Long story short, there is a player in our group who has a Sorcerer/Cleric of Kelemvor using the Death Domain cert. He refuses to heal PCs who have fallen unconscious since they are "on their way to their final rest" or whatever. Basically, he's using RP to screw the rest of the party over unless we have another healer or someone with potions of healing.
Would this be considered 'disruptive' behavior or smiled at for being role playing?
Inter-party conflict of interests is fine. But in the end, all the Players (and the DM needs to make it clear) need to understand that their Player-Characters form an adventuring party because of mutual interest. Mutual interest means that you might have differing opinions and backgrounds and beliefs, but in the end you put your differences aside because there is some greater goal that ALL of you need to band together to accomplish. Much like in WW2, for several years the USA and Communist Russia put aside their animosity of each other, and became allies because they needed to ally together in order to defeat Nazi Germany.
As a DM, before the Campaign even started.... I would sit down with each Player and make sure they understand the above. They understand that.... even if they have characters with different goals and opinions and different beliefs from other PCs.... that the ultimate goal would be to band together in order to achieve a common goal (e.g. in order to defeat an ancient dragon that is seen as a threat to everyone).
The sad thing is that many DMs don't even think ahead. They just think... "Oh, the rules allow anyone to create a Chaotic Evil Drow character worshipping a demonic deity, so I guess there's no problem letting them be in the same Party as a Lawful Good paladin or a Chaotic Good High Elf noble. I'll just let the Players play whatever they want, however they want. I'll give them total freedom in character creation! They'll love me for it!"
I've seen this kind of random-character thing happen in many pickup groups, which is very common in FLGS Adventurer's League games. The DMs that allow these issues are lax, and they don't have a backbone to say NO to Players that want to play (or roleplay) potential timebombs that will cause self-destructive strife within the party.
I would keep in mind the possibility that he's doing this intentionally so as to not be relegated to the role of party healbot, as Clerics often are. I think it's worth a conversation with him to see where it's coming from.
Five classes in the game come with healing spells, and there's also the Healer feat open to anyone - it's hard to assign blame to one player (without knowing more) when anyone else could have stepped up, yet equally chose not to. The only difference (though not an insignificant one) seems to be relative ease of access. Did he misrepresent himself as the class healer, and then later refuse? Or is he just choosing to play a non-healing character, the same as the rest of the party?
Will he heal party members before they fall unconscious? If so, all you really need is someone with Spare the Dying or a what, DC 10 Heal check to stabilize? Shouldn't be too big of a deal, if a tad inconvenient.
cleric letting everyone die is a pretty toxic. I wouldn't call it disruptive, however I would certainly consider it undermining of the party. All it takes is 1 well timed Disengage actions from a couple party members to fix the problem. The party won't even feel bad explaining they cremate the clerics body to send him back to Kelemvor's loving embrace. Hrmm....our characters are just doing what they think his CHARACTER would have wanted. player gets to roll up a new lv 1 character and learns an important lesson. problem solved. Yes this is retaliatory and undermining...and yes, the PC absolutely deserves such a fate.
Party could just go all '50 Shades' and everyone is required to sign an adventuring contract. No oath to defend and protect each other as a team, then that is their choice. That player can move along to the next table. Won't take many tables before the problem player figures it out This is technically ALREADY the social contract we all sign by playing in AL to begin with. Just an in character way to sort it out for the dumb ass players that want to be dicks and hide behind the guise of 'its what the PC would do'.
We actually had a sorta similar situation in our group. A new player came in and sat down about 15m after we started, no biggie. But as soon as the DM started to insert the PC into the game, the PC went all emo and didnt want his PC to be retconned in easily. He had to have been a prisoner or held captive or something. The DM was like 'dude we already started, we're just going to make it easy' and the player was like 'I don't want it to be easy.' So the DM said take it or leave it and the player left and went to the coordinator and complained. The coordinator came over and diplomatically asked if we could please accomodate the player and the DM flatly said no. End of story. Another table let the guy join them(good for them actually), and the fireworks were flying all night. At some point 2 of the regular players and the new guy started shouting at each other in a verbal argument and then those 2 players abandoned the game and left. The new guy came back the following week and sat at a 3rd table, and I didnt really pay attention but there werent any major fireworks other than a couple of the players immediately relocating tables after he sat down. I don't think I have seen that guy since. It is not that big of a gaming space...people notice **** like that, lol.
