Now, to be clear, I don't like pacifist clerics. The reasons I don't like them are as follows:
Mechanically speaking they are weak and counter-productive. Yes their heals are good, but they waste a lot of time/good options at table and few players can build them to be non-useless. These are the same kind of people that look at BCL and go "no thanks, I'll take Wis mod to my heals" without realizing how terrible of a plan that generally is.
Roleplaying wise I don't like them because nearly every interaction I've ever had with a pacifist in group has been exceedingly boring. They don't contribute anything interesting to making the battle faster, or making the story more interesting and vivid. This is, once again, anecdotal and generally linked to the kind of player that envisions their character as a pure-healer. Someone who doesn't need to be on the front lines doing their thing but is more of a healing totem who will take their turns making sure the party doesn't fail as contrasted to the other players who are taking their turns making sure the party does succeed.
I don’t understand your end game, except that you want to state you don’t like the class choice and role-playing behind it? If that’s it, then you’ve done your job, but I’ll give two counter-points for the two quoted above.
1- Unless you’re the type of DM that disallows Certain classes to be played (or in this case Certain builds) then it’s totally the player’s choice ((also if you’re that type of DM, shame on you)); you might not like the mechanics behind that class/build. BUT IT ISN’T your character, maybe the player DOES ENJOY how their character works.
2- Unless you’re the type of DM that is going to try to control how players use (combat) or role-play (outside/inside combat) it still ISN’T YOUR CHARACTER, and once again maybe the player Really enjoys being a “healing totem”
I understand you don’t like them, but there isn’t really jack sh!t you can do about it unless you’re going to be an overbearing DM, shock as it may be, not all Players are trying to OP their party or Character, some like to play builds/classes which they know are not the “best” but make that choice because they ENJOY to play that way.
The Player’s ENJOYMENT of his character is much more important than how will it performs in battle; I’d much rather have an entire party of Seekers and Vampires whose players ENJOY to play them, then a super Nova/OP party of players who are just in it for rolling big dice, but not connected to their characters. Give me the former any day of the week.
1- Unless you’re the type of DM that disallows Certain classes to be played (or in this case Certain builds) then it’s totally the player’s choice ((also if you’re that type of DM, shame on you)); you might not like the mechanics behind that class/build. BUT IT ISN’T your character, maybe the player DOES ENJOY how their character works.
I'm not going to ban it from my games. Nor am I going to crap on another player who wants to play one. If that player, however, asks me my opinion on their character I'll give a paraphrased version of the response I just gave. It isn't my job to infringe on their fun (As a DM or a player) but I can still not like them and still dislike what they do to my experience at the table. Does that mean I will poke at them til they stop playing that? No.
I also don't like permastealth builds in most cases, or even like 90% of the people who play the Rebreather build that I tried so hard to build and popularize.
2- Unless you’re the type of DM that is going to try to control how players use (combat) or role-play (outside/inside combat) it still ISN’T YOUR CHARACTER, and once again maybe the player Really enjoys being a “healing totem”
And they are welcome to enjoy it. And I am not banned from noticing that if you took a different kind of cleric and put it in that player's place, in every experience I've had with pacifists, that the game would be more interesting out of combat and faster inside combat.
I understand you don’t like them, but there isn’t really jack sh!t you can do about it unless you’re going to be an overbearing DM, shock as it may be, not all Players are trying to OP their party or Character, some like to play builds/classes which they know are not the “best” but make that choice because they ENJOY to play that way.
I feel like, by this point in your reply to me, you aren't talking to me anymore. Or you think you are talking to me, but are actually talking to an invisible player-hating DM standing next to me. I can't force them to play there character like I want them to play their character. Now should I, or even do I want to. I want their characters to be interesting not to fit inside a box I have for them. I want their character to enrich the experience at table instead of being a piece of furniture where the party stacks their healing potions.
You say I can do nothing about this, but that isn't exactly correct. What I can do about it is, if asked about my opinion, give a level-headed and well-reasoned response as to why I would prefer something else. I even pointed out several ways it could have been interesting, but never was. If I'm talking to someone I consider a friend (and I consider most people I play with friends by default even at conventions), that opens our ability to communicate. If I ask them RP questions and say "This doesn't make sense to me, please give me your reasoning", the overall effect of that conversation, in my mind, should be positive. If they come back with a response that is well-reasoned, something I've never heard of, or what-have you and I'm blown back by it that means "great, this game has more depth than it had prior to this conversation". If it doesn't, then thats fine too. They can continue to enjoy the game however they like, I just might not want to play at their table quite as much.
