The Campaign only allows 'Good' characters. My character is a Lawful Good Warpriest who worships Pelor. Not even before the miniatures were on the board, a bard with a high Thievery stole my character's Holy Symbol while he was unconcious, then proceeded to try and sell it back to the Warpriest. I think no matter how high the Bard's Bluff or Intimidate is, my character would realize something as blatant as his Holy Symbol missing when waking up in a dungeon, and a Bard suddenly having one to sell him that looks an awful lot like the one he owned for his entire career thus far.
So naturally, I roll to attack the bard with Blessing of Battle, the plan being to knock him unconcious and drag him out the dungeon and to the nearest civilization with a Constable to enforce the law. Yeah, it's inconvenient for the rest of the group, but it's also inconvenient for me, within my character's scope of reactions, and seems like something that would logically happen in that setting. I was denied being able to attack him or weedle the symbol back from him in any way. So because of the enforced rules, I had to basically break my character's entire personality just so I could heal for the next encounter(which was very necessary because of the melee ranger with 18-ish AC at level 6).
My questions are this:
1. Should stealing from other party members be allowed in a 'Good only' campaign setting?
2. Should intimidation, bluff, etc be allowed against other party members in a 'Good only' campaign setting? (At one point the bard intimidated another party member to get his way).
3. Is it perfectly within the scope of a Lawful Good Warpriest to beat a man unconcious or otherwise subdue him and bring him before the law?
What mostly seems to be going on is a lot of powerplaying and double-standards. The bard is actually a really great DM, though I do not enjoy playing alongside him while he's a PC. He has a tough time leaving his DM mindset behind, and while this is something I've gathered from one session, it was frequent enough that it has me worried if it happened again. I enjoyed the session despite it all, but it was a very big point of dissatisfaction for me in the game, and I could see it getting to the point where I'd rather just drop out than deal with the drama that might be entailed from a newbie telling a D&D Veteran he's "Doing it wrong".
I've only been playing D&D for a little over a month.
I'm really surprised the Dungeon Master allowed and encouraged all this!
It sounds like an ominous beginning to the game: virtually before the ink is dry on the character sheets, one Player-Character steals vital equipment from the party's healer, potentially dooming the party to an early Total Party Kill, the party's healer attacks the thief in retaliation, the game gets derailed as the thief is hauled off to jail....
It's worse, knowing that it sounds like an experienced DM that permitted it, and another experienced DM started it, and the victim is relatively new to the game.
In "real life", a real priest (theoretically Lawful Good) would have tried to talk to a thief who stole from the church like a human being, and if possible taking an opportunity to convince the thief to turn his life around and start doing the right thing, and then, if the thief could be reached on that level, the priest would have convinced the thief to return the stolen property and then do some sort of appropriate penance, without calling in the authorities. If the thief can't be reasoned with, the police would have been called.
But, to me, this sounds more like an out-of-character problem of a player using a Chaotic-Stupid or Stupid-Evil character as an excuse to act like a sociopathic troll while hogging the spotlight at the expense of everyone else.
If this can be resolved at all, it will only be resolved out-of-character, hopefully by the DM stopping the game to establish some boundaries, but you might have to talk to the DM and/or player first... you might get your best results by asking THEM what they think your character should do in this situation, since one of the team-members apparently can't be trusted or relied on in any responsible way.
If the DMs do not care whether you are comfortable with this and continue to encourage things to go down that route, you may have to ask yourself whether it's worth sticking around while they haze you as a new guy (or whatever they are doing), or if you might be better off looking for a different group.
Good luck in any case.
I'm sure Pelor has issues healing someone who stole from him. In-game, refuse to heal him until he returns your holy symbol.
OOG, ask the dude what's going on. If his answer is "I'm playing my alignment," the next time you're in town, bring the entire town guard down on him, and when he complains, point out to him that, just like you, you're playing to your "alignment," and the other alternative is that everyone could play like adults on the same team.
Sounds like Chaotic ****.
I'm sure Pelor has issues healing someone who stole from him. In-game, refuse to heal him until he returns your holy symbol.
OOG, ask the dude what's going on.
This.