I don't know anything about the Cert's Domain spells. Given your wording I'd presume he had a healing spell prepared, but I've come across offensive clerics that haven't. I'm also curious about context since I wouldn't fault someone saving their spells for a couple hours while the other members took a short rest/waited for the others to wake.
As presented, I'd remind the player that they're part of a party. Teamwork is required for survival, whether it's grudging acceptance or Jolly Co-Operation, and if they present themselves as unreliable the party is within their rights to abandon them.
I play a valor bard with no healing spells. It's just not his shtick. He doesn't act or play like a healer. If someone bitched at me that I'm not "playing right", I'd ask them why their fighter, ot rogue, or whatever, wasn't doing any of the party healing either. It's obnoxious to demand something of others you aren't willing to do yourself. Entitled. Maybe even a bit narcissistic.
That's my opinion, anyways.
It's not screwing the party over unless a cleric specifically says he/she would be a healer in the group in the beginning THEN refuses later on.
The character was played with an emphasis in his/her own personal religious beliefs and didn't stray from that due to issues outside of roleplaying (players whining at the table).
As long as the player of the cleric did not misrepresent his character is a guaranteed healer, anyone complaining about that is at fault for assuming that a class has to be played a certain way all the time.
If the cleric has not made promises to heal others and at least participated as a combatant in combat then he is not disrupting the group by refraining from healing. The complainers are disrupting the group by being whiners for not getting what they want.
Undrhil wrote:
He started the character as a Sorcerer, when he DM'd at a convention and received the "Death Domain" cert, he multiclassed his Sorcerer into Cleric with the death domain.
He heals party members who are above 0 hp. Once your character drops to 0 hp, he refuses to heal them. He did cast gentle repose on a PC in the mod we ran throuhg last night, so that's something, I guess. So, even casting Spare the Dying or using a healing kit to stabalize (not using the Healer feat) would not prompt him to heal the character, since they are still 'dying'.
I tried to say that we should just let his character die when she fell unconscious in a combat since it's what she would want.
Undrhil wrote:
It would seem like you were properly roleplaying your PCs if they all refused to continue adventuring with a cleric like that.
I don't see a problem with that. I would be giving that person inspiration left and right for playing their character, especially if they are upfront on their PCs personality traits.
As a DM, I would politely educate the player on Kelemvor and his worshippers. That may change his view on how his character would operate. He may even need to change alignment.
If he's allowed to not heal them when they are dying and it's not disruptive then they don't have to heal him when he's dying either.
Undrhil wrote:
Could I play a wizard that hates casting spells?
FrogReaver wrote:
I've got a wizard who only likes doing ritual spells, and would rather hit bad guys with her warhammer. (She's a dwarf.)
So I don't really see the problem with a wizard who hates casting spells.
IMO, a player who doesn't play the role YOU'VE assigned them to play isn't breaking any rules. If they WILLINGLY take on a role, and then refuse to play it, that's a different story.
Oraibi wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Hibiki54 wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Well, this player is also the one who I have mentioned previously (in other threads) that likes to bring his own PC in while DMing, even though we rarely ever need the additional character.
I like to think that if it came down to a TPK with his character somehow surviving that he would heal us or get us raised or something, but I feel like if we all TPK there and he is the last one standing, he'll run and we're all SoL since we are above level 4. I could also see it as a big ego boost to him, knowing that he holds our characters' lives literally in his hands (moreso than just as the DM running the mod.)
As far as expectations, no .. we have all stopped expecting him to heal someone who drops to 0 hp, but that means that someone had to expend character building / resources to cover that avenue, whereas with any other healing cleric, we wouldn't have had to do so. It doesn't take much to just throw a healing word out there and he will as long as you are above 0 hit points.
In a homebrew game, I'd be all over it for roleplaying because it's brilliant for that character (and I would summarily not play in that homebrew because I like to not have my characters die unnecessarily), but in Adventurer's League? No.
