Moral Inquiry

Books, movies, television and everything else
Post Reply
User avatar
Metaflux
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 11:14 pm

Moral Inquiry

Post by Metaflux »

I've been running into an issue lately, and since it encompasses video games, D&D, and most other fantasy games, I figured here would be the best category to put it under. Move it to another spot if you feel it would be better set for that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's the problem. In roleplaying games of pencil and dice, some of my characters have died, and I do not want them to be ressed. My group sees this as selfish because of the following reasons:
1) I'm stopping them from being the hero.
2) I'm destroying a part of what it means to be a team.
3) They're losing a potentially critical part of the team.

Now, these are the reasons why I feel I shouldn't have my character's ressed.
1) When people res my characters, they are wasting gold, a spell slot that could be used for something more useful, and/or a turn that could be better spent finishing the objective.
2) When I build characters, I build them with a prepared view of what their purpose is. If the character is a cleric, then I'm going to be healing, supporting, and keeping people alive no matter what, because that is what a cleric does. Not many times have my groups made clerics bent on healing, so I've taken this upon myself multiple times. If the character is a damage dealer or tank, then I assume they are going to die at some point because the groups I run with lack a reliable source of healing or sustainability mid combat.
3) I can understand that losing a cleric is bad, but I've made six clerics out of the 15+ characters I've made in pencil and dice games within the past five years, and none of them have died permanently because they NEED to be brought back or else no one will survive anything. (Actually, I've made battle clerics, two of which have died.) Yet, when it comes to dps, anyone can replace dps. A paladin, ranger, wizard, sorcerer, and even a cleric can deal damage reliably, even at lower levels, so that doesn't matter.

Can you guys post some insight into this because somewhere I'm going wrong in this, and I'm just not sure where.
User avatar
Dark Angel
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:00 am
Location: Falentei, the Lands of Fire and Darkness

Re: Moral Inquiry

Post by Dark Angel »

I can understand this situation, I had a player killed off (well, henchman) to kind of make an example that the group is not untouchable. The group scrounged up the gold (mostly through magic items and had to perform a service for the Church of Ezra (they were in Mordentshire)) and were barely able to get the base payment. They pulled together and raised him, not out of the need for him to fill his role (ranger), but because they felt attached to him as a character. This is the first time my group has brought some one back from the dead since 1997. I have played and lost characters and my groups have had balance issues by making what they wanted not what they needed.

My criteria? If the player had died a "good" death for something more meaningful than a stupid die roll or decision, then I would say that I am ready to move on and roll a new character. Depending on the game and the game's version of the afterlife, the player's spirit could choose not to return to it's body. Some DM's choose not to allow resurrection (and the like) based on the issues involved. Now when a player dies, the group would say, "We need a(nother) priest/fighter/mage/special forces sniper, etc." They can play what they want without pressure. A person playing a priest for 3 years may want to switch to a thief for a bit of variety. I don't blame them. In my games, a player can "retire" a pc if the have a good enough reason to. They are a priest who is remaining with this temple. They are not penalized (in fact if the reason is valid and in character, the new pc gets a percentage (1%-20% usually) of the old ones xps) and they make a new player that gets introduced later.

Specifically examining your reasons: 1) You are not stopping them from being heroic, you are stopping them from playing god. 2) You are not destroying the team by losing a member. If the group cannot handle change, then how can they adapt to other adversities? 3) They should be more upset with losing the guy who saved my life at the Battle for the Forge of Ogres, the best drinking buddy they ever had, and their stalwart companion through the worst of times. Not the fact that that pc was the only one who could use that magic sword/staff/rod, was a meat shield so the mage could more easily get his spells off, or they heal the injured party members. If their role could be swapped out by another blank slate, then how meaningful are the roles in the game (I know video games are one thing, but I am focusing on rpgs right now). If you are given flak for wanting to try something different to the point where they get pissy, then they get pissy and learn to deal with these changes.