If his answer is "I'm playing my alignment," the next time you're in town, bring the entire town guard down on him, and when he complains, point out to him that, just like you, you're playing to your "alignment," and the other alternative is that everyone could play like adults on the same team.
. . . but not this.
You should have been told that this kind of play is acceptable. If you haven't been told, then the default assumption (unless all players are about 12 years old) is that it is not. However, you over-reacted by attacking the thief.
If you were not expecting player characters to be opposing each other with gamey "jokes" such as robbing each other and fighting, then something has already gone horribly wrong. Probably the quickest way to fix it, is agree with the thief player that you'll knock off laying down the law by attacking the thief, if the thief's player will knock off on the practical jokes. Then both of you approach the DM, apologise for de-railing the game, and ask for a quick "re-set" of the issue so everyone can get on with the adventure.
It's OK for teh characters to not see eye-to-eye, but you should try to keep it fun in-character discussion and banter. Sometimes the cleric can show his is a good attitude to win the day, sometimes it's the thief. It could be the start of a good buddy movie :-)
You should have been told that this kind of play is acceptable. If you haven't been told, then the default assumption (unless all players are about 12 years old) is that it is not.
I'm glad I saw this thread. I'm going to be starting a new D&D group next month, and we're going to meet for the first time in a few weeks. Stuff like this is stuff I'm going to say "does not fly in my game."
For what it's worth, there's a fantastic discussion of evil-aligned parties, and how they can work, here (link). It takes a lot more work, communication, and cooperation to make an evil character work in a fun, entertaining, and constructive way than it does a more altruistic character. Lots of people want to try it, but very few people have the skill and discipline to pull it off.
As for the question on beating someone unconscious who stole from you and bringing them before the law, that sounds more Lawful Neutral. Lawful Good would try to reform them and give them a chance to attone. As mentioned above, if they persist in their nefarious ways, then you can take them before the law. That being said, I would agree with a previous poster that if I were in your place said Bard would recieve no help at all from me until he apologized for stealing the item and gave back the money he forced me to pay to get it back.
1. Should stealing from other party members be allowed in a 'Good only' campaign setting?
2. Should intimidation, bluff, etc be allowed against other party members in a 'Good only' campaign setting? (At one point the bard intimidated another party member to get his way).
3. Is it perfectly within the scope of a Lawful Good Warpriest to beat a man unconcious or otherwise subdue him and bring him before the law?
1. Stealing from other party members should not be allowed period.
2. Social skills are for PC use against NPCs.
3. Certainly; it should never happen between PCs, though.
My cleric is about slaying evil and such, not dealing with dickheads who walk the line just enough that it's outside the realm of possibilities for him to kick them down a set of stairs. I'd rather just enjoy myself, not deal with the nonsense of of being pestered with PvP when I can't reasonably defend myself.
And I don't think my character over-reacted in attacking the Bard. He didn't know the Bard and the way he started things off was to steal from him moments before they're locked in a dire situation. Self-preservation over-rules many things. I don't really care for what the book would say about alignment, it's a broad blanket to be throwing out anyways. I'd rather refer to them as 'tendencies', after all this nonsense 'alignment' has caused in a single session.
And I don't think my character over-reacted in attacking the Bard.
I meant that you over-reacted by escalating the PvP in an attempt to "win" it. The actions can easily be construed as reasonable in-character, but that's not the point, because pretty much any action can be construed as reasonable in character (the thief's player probably thought so himself).
If you don't want to play PvP, you are much better off being blunt about the matter and saying something like: "I'm not enjoying this, I don't want to play PvP, I want to play the adventure."
So once he returned the stolen property and paid 1000 gold piece to feed the poor he was on his own. To make sure he pays for the funds, you will take them now. If he does it again, you add a zero to the amount.
All gods allow you to charge for healing somebody not of your alignment, so if he does not have the 1k now. Charge him 50 gold pieces in advance for each spell. Tell him you hope he does not pay so you can loot his dead body.
All gods allow you to charge for healing somebody not of your alignment,
... where in the world did you get this?!
The DM said Good characters only, and no good character would ever steal from another "friend" or "Group Member" unless said theft was to prevent something bad from happening, ie evil item dominating said character.