BRJN wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
BRJN wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Bard gets hit hard by the Lightning Bolt
Barbarian says "Its okay, I've got a healing potion you can use."
Bard player says "but I just dropped to 0"
Barbarian says "Oh never mind, I will find something else to do, since I don't feel like disengaging, running over there, and forcing a potion down your throat."
Meanie ol' barbarian. Not helping when he's capable of doing so. 
Coredump00 wrote:
I actually find this perfectly acceptable. There's nothing saying a cleric has to be the party healer. The players could use the appropriate skills, buy potions of healing, or what-have-you. It really depends on the faith of the cleric, and how following that faith plays out. A group I'm in has a paladin who follows the Raven Queen, and the player decided her character will not heal anyone who hasn't proven their life has worth. I've also seen players who have chosen to use a cleric who does not prepare healing spells, because it doesn't fit the theme of the character (for example, a cleric with the fire domain doesn't tend to use healing spells, because he's more focussed on fire-themed spells).
I actually applaud this kind of thing - roleplaying the character versus a metagame of 'the cleric is supposed to heal people'.
The phrase: "My character would never do that" is not a valid excuse for being a jerk.
You created the character.
You are in control of their beliefs, actions, and thoughts.
Ergo, You are choosing to be a jerk.
When creating your character it is your responsibility to find reasons to be a team player.
When RPing your character, it is your responsibility to find reasons to be a team player.
Providing you are a team player - everything else is fair game. You can be an antisocial jerk and still be a team player..... One who grumbles and begrudgingly helps his party out of tight spots (even though he doesn't want to). That is fine. You are still a team player because your actions benefit the party.
Take Gimli as an example...
He had a deep-held belief that dwarves should never be thrown (as indicated in the broken bridge scene in the Mines of Moria) "Nobody tosses a dwarf".
But when push came to shove, what did he say to Aragorn at the Battle of Helm's Deep?
- Toss Me..... Don't tell the elf.
Why? Because he was being a team player, and it was what he felt best helped the party in the moment - despite the fact it ran contrary to his beliefs (never throw a dwarf).
Kalani wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
I disagree. Yes, you need to be a team player, but you can have rules which prohibit your actions. A geas of your culture or religion is perfectly acceptable.
For example, if I make a character from Kara Tur, and he follows the Shinto faith? Healing is going to be awkward, because you're not supposed to touch injured flesh, the dead or dying, the diseased, or blood. Considering a lot of healing spells are 'touch range', that makes using a healing spell on someone pretty much impossible. It's a religious imperative. In fact, whether the GM said so or not, if my character did break this religious ban, I'd say my character has no spells until he's been purified.
And, to take my sister's paladin as a case example. She'll heal people. Unless she feels the character is not living up to their potential. And yes, that's her choice to make, and nobody else's. So her limit on how and why she'll heal someone is even more strict than that of the Cleric of Kelemvor.
Actually, I could apply this to many different character classes.
A barbarian who has sworn never to raise his weapon in anger.
A fighter who will never fight an opponent he considers weaker than himself.
Actually, in one of my settings, bards are protected by law - they are not allowed to engage in combat. In turn, they're not supposed to be attacked. They're present to record the facts of events as they play out, and the gods will horrifically punish anyone who attacks a bard. Most of the humanoid races are fully aware of this, so everything from goblins to giants won't harm bards. The bard can defend himself from animals and other unintelligent things, but otherwise doesn't raise a weapon against anyone.
A druid who only uses elemental spells, or plant-based spells, and no other magic.
A monk who takes a fair share of the treasure, and donates it - keeping nothing for himself.
A thief who refuses to break the law - he's a professional 'troubleshooter', someone who is paid to test security, and who has a reputation to keep.
I think these are perfectly valid and acceptable character concepts. Does it hose the party? A little, they'll need to think of alternatives to fill in the gap.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Actually, something two of my players are discussing. If the party doesn't have healer kits and potions, they're being irresponsible. What the hell would they be doing if the cleric fell down?