The Player’s ENJOYMENT of his character is much more important than how will it performs in battle; I’d much rather have an entire party of Seekers and Vampires whose players ENJOY to play them, then a super Nova/OP party of players who are just in it for rolling big dice, but not connected to their characters. Give me the former any day of the week.
Here is the issue that bugs me the most. You place things on two sides and say you have to choose, when you really shouldn't. I even made a point to separate them very clearly in my post. The choice isn't between mechanically powerful character who are boring in RP and interesting RPers who are crippled in combat. That is not, has never been, shall never be the choice I'm talking about. If that were the choice, and again it isn't, I would agree with you. Playing a game just for the numbers gets old quickly in my opinion.
The games I enjoy do not make that choice. Ever. They make powerful heroes both on and off the field. They make players who know how to be their characters. The games I enjoy are a merging of strong mechanics and strong RP. The game I love is one where we can go one session of nothing but pure number-crunchy thematicly awe-inspiring combat directly into another session of polictical intrigue and moral dilemmas. The games I love are the ones where the players act like people and fight like heroes. And the ones that are doomed to failure, in at least one of those aspects, are the ones that think those two things have to be on opposite sides of the spectrum.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here Spoiler:Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
P.S. Contrary to apparently popular belief, just because one lives by a code doesn't mean you have to try to force everybody around you to live by it as well.
It humors me you can contradict yourself in less that 40 words.
I think you just won the internet
A character sheet is a player's love letter to the DM. If someone wants to do something and they want to do it well, let them. Encourage them. Have fun with it. -Unknown An adventure is a DM's love letter to the players. If the DM wants something to happen in the game, let it. Encourage the DM. Have fun with it. -Centauri
I'd love for input as to what it should be rather than arguments against why I shouldn't have it at all. -lialwyn
Best defense that I've read in favor of having alignment systems as an option Spoiler:Show
However, if some people are heavily benefiting from the inclusion of alignment, then it would behoove those that AREN'T to listen up and pay attention to how those benefits are being created and enjoyed, no? -YagamiFire
But equally important would be for those who do enjoy those benefits to entertain the possibility that other people do not value those benefits equally or, possibly, do not see them as benefits in the first place. -wrecan
That makes sense. However, it is not fair to continually attack those that benefit for being, somehow, deviant for deriving enjoyment from something that you cannot. Instead, alignment is continually attacked...it is demonized...and those that use it are lumped in with it.
I think there is more merit in a situation where someone says "This doesn't work! It's broken!" and the reply is "Actually it works fine for me. Have you considered your approach might be causing it?" than a situation where someone says "I use this system and the way I use it works really well!" and the back and forth is "No! It is a broken bad system!" because the former posits that improvement could be made...the latter only undermines the enjoyment of the person who is using alignment. -YagamiFire
First off, I think this is pretty clearly an opinion-heavy thread given the OP. So, with that in mind lets continue.
....
The games I enjoy do not make that choice. Ever. They make powerful heroes both on and off the field. They make players who know how to be their characters. The games I enjoy are a merging of strong mechanics and strong RP. The game I love is one where we can go one session of nothing but pure number-crunchy thematicly awe-inspiring combat directly into another session of polictical intrigue and moral dilemmas. The games I love are the ones where the players act like people and fight like heroes. And the ones that are doomed to failure, in at least one of those aspects, are the ones that think those two things have to be on opposite sides of the spectrum.
First, I understand J I do play devil’s advocate, and I know you’re not trying to justify being an Evil DM, but that being said there are plenty of DMs out there that are Bad and Overbearing, just don’t want them to see the thread and feel empowered to bash on player’s choices. ((so not bashing you at all))
Seconded; and perhaps the most debated issue; is what makes the game fun. You have just described what you love about your campaigns (and I’m right there with you!) but I simply meant to point out it isn’t always so.