So the isue to me, is that the DM is abusing his power to set certain limits on PC's then building DMPCs who do not have to meet those limits.
Salla, This is from DragonLance campiagn Setting 3.5. Pg 124. Under the God Of Mishakal. She is the god of healing. It says the clerics of Miskakal must heal anyone how ask, regardless of alignment. Thought some cleris may charge a nominal tithe for healing(which may grow exponentially larger for those who are evil). Exponential means I can charge a good player 10 gold, a neutral 100 and an evil 1000.
Chances are they are not stuck playing Dragonlance like me but if the very good god of healing says I can charge for healing then I'm sure any other god will not mind.
So since only an evil person would steal from his traveling buddies, the bard must be evil. Since the bard is evil I can charge him. The more he steals the more I can charge.
And I would charge him until it hurts. If somebody wants to play in a way that hurts others of the group there is no reason they should not get the benefits from their actions. Reap what you sow. Its very stupid to rob from the cleric. He should be your best friend best who do you think he going to use his last heal spell on?
Salla, This is from DragonLance campiagn Setting 3.5. Pg 124. Under the God Of Mishakal. She is the god of healing. It says the clerics of Miskakal must heal anyone how ask, regardless of alignment. Thought some cleris may charge a nominal tithe for healing(which may grow exponentially larger for those who are evil). Exponential means I can charge a good player 10 gold, a neutral 100 and an evil 1000.
Chances are they are not stuck playing Dragonlance like me but if the very good god of healing says I can charge for healing then I'm sure any other god will not mind.
So since only an evil person would steal from his traveling buddies, the bard must be evil. Since the bard is evil I can charge him. The more he steals the more I can charge.
And I would charge him until it hurts. If somebody wants to play in a way that hurts others of the group there is no reason they should not get the benefits from their actions. Reap what you sow. Its very stupid to rob from the cleric. He should be your best friend best who do you think he going to use his last heal spell on?
You know, with all the stories I'm reading about PCs screwing over other PCs, I'm beginning to believe that it IS a good idea to give them a taste of their own medicine THEN explain why you did it, instead of explaining why they shouldn't do that and hoping they don't do it again.
My other thought is to demand a replay/rewind where the bad thing that happened just didn't happen or else leave the group. I just don't believe that anyone should have to put up with dickish behavior "for the good of the game," and I wouldn't want to play with a DM that would allow it to happen.
How about this instead? Player A steals something from Player B. Player B just says "No, that didn't happen," and stands his ground. If the DM says "Yes, it does," Player B can just explain why he doesn't want to play a game like that and excuse himself from the game. Of course, this only works if Player B really isn't willing to put up with it just to play. If the DM says "Yeah, that shouldn't happen ... rewind," then all is good.
Regardless, if Player B doesn't make his displeasure known or if he sticks around when it doesn't change, he's just enabling dickish behavior.
No game is better than bad game.
irony isnt it.
Pelor, a greyhawk god..... Amuantor is the sun god of the realms..... but that is no matter.
Pelor would frown on any action dealing in violence just to rectify a thief. give him the cold shoulder by healing him last after everybody else.
give him a warning and keep warning him until he goes and lifts something, and then when he becomes injured again, tell him that your god dictates that you never heal his injuries again until he atones
What I would have done in the first place is said 'ok, I'll replace it later' and not healed anyone because I didnt have the ability to do so without the holy symbol. After a while they would do the violence against the theif for you.
All gods allow you to charge for healing somebody not of your alignment,
... where in the world did you get this?!
I think this is an old 2e or 3.5 rule, and another reason I'm glad they buried alignment. Not enough, IMO, but still.
As a DM, I think I'd allow PC Clerics to charge for healing NPCs, and I might allow PC Clerics to charge for healing other PCs of any alignment they wish sooner than I'd allow PvP thefts, assaults, and murders.
That said, I don't really think charging for healing is a heroic thing to do, and I'd frown on it with PCs in a heroic game.
Uh...Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but why would you, as a Warpriest, need a Holy Symbol in the first place, let alone to heal. Don't Warpriests use their weapons as implements for all their powers?
