Community

Degausser wrote:

^ Seconded

As for the aquatic elf hydromancer. . . .

I'm sorry if it was poorly written, but I was trying to bring across that there are some times when a player's request is rediculus, and shouldn't be allowed (such as an aquatic elf in an Arabian campaign) for a number of reasons, including tone, setting, and mechanics.

As for banning Classes. Okay, so, player wants to play some Pelor prestige class. But what if the god of the Sun in your campaign is an evil deity, who is intentianally casting rays down to scorch the desert in his own world? That's hardly the image of the benevolent sun god that Pelor is, and it might not be appropriate for the GM to allow a LG priest with the Sun Domain.

Heck, I designed a campaign where there were no gods, and everyone worshipped six elements (fire, earth, air, water, Holy(positive) and Unholy(Negative). I would hesitate to allow a prestige class that wasn't directly alligned with one of the six stated areas.

Now, I'm going to admit, example don't get us far, so take the two above for what they're worth. I'm just trying to say that banning some things based on tone, setting, or style doesn't automatically make someone a bad DM.

I just want to say that I completely agree with your last sentence. This is merely a question of style not of quality. I have played with several DMs that were restrictive just like many of you are in order to have a world that they wanted to run and DM, and they were thorough, non railroading with their plots, one was especially theatric, and all in all they were very enjoyable quality games. I am not trying to say that everyone that games differently from me is wrong, or that they aren't good DMs. I am just arguing from my perspective that banning things is unneccessary and that I feel that the same goal can be met through other means.

The aquatic elf Hyrdromancer would be a fantastic character for a desert campaign. He/she grew up in an oasis, and grew up listening to stories from his father / grandfather about an age when the desert was covered in forest, beutiful and full of life, and he learned magics around water in hopes to restore life to the desert. Additionally, since he has not explored much beyond his oasis (or ocean since deserts can very easily border the coast) he/she wanted to explore the world of land dwellers for a while and being a powerful water mage will allow him to deal with the harshness of his new climate better. Being an aquatic elf in the desert gives the player ample opportunity to play out the difficulties of such a 'silly' choice. Will have them keep their character wrapped up often moistening their clothes to stay from drying out. People will react to the character's hands, feet, and most especially gills in many different and exciting ways. Especially once he/she starts conjuring up things that are more valuable than gold (water).

It takes a theme, and subverts the theme of the desert in an intersting and exotic way. The elf can dress in all of the flavour of your setting, enjoy and fit in perfectly to your arabian cultures just fine, but still bring its own complications and difficulties that set the character apart from the other population. I just don't see how that doesn't fit. To me it looks like fantastic role playing opportunities and stories waiting to happen. Especially if hydromancing has never been seen before on land. Powerful people and merchant princes are going to want to know what this character can do, will begin asking questions about the character and if they can use this magic to their own gains.

Aquatic elf Hydromancer in the desert in my opinion would be fantastic.

That is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Why ban when you can twist?

-------------

To the posters mentioning that I HAVE to include everything under the sun just because I don't restrict my players, that is incorrect. Just because I do not impose limits on my players character selections or what books they can draw from does not mean my setting has every god under the sun in it.

I have several options available:

1) Keep the mechanics, change the name. If the class is Glorious knight of Pelor, I can replace Pelor with the name of my Sun god without issue. In FR this could be Lathander, or one of the many justice gods for example.

2) Add the diety - I could simply add the diety. Correllon and Lloth are in at least 2 official settings, why not this other god?

The most important note to make on this stuff is that I only need to adjust and accomodate based on what the players actually use. I don't need to figure out how dread necromancers fit into the world if I don't want them there if all of my players are rogues and fighters.

I allow everything but only ever have to adjust for a few things because the players cannot play everything at once. They only have one character after all.


And Rooisha, you may be having fun, but you post in a manner that makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. Especially when you don't take the time to fully read what you're replying to. For example:

Averon: What you guys aren't seeing, even though it has been stated many, many times. Is that the Player ONLY has his one character. That is it.

R: Oh really? Can you explain then why I have, as a player, many characters and any of them can bring me fun and excitement without disrespect and rudeness to my DM?

How many characters do you play at once? Do yo play all your many characters simultaenously? No, you play one the vast majority of the time. Therefore you can only impact the world based upon the actions and background of that single character at any given time. Additionally the fact that you thought I meant that you SHOULD be rude or disrespectful definately shows you didn't understand what I was saying. I guess I wasn't clear enough, but I doubt that as you decided the best way to post would be:

Sentence 1: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No.
Because I said so.

To troll.