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
There does have to be a balance, in which the characters must work together, but can still be individuals and don't have to 'click' entirely. The paladin's had some conversations with the party cleric, about the worth of the individual. She even used the example of another goddess in her own pantheon - the Goddess of War and Midwives has clerics who hunt down the dregs of society - those who do not contribute even if they can. These people are given a chance to help support society, but if they choose not to, to deliberately be a drain on society, the clerics will kill the hell out of them so that they can be productive in their next incarnation. Her point was to tell the paladin that the paladin will not know whether or not someone has 'worth' unless the person is tested first... the paladin can't just summarily decide.
The paladin's considering this. She's not one for cold murder, being Lawful Neutral, but she's trying to decide how to better lay out her beliefs.
Tashiro wrote:
The degree of assumptions that go into magic users with healing spells, particularly clerics (this issue has come up in other threads before), always surprises me.
When your PC goes down and your allies decline to heal you, it's because you haven't made it worth their while to do so. Different PCs and different players have differing thresholds for that value proposition. The barbarian with a healing potion on the other side of the battlefield has to work hard and give up a lot of hack-n-slashing to sort you out; a cleric standing next to you with spare the dying and nothing better to do with her action doesn't lose much. But it's always up to the player to assess the value of healing you against whatever else they might do instead, and you don't get to make that decision for them.
A cleric who chooses to do something other than wake up unconscious characters is no more disruptive to a game than a rogue who decides not to steal from elves. It's well within the purview of the player to make decisions like that, and a player who is clearly and consistently communicating to other players how he's arriving at his decisions is the opposite of disruptive.
Yes, you always have the option of dropping out of an AL game because there's a character or a player in it that you don't like, though I happen to think that's kind of petty and non-productive. You also have the option (in low-tier play) of creating a new character to fill any voids in the party that you think you just can't live without. And there's always the possibility of sitting down at an Expeditions table that has zero healers.
Basically, you should be able to survive without a healer. If you can't, you should look at adjusting your own playstyle before you make demands on other players. And if you absolutely can't enjoy an AL game when there's not a magical healer in the party, you should play one yourself.
caecafortuna wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
Anthraxus wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Clerics of Kelemvor abhor undead. They also believe everything has its time......and so will be very discerning when/if they use resurrection magic such as revify or raise dead.
With that being said, the Kelemvorites in Phlan are more than willing to raise PCs (at a cost) - as the Temple of Kelemvor is the only official temple in Phlan (others may exist, but they are not directly referenced in the expedition modules), and raise dead is available as a spellcasting service.
A Kelemvorite who refuses to cast resurrection magic is fine. That is justifiable....
Casting cure wounds is a very minor spell. A Kelemvorite who refuses to cast such a spell on a dying person is negligant in their duties to protect life (which is something that Kelemvor cherishes). This is not a case of prolonging someone's life artificially - and is the D&D equivalent of pressure bandages and sutures...... IOWs, an easily preventable death. How do you think Kelemvor would feel about his clerics failing to treat easily treatable conditions?
If there are extenuating circumstances preventing the character from casting the spell - I don't have an issue.... But saying "no, I wont do that - because [reasons]" is being a jerk.
In our society, there are numerous cases where child welfare has become involved and removed children from their parents for "negligance" due to their belief systems. Yes, this is a grey area ethically - and I am not touching on the ethics or morality of these occurances - but the fact still remains that such occurances happen with some degree of frequency.
AL is designed to be inclusive play experience. Ask yourself - is this cleric acting in an inclusive manner, or is he putting selfish and arbitary demands upon his party. IMHO this is no different than a rogue who wants to steal from PCs.
caecafortuna wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
Reading through this thread, I'm reminded that it is possible for someone to pick a cool-seeming character background that, for whatever reason, that person ends up being utterly unprepared to actually portray well.
My example isn't from D&D, but from an MMO called City of Heroes -- I created a character named Supernumerary, whose schtick was that she didn't speak, but only communicated through the game's emote system. Problem was, I as a player wasn't very good with the emote system, and I wasn't willing to spend the money to get lots of the extra emotes available through the game's online store. So in effect, this meant that when I played this character, I ended up running around and soloing a lot, and only those people who bothered to click on the character and read her background were probably even aware of her quirk. It could be argued that my character would have been a liability on certain group-focused missions, as an inability to use team chat meant that she couldn't signal when she was low on health or otherwise unable to fill her role before it was too late, but alternatively, playing the character within a guild or superteam that was aware of her quirk and able to work around it mechanically would have gone a long way toward making the experience more bearable for everyone.