He doesn't need it except possibly for some of his daily powers. Death domain warpriests are the only ones with implement at will or encounter powers.
1. Should stealing from other party members be allowed in a 'Good only' campaign setting?
2. Should intimidation, bluff, etc be allowed against other party members in a 'Good only' campaign setting? (At one point the bard intimidated another party member to get his way).
3. Is it perfectly within the scope of a Lawful Good Warpriest to beat a man unconcious or otherwise subdue him and bring him before the law?
For 1 and 2, alignment is not the issue. What the real people at the table think about it is. We play occasional games in my group where PCs will mess with each other like that, but everyone in the group has known each other for a long time and is ok with it going in. That can be fun, but only if everyone is ok with it, which isn't the case here since you are obviously not ok with it.
For 3 yes, that is what warpriests should be doing, but again this should be handled out of character since you are dealing with PCs and not villains.
I think the most reasonable response to that situation is to politely excuse yourself from the table. One of the players is griefing you, and the DM is supporting him in this by allowing him to act against you while preventing you from acting in response. Do you want to spend your free time letting these two guys screw with you?
Uh...Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but why would you, as a Warpriest, need a Holy Symbol in the first place, let alone to heal. Don't Warpriests use their weapons as implements for all their powers?
Why is that relevant? I don't need my wedding ring to get through the day, but if someone took it from me and tried to sell it back to me I'd take issue with that. I wouldn't trust such a creature to have my back in a fight, and I sure as hell wouldn't deliberately go somewhere dangerous with him.
You know, for some reason it wouldn't surprise me to learn that this DM ruled that the Warpriest loses all his powers and abilities without his holy symbol, and that the Rogue needs to rob everyone within arms' distance, and that Lawful Good PCs must kill non-Good PCs on sight....
Well that is the definition in the books for being an awesome dm, playing the rogue class, and the listed description of Lawful Good correct?
The Cleric's powers don't come from the holy symbol, otherwise anyone who buys, begs, borrows, or steals a holy symbol is suddenly a Cleric. Does a priest suddenly become abandoned by his God in the real world because someone stole his crucifix? Wizards don't lose their ability to cast spells because someone stole their magic wand, Rogues don't lose their ability to sneak attack because someone stole their lockpick set, and even Fighters don't lose their ability to fight because someone stole their sword... why should a Cleric lose his ability to do his job just because some clown stole his holy symbol? And that's aside from whether helpless symbol-less Clerics are even part of the rules or not....
The story of Robin Hood (just one of many prototypes for the Rogue) would be pretty lame if Robin Hood stole from the rich, the poor, his merry men, and anyone else that amused him, because he's a compulsive kleptomaniac, and the story ends when someone finally gets sick of his sociopathic behavior and kills him. Take a couple dimensions out of Rogue-like characters such as The Green Hornet, Frodo Baggins, the Scarlet Pimpernel, Zorro, Batman, the Three Musketeers, and so on to tell the same story, and they get pretty lame pretty quickly, too.
Considering most NPCs are some shade of neutral, LG PCs killing them all on sight because they aren't Good makes that LG PC look like more of a villain than the average villain. It's a one-dimensional ruling of what a LG (or any other alignment PC) does that overrides characterization of a main character with a flat and rather silly stereotype, which isn't good role-playing, and isn't good DM storytelling.
These characters have stopped being heroes, and become instead helpless losers (in the case of the cleric) or the story's villains (in the case of the Rogue with no restraint or free will, or the intolerant "LG" mass murderer.)
Your mileage may vary on how awesome a DM who makes weird, arbitrary, one-dimensional rulings like those really is.
You know, for some reason it wouldn't surprise me to learn that this DM ruled that the Warpriest loses all his powers and abilities without his holy symbol, and that the Rogue needs to rob everyone within arms' distance, and that Lawful Good PCs must kill non-Good PCs on sight....
Well that is the definition in the books for being an awesome dm, playing the rogue class, and the listed description of Lawful Good correct?
No, no, and no.
In fact, F NO, F NO, and F NO. If you actually believe a word you just typed, you need therapy.
There is no way for PCs to lose their powers and abilities. A DM who takes them away for any reason is just being a douche and the very definition of a horrible DM.