Morally, you play what you want. Halfling thief? Drow Mage? Minotaur Barbarian? Trying new things and stretching your creative limits is the name of the game. Making the same things over and over (or not being allowed to die) takes away from the challenge. Here is another cleric, John Smith XXI. The order is wondering why so many are dying with you and your companions?

I think you are 100% justified in your decisions for your pc. There is my 2 cents.
"One does not stop playing when they get old, they grow old when they stop playing" George Bernard Shaw
"If you could be either God’s worst enemy or nothing, which would you choose?" Chuck Palahniuk
User avatar
Zilfer
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 4230
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:14 pm
Gender: Male
Location: WA (Land of lots of trees)
Contact:

Re: Moral Inquiry

Post by Zilfer »

Being a person of said party I'm going to weigh in and say as always one person's side of the story is usually slanted when talking about a group and generalizations make the whole group seem to be what they are the problem. I think it's a joint blame here and I'll respond to Meta's points and Dark Angel's.

For most of Dark Angel's post I completely agree. It's the very reasons you state in 3) that most of us would want to bring him back. I can't speak for the rest of the group, but I can tell you I play characters that usually have a strong tie to wanting to protect their friends/comrades. Zilfer my name sake will always try and save his friends/family/comrades against odds. Is there a dragon about to kill them? He'd step right up in front of it despite knowing it spells his death. We had a battle of one of our towers where an army attacked and a flying wizard fireballed a low level party my rogue included. Out of the 8 that were up there 5 of them vaporized 1 knocked out and i told the 7th (meta's character) to drag the still alive bleeding out one to the stairs down while I ran towards the side of the wall alone to try and buy some time. I ended up shooting down the wizard with a very nice arrow shot before following them down below. This is just the way most of my character's are except for a select few. I'll always try and bring them back. It's not a waste to me, it's something that I would do. Same with NPC's if my character's consider them an ally. Other's would say this is 'wasting' gold because it's on an NPC that we don't profit from or might not run into again. I believe it's up to the player to decide what 'wasting gold' means. If a player helps another player with Gold maybe they are just a generous player.

On Meta's Points

1) Not sure why you feel not wanting to be ressed makes us not heroes. Most of the time when a character has died they died in a battle somewhere along the mission and the ressing is happening at the end of a mission. We've already done the heroic stuff, and not wanting to come back is fine but that doesn't mean our character's wouldn't try and ress you. We had a conversation about this before and I did state that a character has a choice to come back when being ressed. The character's spirit can say 'no'. However this does become a problem when it starts to be round robin class rotations of Character's dying and pulling in a new character every few sessions or the next time we play the particular campaign. There are also times where you can't be ressed... your Cleric/Summoner/xxxxxx Character at the moment couldn't be ressed if you wanted. xD

2) I know that you don't like to stray from character rolls. You don't agree with people who play a cleric as anything other than a healer. A fighter should just be a warrior/tank/meat sheild. Rogue needs to be sneaky, but the group has diverged from that set mentality some time ago. I can't pin down a date but I've for example made a fighter with 20 Charisma because why? I thought it would be an interesting character concept. I've discussed with Meta that while it is not optimal use of skills and attacks it's what they want to play. Sometimes I don't want to play that Cleric that wears medium armor and a shield for nice AC with a mace for killing undead skellies. Sometimes we just want to play a priest who wears his Priest cloths and does healing where ever they go. The point further one that I've had even more discussions with you is the fact that the group does not need a healing cleric or a healer in the party at all. It is the DM's job to make the game fun for whatever everyone wants to play. The DM should not set in guidelines for failure if you don't have X class being played. He should accomadate the challenges the group faces realizing they don't have a healer by including more healing items/potions. This is coupled with the mentality that we have to 'win' or 'succeed' and you play the game 'this way' to win. The game isn't about winning or loosing, it's about playing and seeing what happens. I don't play a game so i'm 'forced' into a mold like I am every day in real life. I want to be something I'm not, try being this person for a few hours.

