again nothing, they just said "Cool" so about 80, 000 gold worth of loot discrepancy later I'm WAY too good for my level. Not only that but group cohesion is down the tubes since the surviving characters were only created last session (Old players new chars) my character has no lasting bond with them yet, one of them lied to him (and I made my sense motive) and so my trust in these guys is low. What I'm having trouble wrapping my head around is: why didn't you raise them? You're a cleric, you've got slay living, that means you got raise dead. Especially the character that was your "only friend." With 80k of loot discrepency, you could probably have even afforded true resurrection, save them the level loss. That'd have been a great way to encourage group togetherness and such, too. It fits with the whole selfish-evil thing, just decide that your character looks out for what's his, and they're part of his group. Another thing you might try is to see if the other players would appreciate help/advice when making up characters. Sounds like you're pretty familiar with the game, and spend a good amount of time thinking about it. So, maybe some of the other group members could benefit from that knowledge. Some appreciate help like that, others don't. I know I like making up characters, and sometimes do it when I'm bored. I've had other players just take one of my random builds and play it on several occassions.
kelvinaw273 07-28-07, 08:30 AM	I chose NE for RP reasons. Cheifly I wanted to play an evil character and really have fun with being evil because I'd never tried the alignment in about 20 characters. please not the entire party is either A) evil or B)leaning toward it from neutral. Y'see, the problem here is that because you outshine the rest of the party, they aren't going to argue with you unless they are tired of living. It's pretty clear to me that your style of play and theirs are different, and this is annoying you. If they aren't going to change, you'll have to if you want this resolved.
Keiichi_m 07-28-07, 12:44 PM	What I'm having trouble wrapping my head around is: why didn't you raise them? You're a cleric, you've got slay living, that means you got raise dead. Especially the character that was your "only friend." A) one was killed by a death effect that raise dead doesn't work against the other died when we killed him for attacking us in a frenzy B) the DM house ruled raise dead and res out of the game. Another thing you might try is to see if the other players would appreciate help/advice when making up characters. Sounds like you're pretty familiar with the game, and spend a good amount of time thinking about it. So, maybe some of the other group members could benefit from that knowledge. Some appreciate help like that, others don't. I know I like making up characters, and sometimes do it when I'm bored. I've had other players just take one of my random builds and play it on several occassions. alas, we've tried, and so has the other 2 DMs in the house, of the two people who really need the help, one just got a new job and isn't here anymore and one just gets ****** if you try to help whether you try general suggestions and ideas (my approach), work with her and try to find something that she'd enjoy (the current DMs approach) or basically make her character for her (the other good player/occasionally DM's approach)
CrossBlade 07-28-07, 01:37 PM	Even though you've said you've thought up a solution, here's possibly another couple that could help further: Your character is devoutly religious, you said. So one option that has not been offered: first, go through all your gear, setting aside a few favorite or necessary items, so that when you've finished, you have about the same amount of stuff as everyone else. Make sure to keep some liquid assets, not just items. Then give the rest to your church--every last copper piece and candle end. That's totally what I was going to suggest for my first solution. As for why would you stay with the new group when the only thing tying you to them was your only friend? Well, what was your friend's reason for staying with him? Maybe your cleric finds consolance in that? You can even RP that by having your cleric confess alound that he's realized that. Another idea for balancing the loot: go over what you do need, and anything you don't... Hey! My god doesn't like this color! *toss* This item is 'useless' *toss* Why would I want this item? *toss* I don't even know a practical use for this? It's not even a good back scratcher! *toss* And so what if when you toss it, your travelling companions just "happen" to pick it up after? It's not like your cleric would care. ---------------------- And since your friends seem to have given up hope about topping your optimization, why not next time make an "optimized useless character"? Singer of Concordance in Races of the Dragon seems pretty useless to me, but really fun to play and RP. It's no where's near combat oriented, but it's rather interesting in it's defensive abilities... and it has what seems like an original angle for roleplaying.
Keiichi_m 07-28-07, 01:58 PM	My cleric is working towards a city, so first he's going to buy some pretty sweet, yet cursed weapons for the group (I liked the disintegrate if used against me idea) the rest will be put aside for raising a city.