Classes do not have attendant personalities. A rogue is not required steal at all, and certainly not a kleptomaniac.
And if that's what you think, you have a very skewed and utterly F'd up definition of good.
"The definition in the books" for DMs, Rogues, and LG, as presented by Ryndarlocke, actually interests me, though - is that an "OD&D" thing?
[spoiler For 3.5 Edition]
- Rogue - (3.5E PHB, pg. 49) the book's definition of Rogue describes a very broad selection of characters, with thieves being just one of many possibilities (emphasis added):
- "...little in common with one another..."
- "...some are stealthy thieves, others silver-tongued tricksters, still others are scouts, infiltrators, spies, diplomats, or thugs..."
- "...in general, rogues are skilled at getting what others don't want them to get..."
- "...Role: the rogue's role in a group can vary dramatically based on her skill selectoin - from charismatic con-artist to cunning burglar to agile combatant... the rogue's stealth and trapfinding ability make her one of the best scouts in the game..."
- Alignment - (3.5E PHB, pg. 103) the book's definition of Alignment leaves a lot of wriggle room (emphasis added):
- "...a creature's general moral and personal attitudes are repsresneted by its alignment..."
- "...choose an alignment for your character, using Race and Class as a guide..."
- "...alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity... it's not a straightjacket for restricting your character..."
- "...each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two LG characters can still be quite different from each other..."
- "...in addition, few people are completely consistent... an LG characters may have a greedy streak... a good character can lose his temper... a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, etc...."
- Note that all descriptions of the Good vs. Evil, Law vs. Chaos, and Neutral vs. more extreme alignments use the word "implies", and describe a variety of motives and attitudes that can have the result of a given alignment.
- Lawful Good - (3.5E PHB, pg. 104) the book's definition does not mention LG characters being bloodthirsty psychopaths when presented with an opportunity to massacure non-good characters (emphasis added):
- "An LG character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished... Lawful Good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion."
- Note that "commitment to oppose evil" and "discipline to fight relentlessly" do not equate to "attack, kill, and murder non-Good characters."
- Note that "hates to see the guilty go unpunished" does not equate to "refuses to see the guilty go unmurdered".
- Remember that this alignment is not a straightjacket, it's a tool to help develop a unique identity, and that few people are completely consistent....
- Alignment and Class Abilities - some Classes do lose class abilities in Edition 3.5 for willingly violating a code of conduct in a particularly extreme way; the Paladin is a classic example (willingly committing an act of evil); this is left to the DM's discretion on when an extreme enough violation is made, but it can be assumed that the power to withdraw a class's abilities should not be taken lightly, and that the player should choose to guide the character into this territory understanding the consequences - it's not meant as a "gotcha" device to suddenly pull the character out from under the player
- Holy Symbols - (3.5E PHB, pgs. 32, 130, 159)
- "...a holy symbol focuses positive energy... the focus for spells and a tool for turning undead..."
- "...Turn or Rebuke Undead: any cleric... has the power to to affect undead creatures by channeling the power of his faith through his holy (or unloly) symbol..."
- "...you must present your holy symbol to turn undead..." (it's implied that the unholy symbol must be presented to rebuke undead)
- Certain divine spells in 3.5E do require a Divine Focus (holy symbol), but not all.
- This is apparently a frequently-enough used "gotcha" device for some groups, that Cleric PCs in those groups have taken to tattooing holy symbols all over their bodies, carrying dozens of holy symbols with them so they've always got spares, and permanently fastening extra holy symbols to their shields, armor, weapons, helmets, backpacks, and other equipment, so that DMs can't arbitrarily take away their ability to cast spells to regularly make this character the most useless guy in the party. It seems that some DMs retaliate by finding ways to remove the blessings from holy symbols, and finding ways to strip off all the clothes, equipment, and skin from Clerics to keep from losing the "power" to render them helpless, and the PCs try to find ways around that. There's a point where "gotcha" and "counter-gotcha" contests between players and the DM stops being fun, and gets beyond merely silly, into the realm of dysfunctional!