3) As covered a little bit above, a group doesn't 'need' a healer. I've told you many times don't feel pressured in when you ask me what's everyone playing and I list off classes that have no healing. I'm taking everything into account, but i've seen you pressure yourself into a cleric umpteen times. I've also heard the group say the same thing as me that we don't 'need' a healer class but despite what we say you type class yourself into the rolls that not everyone plays every time.

Bottom line is what Dark Angel says in his last two paragraphs. Something that I think you have not yet fully learned to take to heart. I am glad your trying to go mostly ranger with your ranger even though I need you to wade into melee from time to time you've stuck to the most recent character's style by shooting even with enemies in front of you that get a free attack on you while shooting a bow that close.

Again, Play what you want, not what YOU think the group needs. Because god(DM) willing the game will be tailored to the players.

There's my two cents. :P
There's always something to lose.

Fraternity of Shadows Discord
https://discord.gg/AM6Kp95ekf
User avatar
Dark Angel
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:00 am
Location: Falentei, the Lands of Fire and Darkness

Re: Moral Inquiry

Post by Dark Angel »

Zilfer wrote: 2) I know that you don't like to stray from character rolls. You don't agree with people who play a cleric as anything other than a healer. A fighter should just be a warrior/tank/meat sheild. Rogue needs to be sneaky, but the group has diverged from that set mentality some time ago. I can't pin down a date but I've for example made a fighter with 20 Charisma because why? I thought it would be an interesting character concept. I've discussed with Meta that while it is not optimal use of skills and attacks it's what they want to play. Sometimes I don't want to play that Cleric that wears medium armor and a shield for nice AC with a mace for killing undead skellies. Sometimes we just want to play a priest who wears his Priest cloths and does healing where ever they go. The point further one that I've had even more discussions with you is the fact that the group does not need a healing cleric or a healer in the party at all. It is the DM's job to make the game fun for whatever everyone wants to play. The DM should not set in guidelines for failure if you don't have X class being played. He should accomadate the challenges the group faces realizing they don't have a healer by including more healing items/potions. This is coupled with the mentality that we have to 'win' or 'succeed' and you play the game 'this way' to win. The game isn't about winning or loosing, it's about playing and seeing what happens. I don't play a game so i'm 'forced' into a mold like I am every day in real life. I want to be something I'm not, try being this person for a few hours.
For those familiar with the Drizzt Do'Urden (sp?) series of books, there has always been an issue that bothered me. There is the Drow ranger (Drizz't), the dwarf fighter (Bruenor), the human archer (Cattie-Brie), the human barbarian (Wulfgar), the ethereal cat (Guen), and the halfling thief (Regis). VERY rarely have they ever had a priest or mage attached to the group and still they managed to survive tremendous ordeals without a priest or mage on hand every time. That terrible D&D movie (the one with a Wayans brother and Thora Birch) had 2 thieves and a mage, but still managed to work with it.

Zilfer is right, a DM worth their measure will not toss (unless there is a point to it) an encounter or situation the group can only bypass with a specific skill or item or person. Yeah, they may have to take the magic book into town to have a mage or locksmith (or both) crack the lock on the Book of Bad, Bad Things, but that is also where they encounter the next part of the story (not just because they do not have a thief or mage). But what happens when the fighter with 6 intelligence gets "mad with the stupid book", then rips the lock off with a pry bar? Roll with it, know the group and don't penalize personal, creative choices (I have to play the thief because we need one, but I want to be a fighter).