I think that's the best take-away from this conversation -- if you're going to play a character with a demanding or odd personality or backstory that messes with other players' perceptions of the game, do so in a group that's aware of the character's quirks and comfortable dealing with them. Don't break out that character at a convention game with four strangers, as you're only inviting trouble. Pitch your play to the level of the play you encounter, and don't be afraid to admit that a character concept isn't working out the way you expected.
--
Pauper
Heh. Reminds me of my sister's other character. A dryad-type that only speaks kami. If you don't know kami, you've no idea what she's saying. Since this is an online character, she only acts through poses, and doesn't actually use speech. It's thrown some players off, but most seem to accept it.
Actually, I'm reminded of John Wick playing a character in D&D. He went adventuring to pay off family gambling debts. The money he got on his first adventure was more than he'd ever seen - enough to pay off his family's debts, as well as retire happily. So... why adventure after that first trip out?
That being said - what another player's 'perception' of what the game should be isn't necessarily right. I played a thief at a convention who didn't want to go into the dangerous abandoned temple unless the group was prepared - he wasn't interested in the risk vs reward, and was fully willing, once one or two people died, of simply leaving, hiring a bunch of mercs, and sending them in to scour the place. The reasoning was 'why does a party thief have to be 1) the 'I disarm traps and sneak' type, or 2) interested in money?
Tashiro wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Actually, I had a group where the cleric had a vow of pacifism. If the PCs initiated combat, he wouldn't help them. If the enemy attacked first? Fine then. The PCs attacked first a few times, and he would buff them, but he'd do nothing offensive to the enemy. And actually, I kind of like the idea of a fighter who doesn't attack anyone except those who attack him. The concept of the 'personal combat', rather than mass-fighting opponents. That's actually a real cool idea.
And, by the by, I do think the 'why' is important. You need the concept, but the concept requires a reason behind it. The player deciding that is an obvious one, but the reason in-setting is just as important. And no, having the flaw so you can 'grumble, atone, etc' doesn't cut it. If I have a flaw, I'm going to roleplay it. I'm not going to find excuses to not follow the tenets of the flaw.
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
All of the arguments about "the character is x" or "the character believes y" are 100% irrelevant. The character doesn't exist. It's a figment of the player's imagination. The player makes 100% of the decisions, for reasons that are the player's and the player's alone.
AL doesn't guarantee anyone a place at the gaming table; it's merely a mechanism for maintaining rules compatibility (at a general level). So, to play in a table-top game with a group of people, you need to be able to get along with those people. The key to this is communication. If you've made your character so that it doesn't match with what people generally expect from that type of character, it's up to you to let them know in advance. If you don't, and they were counting on something that you're not willing to provide, they will probably get upset. That's on you, not your character.
There are tons of ways to make an "edgy" character, including all of the examples previously listed in this thread. So long as the other players know what to expect and are willing to go along with it, there should be no problem. However, if you choose to make a "difficult" (by whatever definition you like) character, you should realize that not everyone will want to include you in their group—and they don't have to, under many circumstances. (A convention where the players have no choice in marshalling might be an example where they have to sit with you, but they don't have to let your PC tag along with them.)
The player of the Kelemvorite in the original question may or may not be causing problems with the character he's playing; that depends on what expectations were set going into the game (which, as far as I know, have not been detailed). The bottom line is, you should point out any foibles of your character that are likely to impact play before the game as a simple matter of politeness. Players who are unwilling to get along with the other players should be excluded (perhaps sent to another table with more compatible players).
Storyteller-Zero wrote:
Kalani wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
In response to the original post, I'd point out the following:
- It is the duty of the clerics of Kelemvor to prevent others from dying before their alloted time. Kelemvor respects life, sees death as a part of life, and expects mortals to act in preservation of life. This includes using magical and non-magical healing. After all, if the method is there to save a life, it is not that life's time to end.