- "Definition of an Awesome DM" (3.5E DMG, pg. 5)
- "...What's a DM? Dungeon Mastering involves writing, teaching, acting, refereeing, arbitrating, and facilitating..."
- "...Providing Adventures..."
- "...Teaching the Game..."
- "...Providing the World..."
- "...Adjudicating... you're in charge... final abiter of the rules within the game... ultimate authority over the game mechanics, eve superseding something in a rulebook... Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't rebel... to carry out this responsibility, you need to know the rules... not required to memorize the rulebooks, but you should have a clear idea of what's in them..."
- "...Propelling the Game Ever Forward..."
[/spoiler]
Ryndar's definitions are not the definitions in 3.5E, and I don't remember it being part of 2nd or early 3rd, and it doesn't look like part of 4th, either, but I see this conviction frequently enough that it HAS to be coming from somewhere....
My objection in the case of those "definitions" is that it isn't role-playing or DM storytelling, it's a matter of the DM making up silly cartoon caricatures that don't exist in the rule-books, and then using them to role-play the character with as little imagination as possible for the players. It's bad enough when the players do that, it's worse when a DM who should know better tries to do the same thing....
You know, for some reason it wouldn't surprise me to learn that this DM ruled that the Warpriest loses all his powers and abilities without his holy symbol, and that the Rogue needs to rob everyone within arms' distance, and that Lawful Good PCs must kill non-Good PCs on sight....
Well that is the definition in the books for being an awesome dm, playing the rogue class, and the listed description of Lawful Good correct?
No, no, and no.
In fact, F NO, F NO, and F NO. If you actually believe a word you just typed, you need therapy.
There is no way for PCs to lose their powers and abilities. A DM who takes them away for any reason is just being a douche and the very definition of a horrible DM.
Classes do not have attendant personalities. A rogue is not required steal at all, and certainly not a kleptomaniac.
And if that's what you think, you have a very skewed and utterly F'd up definition of good.
I'm not sure RyndarLocke's post needed a sarcasm, joking tag or emoticon - that's definitely how I read it.
I hope that's the case - I'll take the opportunity to laugh at myself. I guess I'm so cynical, it wouldn't surprise me to see someone believing something like what Ryndar said, no matter how bizarre it sounds.
- YronimosW, needs a humor tune-up
I wouldn't quite have phrased it that way, Salla, but I guess it was what I was thinking
"The definition in the books" for DMs, Rogues, and LG, as presented by Ryndarlocke, actually interests me, though - is that an "OD&D" thing?
[spoiler For 3.5 Edition]
- Rogue - (3.5E PHB, pg. 49) the book's definition of Rogue describes a very broad selection of characters, with thieves being just one of many possibilities (emphasis added):
- "...little in common with one another..."
- "...some are stealthy thieves, others silver-tongued tricksters, still others are scouts, infiltrators, spies, diplomats, or thugs..."
- "...in general, rogues are skilled at getting what others don't want them to get..."
- "...Role: the rogue's role in a group can vary dramatically based on her skill selectoin - from charismatic con-artist to cunning burglar to agile combatant... the rogue's stealth and trapfinding ability make her one of the best scouts in the game..."
- Alignment - (3.5E PHB, pg. 103) the book's definition of Alignment leaves a lot of wriggle room (emphasis added):
- "...a creature's general moral and personal attitudes are repsresneted by its alignment..."
- "...choose an alignment for your character, using Race and Class as a guide..."
- "...alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity... it's not a straightjacket for restricting your character..."
- "...each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two LG characters can still be quite different from each other..."
- "...in addition, few people are completely consistent... an LG characters may have a greedy streak... a good character can lose his temper... a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, etc...."
- Note that all descriptions of the Good vs. Evil, Law vs. Chaos, and Neutral vs. more extreme alignments use the word "implies", and describe a variety of motives and attitudes that can have the result of a given alignment.
- Lawful Good - (3.5E PHB, pg. 104) the book's definition does not mention LG characters being bloodthirsty psychopaths when presented with an opportunity to massacure non-good characters (emphasis added):
- "An LG character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished... Lawful Good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion."
- Note that "commitment to oppose evil" and "discipline to fight relentlessly" do not equate to "attack, kill, and murder non-Good characters."