Ps- I am not weighing in on the other comments. This is not a generalized statement when it is brought to the individual party level.
"One does not stop playing when they get old, they grow old when they stop playing" George Bernard Shaw
"If you could be either God’s worst enemy or nothing, which would you choose?" Chuck Palahniuk
User avatar
Zilfer
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 4230
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:14 pm
Gender: Male
Location: WA (Land of lots of trees)
Contact:

Re: Moral Inquiry

Post by Zilfer »

Dark Angel wrote:
Zilfer wrote: 2) I know that you don't like to stray from character rolls. You don't agree with people who play a cleric as anything other than a healer. A fighter should just be a warrior/tank/meat sheild. Rogue needs to be sneaky, but the group has diverged from that set mentality some time ago. I can't pin down a date but I've for example made a fighter with 20 Charisma because why? I thought it would be an interesting character concept. I've discussed with Meta that while it is not optimal use of skills and attacks it's what they want to play. Sometimes I don't want to play that Cleric that wears medium armor and a shield for nice AC with a mace for killing undead skellies. Sometimes we just want to play a priest who wears his Priest cloths and does healing where ever they go. The point further one that I've had even more discussions with you is the fact that the group does not need a healing cleric or a healer in the party at all. It is the DM's job to make the game fun for whatever everyone wants to play. The DM should not set in guidelines for failure if you don't have X class being played. He should accomadate the challenges the group faces realizing they don't have a healer by including more healing items/potions. This is coupled with the mentality that we have to 'win' or 'succeed' and you play the game 'this way' to win. The game isn't about winning or loosing, it's about playing and seeing what happens. I don't play a game so i'm 'forced' into a mold like I am every day in real life. I want to be something I'm not, try being this person for a few hours.
For those familiar with the Drizzt Do'Urden (sp?) series of books, there has always been an issue that bothered me. There is the Drow ranger (Drizz't), the dwarf fighter (Bruenor), the human archer (Cattie-Brie), the human barbarian (Wulfgar), the ethereal cat (Guen), and the halfling thief (Regis). VERY rarely have they ever had a priest or mage attached to the group and still they managed to survive tremendous ordeals without a priest or mage on hand every time. That terrible D&D movie (the one with a Wayans brother and Thora Birch) had 2 thieves and a mage, but still managed to work with it.

Zilfer is right, a DM worth their measure will not toss (unless there is a point to it) an encounter or situation the group can only bypass with a specific skill or item or person. Yeah, they may have to take the magic book into town to have a mage or locksmith (or both) crack the lock on the Book of Bad, Bad Things, but that is also where they encounter the next part of the story (not just because they do not have a thief or mage). But what happens when the fighter with 6 intelligence gets "mad with the stupid book", then rips the lock off with a pry bar? Roll with it, know the group and don't penalize personal, creative choices (I have to play the thief because we need one, but I want to be a fighter).

Ps- I am not weighing in on the other comments. This is not a generalized statement when it is brought to the individual party level.

You actually hit the point on the head of what I forgot. D'rizzt is who i was going to bring up as an example for the very reason of not having a cleric.
There's always something to lose.

Fraternity of Shadows Discord
https://discord.gg/AM6Kp95ekf
User avatar
Dark Angel
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:00 am
Location: Falentei, the Lands of Fire and Darkness

Re: Moral Inquiry

Post by Dark Angel »

I wouldn't say he doesn't need one. That is like saying Stallone doesn't need acting lessons: both have gotten along so far without them, but it couldn't hurt.
"One does not stop playing when they get old, they grow old when they stop playing" George Bernard Shaw
"If you could be either God’s worst enemy or nothing, which would you choose?" Chuck Palahniuk
User avatar
Zilfer
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 4230
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:14 pm
Gender: Male
Location: WA (Land of lots of trees)
Contact:

Re: Moral Inquiry

Post by Zilfer »

Dark Angel wrote:I wouldn't say he doesn't need one. That is like saying Stallone doesn't need acting lessons: both have gotten along so far without them, but it couldn't hurt.
Well for me the difference between 'needing' and 'preferring' are kinda defined by the level of fun in the game. XD
There's always something to lose.