There ARE people who chose the best OP race/class build and then add a layer of RP on top of that; they are the players who just want to fight and gain levels/loot and while they RP are less interested in story and more interested in getting to that next battle. On the flip side there ARE people who build an RP idea first and then try to find the mechanics (class/race) to fit that idea; they while enjoying battle are more interested in the story and rping their characters social interactions.
Here is where I do think RP and Mechanics of the game are vividly split; while ideally players will be in the middle ground, it only takes one player to the extreme side to imbalance a game. (A Heavy RP game tends to drive OP/NOVA gamers away) while a combat heavy game tends to drive away the players who are more focused on RP and not their character sheet.
The solution… sadly there isn’t one, each DM will forever have to balance the issue (how to make power gamers have as much fun as RP oriented players) In a game I’m playing right now there is a guy who just wants Loot, the reason behind it does not matter as much as getting it (so the DM tries to give him loot) vs. myself who couldn’t care less about loot and just wants to RP tavern scenes (so the DM lets us be in towns a lot)
First, I understand J I do play devil’s advocate, and I know you’re not trying to justify being an Evil DM, but that being said there are plenty of DMs out there that are Bad and Overbearing, just don’t want them to see the thread and feel empowered to bash on player’s choices. ((so not bashing you at all))
Fair enough, but bullheaded people will take any justification for their position. I don't need to drizzle in more caveats than I already do just so random putzs can't use my words to their own ends. They are going to do that regardless of what I do about it.
Seconded; and perhaps the most debated issue; is what makes the game fun. You have just described what you love about your campaigns (and I’m right there with you!) but I simply meant to point out it isn’t always so.
Yes, it always so. I am making a claim of what I find fun. Not what others find fun, what I personally enjoy. I've played enough to know what I like and to be able to articulate it fairly clearly. So when we are talking about what I like, it is always how I just described it. If we are talking about what people like, or even other players at my tables like, then we have changed subjects and you shouldn't be crossing one set of discussions with the other.
There ARE people who chose the best OP race/class build and then add a layer of RP on top of that; they are the players who just want to fight and gain levels/loot and while they RP are less interested in story and more interested in getting to that next battle. On the flip side there ARE people who build an RP idea first and then try to find the mechanics (class/race) to fit that idea; they while enjoying battle are more interested in the story and rping their characters social interactions.
None of this is relevant to my opinion about a class in a game I am playing. I've already made it pretty clear that I'm not trying to force my opinion on others, but rather showing what my opinion is when asked. So, please, don't respond to my post which says very clearly "Enjoy what you like, but this is what I enjoy" with "Other people enjoy other things". Because those aren't the two opposing sides you are making them out to be. They are two different topics. Topics on which, apparently, we agree on a great deal. I am failing to see the point you are playing devil's advocate for/against.
Here is where I do think RP and Mechanics of the game are vividly split; while ideally players will be in the middle ground, it only takes one player to the extreme side to imbalance a game. (A Heavy RP game tends to drive OP/NOVA gamers away) while a combat heavy game tends to drive away the players who are more focused on RP and not their character sheet.
And the people who only care about RP will be driven from my table just as the ones who only like to number crunch. This does not bother me. We are talking about my personal opinions here. If someone is drawn away because their pacifist RP is being "ruined" by the rest of the party having fun murdering things, that means this isn't the group for that player/character. If someone is drawn away because all of this talking isn't making any dice get rolled, then I'm not sad about that either. I like a balance. And to be clear, for the hundredth time, I'm not saying all games should have this balance. I'm saying I prefer it.
The solution… sadly there isn’t one, each DM will forever have to balance the issue (how to make power gamers have as much fun as RP oriented players) In a game I’m playing right now there is a guy who just wants Loot, the reason behind it does not matter as much as getting it (so the DM tries to give him loot) vs. myself who couldn’t care less about loot and just wants to RP tavern scenes (so the DM lets us be in towns a lot)
The solution is to play with people you enjoy playing with. To find what you enjoy together and go there. The solution is to know what you like to play with and what you don't. The solution is to be able to explain to others what you do and do not like, but at the same time be willing to not bring it up for the purposes of group cohesion. The solution is to actually talk to one another (Player to Player and DM to players) as rational, reasonable human beings so you can turn the mish-mash that is the expectations and love of the half-dozen of you and turn it into a compelling and challenging story that you all work towards telling together. The solution is to play DnD.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here Spoiler:Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
P.S. Contrary to apparently popular belief, just because one lives by a code doesn't mean you have to try to force everybody around you to live by it as well.