- Note that "hates to see the guilty go unpunished" does not equate to "refuses to see the guilty go unmurdered".
- Remember that this alignment is not a straightjacket, it's a tool to help develop a unique identity, and that few people are completely consistent....
- Alignment and Class Abilities - some Classes do lose class abilities in Edition 3.5 for willingly violating a code of conduct in a particularly extreme way; the Paladin is a classic example (willingly committing an act of evil); this is left to the DM's discretion on when an extreme enough violation is made, but it can be assumed that the power to withdraw a class's abilities should not be taken lightly, and that the player should choose to guide the character into this territory understanding the consequences - it's not meant as a "gotcha" device to suddenly pull the character out from under the player
- Holy Symbols - (3.5E PHB, pgs. 32, 130, 159)
- "...a holy symbol focuses positive energy... the focus for spells and a tool for turning undead..."
- "...Turn or Rebuke Undead: any cleric... has the power to to affect undead creatures by channeling the power of his faith through his holy (or unloly) symbol..."
- "...you must present your holy symbol to turn undead..." (it's implied that the unholy symbol must be presented to rebuke undead)
- Certain divine spells in 3.5E do require a Divine Focus (holy symbol), but not all.
- This is apparently a frequently-enough used "gotcha" device for some groups, that Cleric PCs in those groups have taken to tattooing holy symbols all over their bodies, carrying dozens of holy symbols with them so they've always got spares, and permanently fastening extra holy symbols to their shields, armor, weapons, helmets, backpacks, and other equipment, so that DMs can't arbitrarily take away their ability to cast spells to regularly make this character the most useless guy in the party. It seems that some DMs retaliate by finding ways to remove the blessings from holy symbols, and finding ways to strip off all the clothes, equipment, and skin from Clerics to keep from losing the "power" to render them helpless, and the PCs try to find ways around that. There's a point where "gotcha" and "counter-gotcha" contests between players and the DM stops being fun, and gets beyond merely silly, into the realm of dysfunctional!
- "Definition of an Awesome DM" (3.5E DMG, pg. 5)
- "...What's a DM? Dungeon Mastering involves writing, teaching, acting, refereeing, arbitrating, and facilitating..."
- "...Providing Adventures..."
- "...Teaching the Game..."
- "...Providing the World..."
- "...Adjudicating... you're in charge... final abiter of the rules within the game... ultimate authority over the game mechanics, eve superseding something in a rulebook... Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't rebel... to carry out this responsibility, you need to know the rules... not required to memorize the rulebooks, but you should have a clear idea of what's in them..."
- "...Propelling the Game Ever Forward..."
[/spoiler]
Ryndar's definitions are not the definitions in 3.5E, and I don't remember it being part of 2nd or early 3rd, and it doesn't look like part of 4th, either, but I see this conviction frequently enough that it HAS to be coming from somewhere....
My objection in the case of those "definitions" is that it isn't role-playing or DM storytelling, it's a matter of the DM making up silly cartoon caricatures that don't exist in the rule-books, and then using them to role-play the character with as little imagination as possible for the players. It's bad enough when the players do that, it's worse when a DM who should know better tries to do the same thing....
I was using sarcasm.... I guess it didn;t come across that way at all lol. Seeing Salla flip out was pretty hot though.
What mostly seems to be going on is a lot of powerplaying and double-standards. The bard is actually a really great DM, though I do not enjoy playing alongside him while he's a PC. He has a tough time leaving his DM mindset behind, and while this is something I've gathered from one session, it was frequent enough that it has me worried if it happened again. I enjoyed the session despite it all, but it was a very big point of dissatisfaction for me in the game, and I could see it getting to the point where I'd rather just drop out than deal with the drama that might be entailed from a newbie telling a D&D Veteran he's "Doing it wrong".
The only thing to do is discuss this with the DM, let him know that it's negatively impacting your enjoyment of the game, and that you are likely to leave the group if it continues. As satisfying as it might be to coup de grace the bard instead of heal him, it won't solve the problem, and any retaliation is likely to just exacerbate the problem.
And if you got to walk, walk. No gaming is better than bad gaming.