- Kelemvor hates people that extend their life beyond the natural limit, ie undeath. Healing and even resurrection are okay, as long as the limits of old age are not tampered with.
Kelemvor on the Forgotten Realms Wikia
Another great resource on Kelemvor
Clutchbone wrote:
BRJN wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
It all boils down to table etiquette.
Did said player inform the rest of the table beforehand that his character's personal beliefs would have a significant impact on teamwork and combat strategy?
If no, then he is at fault.
If yes, then the table doesn't have a right to complain. They could have civilly asked the player to bring a different character into the mix.
I wonder if in 3.5e or Pathfinder, players believe that clerics that channal negative are inherently doing something wrong?
Storyteller-Zero wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Pauper wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
Don't get me wrong... it goes both ways. If my chaotic character knows I am traveling with a PC with a 'code of honor', I am being a team player by not putting him in difficult situations. Its give and take.
My point is, if the player designs a character that can't give and take.... that is the players fault. The roleplay/background/culure/etc reasons are immaterial... since the *player* made those decisions.
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Storyteller-Zero wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
Storyteller-Zero wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
If the characters don't like the way another character is behaving in game, they can relay that displeasure in character in game.
If the players don't like the way a player is behaving IRL, they can relay that displeasure in person out of game.
If the PLAYERS don't like what someone elses CHARACTER is doing in game, they can get stuffed. IRL.
Storyteller-Zero wrote:
"Be as unconventional and unorthordox as you like, as long as it isn't at the expense of the other players' enjoyment"
Do not conflate "player enjoyment" with "character success".
I would enjoy the Cleric of Kelemvors roleplaying, even if it meant my character died.
If the players only enjoy games where they are imaginarily victorious, I might question their sense of good sporstmanship.
Pauper wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Storyteller-Zero wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
True, or, as in the current campaign, the PCs can get along, but if one or two specific PCs get out of line, it's a PC that's going to kill them - because the characters have no rights. Thankfully, everyone's cool with that in the group. Actually...
This makes me wonder, I wonder how things like social caste work in AL - can you make a character that's a second class citizen? Someone who doesn't have any rights within the scope of the setting, and thus their lives pretty much hang on the goodwill of the other characters?
DemoMonkey wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
The player of the Cleric of Kelemvor being discussed tells us every time what his character's beliefs are. We tell him we would rather him not play her, but we kind of need a healer. Yes. We need a healer. So, he gets to play his Cleric of Kelemvor while DMing and gets to gloat (my take on the situation) whenever one of us drops to 0 hp and he doesn't heal us.
My problem is that we, as a group, cannot take the stand to tell him to not play the character. If he can't play the character because we all say No, he is likely to not run the mod for us. Sure, someone else could run it, but he's the one who's been reading the mod to run it.
So, yeah, the next time his character falls unconscious, my character is going to petition *heavily* to the rest of the party to let her roll her death saves and to not waste healing on her since it's against her beliefs.
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
I think I have to agree. There's a lot of ways to get healing done in 5e, you don't need a cleric to do it. Healer's Kits, Short Rests, Potions of Healing. Sure, a cleric helps, but they're not as necessary as they used to be in earlier editions.
Late to the party, but....
Ultimately it's a question of how much you'll allow roleplay to disrupt group synergy.
I'd get if you allow roleplay to disrupt a bit, but not this much.
But if you don't allow roleplay to potentially disrupt group synergy at all, it just means you're bad roleplayers. Bad at roleplay.
Unless you advertise yourself as a no roleplay group (or a stick to a certain script group), don't be that group.
Hibiki54 wrote:
How are you all managing to play high level characters then, if you keep dying because the "cleric" won't save you?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Yep. I agree, La Brat!
Tashiro wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
I never said it was his responsibility to heal. I have no issue with a cleric who chooses not to play a healbot (stated that early in this thread several times in fact).
What I have an issue with:
Is PCs placing arbitary limits on their actions, forcing other PCs to bend to their wishes - and citing the excuse "my character will never do that because [reasons]".
In the example of the cleric of Kelemvor, the example was:
- Willingly healing PCs (healing was an established part of their repitoire).