It humors me you can contradict yourself in less that 40 words.
It humors me that you can miss the point so severely.
Vegetarians don't have to run around telling people they have to be vegetarians, and pacifists don't have to run around telling other people they have to be pacifists.
P.S. Contrary to apparently popular belief, just because one lives by a code doesn't mean you have to try to force everybody around you to live by it as well.
It humors me you can contradict yourself in less that 40 words.
It humors me that you can miss the point so severely.
Vegetarians don't have to run around telling people they have to be vegetarians, and pacifists don't have to run around telling other people they have to be pacifists.
Right, but if the vegetarian goes hunting with their friends that makes it a little awkward. Especially if they are buying all the ammo.
Now you might say "Well the vegetarian is a vegetarian because of the inhumane treatment of chickens in the chicken farms." At which point we have something that is interesting and the start of a character. This automatically puts it a step ahead, in my book, from every pacifist cleric I have ever seen.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here Spoiler:Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
If it’s the strength in combat, then Eh, some people play OP classes some don’t. Not much you can do as a DM unless you’re just going to disallow cretin builds in your game (which I don’t recommend)
(...)
So if they want to be a Cleric that is bloodthirsty, I simply Ask. What’s the big deal?
Are they stealing the spotlight from other players? Have they become overpowered? Or do you just disagree with how they RolePlay because of the Class they choose?
If it’s the last then I’d just let it drop; no one likes a DM who try to manages the parties RP. Why not just let the player have his Class but call it something else (Fluff it and say his class is a bloodletting cleric or something)
Also, RP wise a Cleric doesn’t even know they are a Cleric, nor does a Fighter know he is a “Fighter” in the sense that they are bound to an unseen class (aka the mechanics of the game)
There is a reason why I did not post this in the DM's forum... Actually, I agree with you: I don't like them, but I'm not about to start banning them from my games or making life harder for my players. It does bug me from a design perspective. Why include a class that is so difficult to justify in most campaigns? Why include a class that (at least in the examples I've seen) encourages poor role-playing?
Note that I don't have problems reskinning the class.
There is a reason why I did not post this in the DM's forum... Actually, I agree with you: I don't like them, but I'm not about to start banning them from my games or making life harder for my players. It does bug me from a design perspective. Why include a class that is so difficult to justify in most campaigns? Why include a class that (at least in the examples I've seen) encourages poor role-playing?
Note that I don't have problems reskinning the class. [/quote]
Because more choices are good, I didn't start playing 4th until a year ago or so. My main gripe with it when 4th came out, was the utter lack of choices a player could make. Every fighter looked like every other fighter every cleric looked like every other cleric. I've seen 2 pacifist clerics (one was a hybrid) and neither discouraged role-playing and in fact the pure cleric was one of the more memorable characters I've seen in the last 3 years of role-playing.
Just a note I don't particularly like pacifist clerics and can say with some certainty I'll never play one, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the game.
Why is it so all-or-nothing with people? Just because a DM really dislikes a certain mechanical build element and decides to forbid it because it ruins his fun to the point of not wanting to run the game, does NOT make the DM overbearing and tyranical. A DM who is not having fun is not going to have a positive effect on your game. In the end it is a matter of degrees, how you communicate your wishes to the players and your reasoning for disallowing something. Obviously, a DM should not just outright forbid something, but nor does a player has any entitlement to anything ever designed for the game.
As for pacifist healing, in my experience the game mechanics behind it does negatively impact the game in most circumstances I have run across it. The healing can easily become rediculous in a game were healing is already rather easy. I have seen it really negatively impact game balance, making it all too harder to challenge the PCs. If that is the kind of game a player wants, there are easier ways to achieve it (simply communicate your wishes to the DM). The funny thing is that I have seen a few players drop the build, because they felt useless because they were well aware most of the healing was overkill.
As for the RP aspect, I honestly don't care much about it. If you want to focus on the mechanics, ignoring the RPing, then that is fine by me. If you feel that a pacifist can actively help people commit violent acts without sounding like a hypocrit then that is fine by me as well. As long as your roleplaying is not acting as a jerk to your fellow players, then you are free to RP your PC however you want. Just don't expect me to like it