Fraternity of Shadows Discord
https://discord.gg/AM6Kp95ekf
User avatar
Dark Angel
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:00 am
Location: Falentei, the Lands of Fire and Darkness

Re: Moral Inquiry

Post by Dark Angel »

Zilfer wrote:
Dark Angel wrote:I wouldn't say he doesn't need one. That is like saying Stallone doesn't need acting lessons: both have gotten along so far without them, but it couldn't hurt.
Well for me the difference between 'needing' and 'preferring' are kinda defined by the level of fun in the game. XD
Not necessarily. I was a part of an "evil" Greyhawk campaign where we had a cleric, but he couldn't heal (just harm spells). So we were not screwed as much more wary. We had to play much smarter as we were in hostile territory and had no recourse for any kind of safe house. We were being successful, but lost many humanoids along the way (hell with the weak, Chaotic Evil!). Would it be better with a cleric that can heal? Oh hell ya! The swath of destruction we could leave would be awesome! But potions, certain items, even high Con scores are all means around these issues, good or bad. Also if you have an "in" with the local clergy (do a few missions for a NG or CG church or two and they will heal you for free!
"One does not stop playing when they get old, they grow old when they stop playing" George Bernard Shaw
"If you could be either God’s worst enemy or nothing, which would you choose?" Chuck Palahniuk
User avatar
Zilfer
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 4230
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:14 pm
Gender: Male
Location: WA (Land of lots of trees)
Contact:

Re: Moral Inquiry

Post by Zilfer »

Dark Angel wrote:
Zilfer wrote:
Dark Angel wrote:I wouldn't say he doesn't need one. That is like saying Stallone doesn't need acting lessons: both have gotten along so far without them, but it couldn't hurt.
Well for me the difference between 'needing' and 'preferring' are kinda defined by the level of fun in the game. XD
Not necessarily. I was a part of an "evil" Greyhawk campaign where we had a cleric, but he couldn't heal (just harm spells). So we were not screwed as much more wary. We had to play much smarter as we were in hostile territory and had no recourse for any kind of safe house. We were being successful, but lost many humanoids along the way (hell with the weak, Chaotic Evil!). Would it be better with a cleric that can heal? Oh hell ya! The swath of destruction we could leave would be awesome! But potions, certain items, even high Con scores are all means around these issues, good or bad. Also if you have an "in" with the local clergy (do a few missions for a NG or CG church or two and they will heal you for free!
Or you could.... 'trick' the good cleric faiths into healing you. Which all what you just said above is what I was pointing out.

You don't NEED a cleric. There are ways around it. It sounds like we are saying the same thing and are on the same side of the discussion. xD
There's always something to lose.

Fraternity of Shadows Discord
https://discord.gg/AM6Kp95ekf
User avatar
Dark Angel
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:00 am
Location: Falentei, the Lands of Fire and Darkness

Re: Moral Inquiry

Post by Dark Angel »

Basically. We did think about kidnapping a cleric of Pelor (healing god) and threaten him/her to heal us or we would torture and kill innocents. Too much work. And we were not exactly patient people.
"One does not stop playing when they get old, they grow old when they stop playing" George Bernard Shaw
"If you could be either God’s worst enemy or nothing, which would you choose?" Chuck Palahniuk
User avatar
Metaflux
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 11:14 pm

Re: Moral Inquiry

Post by Metaflux »

You guys are horrible <.< (hahahahahaha) xD)
User avatar
Dark Angel
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:00 am
Location: Falentei, the Lands of Fire and Darkness

Re: Moral Inquiry

Post by Dark Angel »

Metaflux wrote:You guys are horrible <.< (hahahahahaha) xD)
We never found the cleric. I have done waaaay worse to my players in the Demiplane (check out the Burning Peaks thread).
"One does not stop playing when they get old, they grow old when they stop playing" George Bernard Shaw
"If you could be either God’s worst enemy or nothing, which would you choose?" Chuck Palahniuk
Post Reply