- Except when they are dying.
It was the exception that I find disruptive. If they made a war cleric who never prepares healing spells - that is perfectly acceptable. There is no arbitary line that the player chose. They simply don't heal.
While I agree with what Kalani has posted above, I want to expand on this...
Kalani wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
If it is really a problem for your group step up and take one of the following options:
1. take a level in cleric, druid or bard,
2. take the healer feat and a healing kit, 3. proficiency in medicine,
4. magic initiate feat with spare the dying and cure wounds
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
In game that allows you to instantly heal over a long rest I just can't understand how this is even a problem.
dmgorgon wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Fortunately, the new ALPG covers this very situation and I quote:
How do I deal with players of evil characters, or who venerate an evil deity?
Just because a player has a character with a darker side doesn’t mean that player has a license to make the game less fun for others at the table. Players are encouraged to have their characters work together despite their differences; a little competition is fine, as long as it stays fun for everyone involved and doesn’t result in other players getting shut out of the experience.
If a DM or another player feels as though a player is creating an uncomfortable situation through the excuse of “it’s what my character would do,” the DM is free to give the offending player a warning for disruptive behavior , and if it persists, ask the organizer to remove the player from the table.
Kalani wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Read post #124:
Undrhil wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Kalani wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Agreed, the fact that it is a DMPC only makes it worse for me personally.
Still the ALPG also does not say the player gets to decide it is disruptive. They get to indicate discomfort to the DM (if the DM did not pick up on it.. which should not, but can happen). Where to go from there is still up to the DM. I would agree that to ignore such an indication from a player woud be very bad form and that it needs to be adressed and preferably resolved.
And I am gad the deciding vote remains with the DM... I can just see it already "The barbarian being unwilling to jump in front to take all the attacks makes me uncomfortable..." or "The wizards refusal to prep the most optimal spell selection makes me uncomfortable...", etc. (Ok, some sarcasm present here, but I totally know players that would do it if they thought it worked like that)
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
There is no rule that allow a DM to run their character as part of the table at the same time as running the adventure.
Skerrit wrote:
There is no rule that explicitly forbids it, just as there is no rule that says you can't be a horse and run an AL game. We don't list everything you cannot do and assume some general common sense.
Skerrit wrote:
I am a big fan of the quote "Common sense isn't".
But yeah, if we would try to explicitly disallow all the crazy stuff people come up with in this game, that is essentially all about coming up with crazy stuff, we could break some document size records.
Still, the thread provided me with an excelent example of something to not do as am DM. I am bound to find a use for it, if only during "lemme tell you about THIS" story time at a con 
I only use my DMPCs as ancillory NPCs.... They might ocassionally show up to aid the party and then leave again, or they might show up chained to a wall and ask the party for aid in rescue. They rarely have more than a minor impact on the story, and rarely participate in more than a scene or two.
I briefly tried tracking down the article/FAQ I read with no luck.
I am hoping I am not just misremembering a conversation between us forumites and Skerrit.
Skerrit wrote:
I use a DMPC from time to time. Typically in support roles so the PCs can kick all the butt and take all the names, but not always. It really depends on the needs of the players.
Kalani wrote:
I don't like DMpcs much, but they can help facilitate an easy way for the DM to drop hints for the PCs or streamlining parts of an adventure that the PCs sont seem to enjoy.
The only problem is if the DM is biased towards their own PC which tends to make them inadvertantly hog the spotlight or railroad the PCs.
Our game is currently being run by a sub DM that usually has a character at the table. He's using his character in this way. It is annoying, but I am willing to put up with a lot to be able to play. We dont have any other DMs right now so he is doing us a service.
Byakugan01 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Storyteller-Zero wrote:
Pauper wrote:
To be a DMPC both of the following statements must be true.
- The character has a character sheet. In AL the character must also conform to the ALPG and have a logsheet.
- The character has been played in at least one adventure as a PC, or is intended to be played as such.
Retired PCs might count as DMPCs or as NPCs depending on how the DM uses them. Active PCs are always DMPCs (who are only taking on the role of NPC temporarily).
In all other cases, you are looking at a regular or recurring NPC.